The issue is that the fact that your wife makes more than you is not evidence of anything, it's literally a sample size of one, and it's ridiculous that you would state it in your post as if it actually backs up what you are saying.

The issue is with your evidence, not your conclusion. I don't believe women are paid 23% less for the same work and I think anyone who does believe that is grossly misinterpreting that statistic.

Yes, I agree that Obama grossly misinterpreted the statistic.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...7-cents-dolla/

The pay gap might be 5% - 7% that can be explained by gender:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap - but I think this could even be a stretch and not take into different factors between the genders (negotiating skill, breadwinner status, etc...).

Of course Liberals do have a long history of gender wage gaps within their own organizations - http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-gap-at-found/

No, Marixists have always been Marxists. The party of slavery, turned into the party of segregation, turned into the party of identity politics, and plantation owners have simply become the mayors of large cities. Nothing new here.

Your statement is essentially "if I knew my daughter would be disadvantaged by society (to the tune of receiving 77% of fair compensation for whatever she did) I would give up on her development entirely"

This makes no sense because, even if she would be paid unfairly, she would be better off educated rather than uneducated. According to bls.gov, the median earnings for men working full time by education level are approximately:
<High School = $27k
High School = $39k
Some college = $45k
Bachelor's = $65k
Advanced = $85k

So, let's assume for the sake of argument that the figures for a woman would be 77% of that, i.e.
<High School = $21k
High School = $30k
Some college = $35k
Bachelor's = $50k
Advanced = $65k

As you may know, $65k > $21k, thus it doesn't seem logical to stop your daughter's education in this case.

The hyperbole, you have missed it.

Who cares? This is the TRUMP thread. Not that this derail has really been about TRUMP but the sins of Obama or Lincoln or Washington are completely irrelevant here.

Um, if it's explained by "different factors between the genders" then it is explained by gender? If you control for all the differences then obviously it will be the same?

Who gives a **** about Hillary Clinton?

thats just a simplistic reading of american history

I think hes referring to the moralism imbedded in politcs, instead the evanglicons on the right we now have these social constructionists on the left

Uh, I have not missed it. I'm not sure why you purport to speak for wil here but if I misinterpret his statements I'm sure he can defend himself.

Like, I realize he's not threatening to pull his daughter out of kindergarten tomorrow or whatever but even allowing for some exaggeration his statement makes zero sense, because, as explained, even if she would be paid unequally compared to men she would still make much more with a lot of education than she would with little education.

Political Evanglicons missing, unknown, HES constructionists now simple moral principles, they will remain in the history of the United States of America, the American society cannot read.

The implication by those who hide behind the wage gap is that it is discrimination, not choice - which is what I was refuting.

sorry if a lack of proof reading on 2p2 offends you so much

Meh, I think it's clear that there is some discrimination but I agree with you that it's extent is overstated.

You concede it was an exaggeration. Great!

To be fair, our societies at one point did prefer marrying off daughters as opposed to investing in their education. I'm sure the wage gap was larger than 23% at that point, but we're not so far removed from that era. For reference, look up China's one child policy and imbalance between men and women in their population.

Sorry, but contrary to the lack of evidence of 2 p 2: (

This is all completely irrelevant to the fact that wil's point makes no sense, and really irrelevant to the entire discussion at large.

It is not clear that there is systemic discrimination - which is illegal, btw.

And we should NOT be sending out a message to the women who want to succeed that they are at a societal disadvantage because even though the law protects them, the Left continues to push the farce of victimhood.

Cool beans.

The left did a really good job if shutting up the right.

It really isn't that difficult to understand.

I love posts like these. I mean, I tell you what I'd do and your response is "no you wouldn't".

Lol, if I knew my child would be at a disadvantage I wouldn't bother. I've evrn supported this argument by giving examples in countries where the same behavior happens, and your response is still the same.

Yes, I'm being honest, if she would be paid 77 cents on the dollar I wouldn't bother. Who cares, I would worry more about marrying her off or starting a business for her so she can make a living.

What I wouldn't do is place her in a game where she can't win. Only a fool would do that. You maximize the choices you have for success, in almost all cases.

So the right was so weak that the left was able to shut them up? How did it go down?

This runs entirely contrary to your "nobody's stopping me from doing whatever job I want and being successful" nonsense. Doesn't that apply to your daughter too? Even if women got paid less, what's stopping her from being Marissa Mayer that you just throw your hands up and give up on her?

Weakness had nothing to do with it. The left found a new weapon that the right hand no answer to.

The combination of social media, virtue signalling and public shaming all converged into calling someone a racist or a sexist or a bigot into the end of their lives. People became very cognizant of this fact. If you are called a racist, you risk losing everything. You can lose your job, your kids, your family, your ability to support yourself, your friends. It happened many times publicly and changed people's behavior.

It is actually dangerous for you profoessionally and socially to be labelled a racist. Virtue signalling made the issue worse because leftists thrive by denouncing people so they can make themselves look good. Like a sick Munchausen by proxy.

The left gained the upper hand and the right sat there and took it because they had no way to fight back. What the right should do is start calling the left communists or socialists, but that's not up to me.

We'll see how it all shakes out.

Melissa Mayer is a prime example of a woman who can be whatever they want. You are proving my point. I do NOT believe women are treated unequally, and we have plenty of examples and data that show they aren't. I don't believe she'll be underpaid so I invest in her education just as I would if she were a male.

Nothing is contradicting my point. If you're a black midget Muslim lesbian then go become a dermatologist. You'll be fine, you will be successful. Do not believe evil white people will stop you, because they won't, because they CAN'T.

What's the issue? What don't you understand? Should we talk about water being wet next?

I don't understand why, if women were paid less, you would pull out all investment in your daughter's education rather than believing that she could do whatever she wanted regardless of disadvantages, as that seems to be your guiding philosophy to anyone in situations of disadvantage.

Because it would be a waste of resources if they couldn't become what they wanted and treated fairly. This happens all across the world in places that are extremely sexist. I've given examples. The Chinese aborted females. Afghans dressed their daughters as boys.

What the **** is so hard to understand​ here?