It's a sufficient reason not to do it not a necessary one. I take discriminating against women as inherently bad - but I realize some people ITT don't feel the same.

Not even close. It's sharing the costs of parental leave amongst all companies regardless of if they hire new parents or not. The same as we share the cost of educating children regardless of if a person has children or not.

This is the same as your argument about actually having the kids - and it can be solved in the exact same way.

And like Chez said, a lot of this is because of historical social norms and not because of anything inherent in the genders.

It's not sufficient for those who have no objection to discrimination is it? They're very happy that the kids get looked after and the men have the better careers.

Apart from the inherent badness of discrimination the argument has to be that everyone would be better off in a more equal system - I think that's true but it's a very hard case to make and its medium to long term anyway.

It actually seems like most everyone has agreed that discriminating against women is bad, the arguments have been that they do not believe there is as widespread discrimination as you and your fellow believers proclaim.

The argument could be made that men wouldn't be better off than they are now in a more equal system, if in fact women are being discriminated against in as widespread a manner as you claim.

50% of a bigger pie can be better than 60% of a smaller one. Its not a zero sum game.

So women getting equal pay to their male counterparts and getting promoted to jobs that were formerly filled by men = more jobs for everyone?

Moving further away from the outdated one worker-one homemaker model of the workplace can benefit everybody. Reducing the wasted resource caused by discrimination can benefit everybody.

Wouldn't necessarily benefit the children, but that isn't really part of the argument.

What resources are wasted by discrimination? I am not being argumentative here. I would generally like to know your thoughts.

Capable women being kept back from the more senior/powerful positions in favour of slightly less capable men. Women leaving the workplace who would otherwise stay.

At least Steven is honest: can't have equal rights because men might not be as dominant anymore.

Not only is the wage gap currently myth, the dirty secret is it's always been a myth.

Women don't make less than men.

Nannys and hair dressers make less than doctors and engineers.

When you compare gender within the SAME profession there's virtually no gap at all.

People like to be pandered to, people like to think of themselves as victims. That's really all that's afoot here.

As long as women have equal opportunity to access higher income professions, there's no issue.

I see no calculable waste here. You cannot prove these women are more capable than their male counterparts, nor can you prove they would do a better job which would then lead to your bigger pie. It is all opinion here.

So because women lose a promotion to what they perceive as a lesser candidate or candidates over time, they decide to leave the workforce, rather than move to another company or other routes?

That doesn't sound silly to you? Men get passed over for promotions all the time, even for women. They don't then decide to leave the workplace all together because of it. At least not in the numbers you are implying.

I was simply disproving Chez's statement. If the patriarchal dominated society where men have it so much better than women in the workplace existed, then if a society where everything was equal would to come about, men would be worse off than they were before.

I am of the belief we have equal rights already.

So if there was in fact discrimination how would it manifest in your opinion?

Your 'proof' assumes a zero sum game which is simply a mistake on your part when addressing my claim.


You relied on this premise to make you claim. I'm hoping to see what you think would happen if your premise is false.

Cite?

I mean I posted a link that talked about the unexplained wage gap with a number of studies linked.

The 'the wage gap is a myth' crowd has posted a study in Swedish and a scanned study from over 30 years ago.

data that demonstrates that the wage gap is not a myth is here...

women with the same job, experience, education, hours, etc. in the tech industry can routinely expect to earn about 6-7k less than their male counterparts.

Which companies?

well, there's 285,000 tech companies in the US or so. You want an exhaustive list?

Do you always respond to questions like that?

Curious what many of you mythers think about something like this: http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014...ather-jennifer

Rumour on the street, is if you're a capable woman of completing fizzbuzz; any major tech company like Microsoft for example, will hire you in a heartbeat.

Jennifer seems to be favoured in that regard, getting her foot in the door, a lot easier than John who will probably have to crack a whip and ride a unicycle with still not be guaranteed foot in the door but this is all word of mouth.

Anyway, I was curious about my first post in this thread and don't really find the race inequality interesting because its pretty obvious that the standard of living is below par for non whites. The deck is stacked against non whites, in many ways and it seems less likely that we will every see racial equality in near future with regards to pay, until lifestyle for living is more equal.
May need socialism to fix it but people need to get a lot smarter before that happens or it would fail pretty hard.

Wait, your answer to a study showing men are favoured over women - all else being equal - is to talk about anecdotes explaining how women have it easier than men...