They discourage, but do not prevent. Companies break rules and regulations all the time.

This point only makes sense if people recognize that women are equally talented. Profit-hungry corporate sharks can be biased. There are a litany of successful gender discrimination cases that illustrate this point.

Multiple studies have shown that this cannot account for the entirety of the wage gap.

This one?

http://advance.cornell.edu/documents/ImpactofGender.pdf

Or this one?

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract#aff-1

These seem like irrelevant reasons to call a study "laughable."

We went over this with Rasta but he didn't get it. We even showed him concrete examples where his thinking was wrong. For example companies that are run by people that will sacrifice some money EV because they prefer working with buddies or people they golf with or people they can make sexist comments around.

Or how in many companies the people making the hiring decisions have no incentive to maximize company profit and so that doesn't even factor into their decision.

And so on.

Rasta was shown this, but he just does what he's done in this thread. Ignore most of it, cherry pick a few random things he can misinterpret, and sit around thinking about how hard done by he is by the PC people.

Terrorism is a category of crime, defined by violations within that category.

I'm not protecting state actors by not using terrorism to describe crimes that you think are terrorism, I am just placing them in a different category of crime. Referring to that as "protection" is stupid.

War is legalized terrorism.

sigh

I smell that ever illusive patriarchy...

The best solution is probably to ban all forms of male networking unless acompanied by a properly educated gender studies networking police.

lol Sputnik.

You missed the point.

No i get your point just fine. You use strong generalizations that fit your narrative. Sad thing is that they have very little to do with the wage gap but thats secondary right?

You realize that what you quoted had no generalizations in at all, right?

What are you doing then? I'm trying to get at the justification for apparently violating the principle of equal justice. But you won't even answer my question as to why, in your view, it's wrong to exclude certain races or ethnic groups from the charge. You sense that your argument can't stand up against such light interrogation.

I am not violating the principle of equal justice.

I'm saying that terrorism is bad stuff committed by non-state actors. Some other terms describe the same bad stuff committed by state actors. It all falls under the category of bad stuff.

Slander is defamation via spoken word. Libel is defamation via written word. They are both defamation.

Your question to me is like asking why I am protecting spoken lies by refusing to call them libel. You are either not understanding me or you are super-invested in being able to label certain governments as terrorist states.