pleep: ^If you have a problem with the study that proves that women have an automatic own group preference, kindly mail the university of purdues research department

101 N Grant St #110 West Lafayette, IN 47907
(765) 494-4636

and argue with them.

You didn't say anything here, just alot of type that essentially means nothing. If you want to create a more respected environment for women you need to start with yourself and improve your reasoning skills.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274

"revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic own group preference" Men do not favor other men simply because they are male, but women are baised for the female in almost every situation. This is what causes the slant in gender issues given from the female POV

Your ignorance is laughable.
Having an automatic in group bias is a type of automatic response. Automatic responses are reflexive and unconcious and they are disrupted or brought to an end when consious attention is paid by the individual to their environment.

If you had any knowledge of science at all, you'd know what automatic responses mean and stop making foolish statements about how women had automatic bias all through the period of their research work.
This link;
http://ideas.time.com/2012/10/04/womens-inhumanity-to-women/
shows an example of how women show bias towards other women.

No, actually bias affects every action a person takes, and every opinion they form. This is common knowledge Fellis. An organization by women for women (like the AAUW) is going to be biased in favor of women.

To go back to the pay gap, it is statistically impossible for the pay of two huge groups to be exactly the same in a population of 300 million. The biased AAUW chooses to pretend the 7% difference is the result of descrimination when it actually isn't.

In Americas biggest cities women can earn from 8-20% more than males, how do you explain that?

In addition to that, most women recieve more non-monetary benefits from their jobs than their male counterparts. This Includes things like better insurance and health care plans and even child-care services. That alone is probably enough to defray the entire 7 cent difference in pay.

pleep: No, actually bias affects every action a person takes, and every opinion they form. This is common knowledge Fellis. An organization by women for women (like the AAUW) is going to be biased in favor of women.

To go back to the pay gap, it is statistically impossible for the pay of two huge groups to be exactly the same in a population of 300 million. The biased AAUW chooses to pretend the 7% difference is the result of descrimination when it actually isn't.

In Americas biggest cities women earn from 8- 20& more than males, how do you explain that?

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html

fail.....link not working 404

pleep: In addition to that, most women recieve more non-monetary benefits from their jobs than their male counterparts. This Includes things like better insurance and health care plans and even child-care services. That alone is probably enough to defray the entire 7 cent difference in pay.

Do you spit put nonsense as you go?

Logicboy03:


fail.....link not working 404

Yea, i don't know what is wrong with it.

This is a screenshot of the article, from time.com

Logicboy03:



Do you spit put nonsense as you go?

I don't understand what your problem is. There is no reason why any individual, male or female should be feeling so threatend by this information.

pleep: Yea, i don't know what is wrong with it.

This is a screenshot of the article, from time.com

what is the title of the article

Pleep didn't even read the article he is talking about before he came here to post a screenshot and talk about how women earn more than men.
That guy is just too funny.

Link to the site doesn't seem to be working, dunno why.

But now there's evidence that the ship may finally be turning around: according to a new analysis of 2,000 communities by a market research company, in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of young women are 8% higher than those of the guys in their peer group. In two cities, Atlanta and Memphis, those women are making about 20% more. This squares with earlier research from Queens College, New York, that had suggested that this was happening in major metropolises. But the new study suggests that the gap is bigger than previously thought, with young women in New York City, Los Angeles and San Diego making 17%, 12% and 15% more than their male peers, respectively. And it also holds true even in reasonably small areas like the Raleigh-Durham region and Charlotte in North Carolina (both 14% more), and Jacksonville, Fla. (6%).


Here's the slightly deflating caveat: this reverse gender gap, as it's known, applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities. The rest of working women — even those of the same age, but who are married or don't live in a major metropolitan area — are still on the less scenic side of the wage divide.

The figures come from James Chung of Reach Advisors, who has spent more than a year analyzing data from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey.He attributes the earnings reversal overwhelmingly to one factor: education. For every two guys who graduate from college or get a higher degree, three women do. This is almost the exact opposite of the graduation ratio that existed when the baby boomers entered college. Studies have consistently shown that a college degree pays off in much higher wages over a lifetime, and even in many cases for entry-level positions. "These women haven't just caught up with the guys," says Chung. "In many cities, they're clocking them."

Logicboy03: Do you spit put nonsense as you go?

It is whenever I begin to see comments like this that I know that you have lost the argument. You can't provide a rational response anymore.

Here's more info on that times article about women earning higher in big cities:

Reach Advisors President James Chung came up with these numbers after analyzing data from 2,000 communities obtained from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey. Chung says the role reversal in the earnings gap is due to education: ""Nearly three-quarters of girls who graduate from high school head to college, vs. two-thirds of the boys. But they don't stop there. Women are now 1.5 times more likely than men to graduate from college or earn advanced degrees."

US Census figures from 2006-2008 show that of the total population age 25-34 with a bachelor's degree or higher, 32.7% were women and only 25.8% were men
With the number of women who attended college on the rise, the graduates who finish school and step directly into high-paying jobs are just as likely to be female as male.

Combine the increasing number of college-educated women with the growing decline of blue collar industries (which the report states "has wiped out good-paying jobs for young men who didn't go to college" and you have a tectonic shift happening in the workplace -- one that is providing female workers new footholds up the career ladder.

fellis: So you should have told me the reason you attributed the 7% gap to negotiation was because you don't think discriminnation is the cause, instead of saying you were not generalizing.

And you think a gap of 7% is discrimination. Seriously?

Where did I say women are the only victims? What has this got to do with anything?

Interesting. So what have you been arguing about if you thought the discrimination goes both ways?

I have read the aritle before, nowhere does it say that discrimination cannot be a reason for the gap. What it says is that there is little room for it.

Nobody is saying that it CANNOT be the reason for the gap. What we are saying is that the gap is not evidence for discrimination. It is just way too small for that.

As pleep said: "it is statistically impossible for the pay of two huge groups to be exactly the same in a population of 300 million."

You've come back with your special definitions again.
So nothing is wrong with bias?
Let me write the definition of bias I got from the dictionary;
Inclination or prejudice for or against one person, or group, compared with another, usually in a way that is considered to be unfair."
So if a person shows prejudice against you in a way that is unfair there is nothing wrong with it?

If a person is unfair to me in the sense that he denies me of what is rightfully mine then that's discrimination. If a person likes me less than another person, and treats the other person better. There is nothing wrong with that. Did you read my comment at all or did you just jump into a reply?

Let me go ahead and give an even more explicit explanation of the difference between what I mean by discrimination and bias.
Assuming both of us were employed by one of your relatives. We are both doing the same job and we both signed a contract to recieve $1000 as monthly wages.
Now, because our boss is your relative, she gives you a house and a car as a bonus. I would say she is biased towards you but she is NOT discriminating against me.
The only thing that is rightfully mine is the $1000 at the end of the month. Who she chooses to give a car and a house is none of my business. Get it now?

That article is talking about the same AAUW research that found the 7% difference. It is a summary, but there is a link to the washington post on the fourth paragraph, that provides more information on the research, the link mentions the 7%.

Good, so the washington post is an entirely different link. I was right, there is no 7% mentioned in that article.

Because there is bias held against women in workplaces, especially those working in traditionally male fields.

There is also bias against men in workplaces, especially those working in traditionally female fields. So what's your point?

I think the gap still exists because of the initial wage discrimination that was done against women before the passing of the 'Equal pay act' of 1963. According to this wikipedia source, one of the impacts of passing that act was the increase in wages for women. The bureau of labour statistics found that after the act was passed, there was a significant increase of women's wages vis a vis men wages, from 62% of men's earnings in 1970 to 82% in 2004. I think the gap is gradually shrinking as years go by but it hasn't been eliminated.

I would agree with you that in the past we could say there was discrimination against women. However, the reason you are giving for the gap reducing is all in your mind. The shrinking gap can easily be attributed to the fact that more women started getting educated, more women also started working.
From the moment a law is passed to pay women equal wages, it becomes a crime not to pay them equally.

Your discrimination case crumbles because the women have been given equal opportunity to compete. The more they improve their education, the better they get paid.

Wow, you really like to laugh Mr anony.

Lol, when you amuse me, I laugh

These things were controlled in the AAUW research.
But the overall gap — the 18-percentage-point disparity — could be explained by career choices; men are more likely to enter high-paying fields such as engineering and computer science. The researchers controlled for that, along with other variables, but an “unexplained” 6.6-percentage-point gap remained...... the authors tried to make everything as similar as possible. They tracked graduates with identical collegiate experiences, limited familiarity with the work world, and those who didn't have spouses or children.
But the wage gap persisted.“

Yeah, but I have shown you that the AAUW did not exactly control for everything. . .and secondly, 6.6% is way too small to be evidence of discrimination, the AAUW is making a mountain out of a molehill. . .and thirdly, in the fields where there was a gap in favor of women, the AAUW didn't make the case that there was discrimination against men in those fields. . .fourthly, An organization for women by women will always seek to find "facts" that support their agenda. They cannot be expected to show objectivity in such matters.

fellis: Here's more info on that times article about women earning higher in big cities:

Reach Advisors President James Chung came up with these numbers after analyzing data from 2,000 communities obtained from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey. Chung says the role reversal in the earnings gap is due to education: ""Nearly three-quarters of girls who graduate from high school head to college, vs. two-thirds of the boys. But they don't stop there. Women are now 1.5 times more likely than men to graduate from college or earn advanced degrees."

US Census figures from 2006-2008 show that of the total population age 25-34 with a bachelor's degree or higher, 32.7% were women and only 25.8% were men
With the number of women who attended college on the rise, the graduates who finish school and step directly into high-paying jobs are just as likely to be female as male.

Combine the increasing number of college-educated women with the growing decline of blue collar industries (which the report states "has wiped out good-paying jobs for young men who didn't go to college" and you have a tectonic shift happening in the workplace -- one that is providing female workers new footholds up the career ladder.

Interesting. What you haven't realized is that by arguing this way, you have just proven to us that if women have the right qualifications and skills, they will get paid higher and therefore cannot be said to be discriminated against. You have effectively debunked yourself.

pleep: No, actually bias affects every action a person takes, and every opinion they form. This is common knowledge Fellis. An organization by women for women (like the AAUW) is going to be biased in favor of women.

Beautifully said

To go back to the pay gap, it is statistically impossible for the pay of two huge groups to be exactly the same in a population of 300 million. The biased AAUW chooses to pretend the 7% difference is the result of descrimination when it actually isn't.

The bold is an important point Fellis chooses to ignore

In Americas biggest cities women can earn from 8-20% more than males, how do you explain that?

She has explained it by arguing that we should expect such results when there is a higher number of women with the right qualifications. Thereby proving that qualifications and not gender is actually what determines wages.

I wonder what "discrimination" she is still crying about

Logicboy03:


what is the title of the article

Sure. this is the most i can get under 200 kbs

@ fellis, there is simply no case for your descimination claims. At this point it really just looks like you want there to be discrimination.

Mr anony:
Beautifully said


The bold is an important point Fellis chooses to ignore


She has explained it by arguing that we should expect such results when there is a higher number of women with the right qualifications. Thereby proving that qualifications and not gender is actually what determines wages.

Its funny that this is exactly what we have been telling her for the last 5 pages, but she is only able to understand the concept when the 'victims' are males.

It just goes to prove what i was saying about female gender biases.

@fellis, you seem to enjoy indulging folk..

wiegraf: @fellis, you seem to enjoy indulging folk..

I dont blame Fellis on this occasion. Thisis a strong issue for her probably and she is trying to educate this chauvinist pigs but they wont learn.

See how low Anony has gone- defending pleep who posted an article and made dubious claims about since he didnt even read it in whole. He only read the part that he thought supported his argument.

Logicboy03:


I dont blame Fellis on this occasion. Thisis a strong issue for her probably and she is trying to educate this chauvinist pigs but they wont learn.

See how low Anony has gone- defending pleep who posted an article and made dubious claims about since he didnt even read it in whole. He only read the part that he thought supported his argument.

Italicized, that's how it's going to remain. You need be a serious optimist if you expect to get through. It looks to me an exercise in futility, especially as all's been said already.

Bold, I stopped paying attention to good anony's posts quite a while ago, I'm not exactly reading through so I don't know the specifics of this thread (after my departure ie). However, I'd be genuinely surprised if you expected any better. As in, really... You seem to be the ultimate optimist..

I seriously wonder what is wrong with you guys. The gender gap is almost universally considered disproven but here yall are defending it to the last drop of blood.

It just makes no sense, what dog do you guys have in this fight? What could you possibly gain from pretending that american women are oppressed in 2013?

Logicboy03:


I dont blame Fellis on this occasion. Thisis a strong issue for her probably and she is trying to educate this chauvinist pigs but they wont learn.

See how low Anony has gone- defending pleep who posted an article and made dubious claims about since he didnt even read it in whole. He only read the part that he thought supported his argument.

Every word of that article supported my arguement.

Urban women earn more than men for the same reason that "less urban" men earn more than women, neither gap is caused by discrimination. It is statistically imposible for the pay between the 2 genders to be absolutely identical. There is no reason to feel so threatend by this information

pleep: Every word of that article supported my arguement.

Urban women earn more than men for the same reason that "less urban" men earn more than women, neither gap is caused by discrimination. It is statistically imposible for the pay between the 2 genders to be absolutely identical. There is no reason to feel so threatend by this information

Notice that Logicboy's argument has shifted to "Anony is a dubious liar", "pleep is gay" and "Anony and pleep are male chauvinist pigs".
When in a debate your opposition resorts to a smear campaign, it is an indication that they have lost the argument on the grounds of logic and reason.
At this point you shouldn't worry about logicboy, he is like the kid at the playground who challenged you to a fight, and after you properly kicked his ass and filled his mouth with sand, he resorted to calling you names amidst his tears and bloody nose. . . . . you don't have to worry about such a kid anymore, he is only trying to maintain his dignity somehow.


Fellis on the other hand I must commend, she has been quite a good sport and has carried the argument on to what I believe is it's logical conclusion. I think my job here is more or less done now that she has argued that it is qualifications that actually affect wages and not gender.
It will be interesting however to see her next response as it will determine whether she is really honest and rational about her position or if she is merely blinded by a victimhood complex

Mr anony:
Nobody is saying that it CANNOT be the reason for the gap. What we are saying is that the gap is not evidence for discrimination. It is just way too small for that

Two contradictory statements. If discrimination can be the reson for the gap it means the gap is evidence of discrimination.
What alternate meanings are you trying to draw here?

Let me go ahead and give an even more explicit explanation of the difference between what I mean by discrimination and bias.
.....Get it now?

Bias leads to discrimination, if there is unfair bias or prejudice against women, there will be more discrimination against them, besides more women than men are filing complaints about discrimination in the workplace
http://www.nwlc.org/resource/sex-discrimination-american-workplace-still-fact-life

Mr anony:
Interesting. What you haven't realized is that by arguing this way, you have just proven to us that if women have the right qualifications and skills, they will get paid higher and therefore cannot be said to be discriminated against. You have effectively debunked yourself.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Are you kidding me? Mr anony?
After all these pages of talking about the AAUW research and how they selected males and females with similar college qualifications for the research?
The research pleep posted clearly mentioned the reason for the gap ie that women in the same age group as men in big cities get more college qualifications and get higher paying white collar jobs as opposed to men that get lower paying blue collar jobs.
All the participants in the AAUW research were college graduates with white collar jobs for heaven's sake, the participants in Chung's (pleep's) research consisted of less educated men working blue collar jobs and graduate women working white collar jobs.
The 7% gap in AAUW research was still there even after making sure both males and females were graduates with white collar jobs,
How can you even say the reason for that gap is the same thing?
Are you kidding me?
God.

I cannot believe what I just read
If I had made a silly statement like this pleep would have jumped on it and started saying all women are incapable of logical reasoning and he has no respect for feminists but because it is a male (who he has a crush on) making the statement he sees nothing wrong with it.

wiegraf: @fellis, you seem to enjoy indulging folk..

This anony has dissapointed me seriously, I don't know if you have been following our arguments, if you have you would see what I am talking about. And he is so cocky, making statements like;

Lol, when you amuse me, I laugh

how can you be cocky even when you're not making sense?

fellis:
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Are you kidding me? Mr anony?
After all these pages of talking about the AAUW research and how they selected males and females with similar college qualifications for the research?
The research pleep posted clearly mentioned the reason for the gap ie that women in the same age group as men in big cities get more college qualifications and get higher paying white collar jobs as opposed to men that get lower paying blue collar jobs.
All the participants in the AAUW research were college graduates with white collar jobs for heaven's sake, the participants in Chung's (pleep's) research consisted of less educated men working blue collar jobs and graduate women working white collar jobs.
The 7% gap in AAUW research was still there even after making sure both males and females were graduates with white collar jobs,
How can you even say the reason for that gap is the same thing?
Are you kidding me?
God.

I cannot believe what I just read
If I had made a silly statement like this pleep would have jumped on it and started saying all women are incapable of logical reasoning and he has no respect for feminists but because it is a male (who he has a crush on) making the statement he sees nothing wrong with it.

You are just realising the kind of madman Anony is?

Contradicts himself left and right, then lies with a straight face

Logicboy03:

You are just realising the kind of madman Anony is?

Contradicts himself left and right, then lies with a straight face

I didn't even know whether to laugh or shout after reading his post about how I have lost the argument and how I debunked myself. I mean really?

fellis:
Two contradictory statements. If discrimination can be the reson for the gap it means the gap is evidence of discrimination.
What alternate meanings are you trying to draw here?

Urhm I'm afraid you are mistaken here. You have made an illogical jump from a "can be" to "it is"

I'll give you an example. (which you'll probably ignore again only to come back and cry foul)
My house was got burnt last week. It can be because a a wiring accident, it can be because of a gas leak, or it can be because someone purposely set it on fire. The mere fact that my house is burning is not evidence of a gas leak.
We will still have to look at how likely it is for each of the possible reasons before we jump to a conclusion.

You seem to think that the mere fact that a gap exists is evidence of discrimination. That is simply not true especially when the gap is a mere 6.6%.

There was no contradiction in the statement I made.

Bias leads to discrimination, if there is unfair bias or prejudice against women, there will be more discrimination against them, besides more women than men are filing complaints about discrimination in the workplace
http://www.nwlc.org/resource/sex-discrimination-american-workplace-still-fact-life

Very interesting how you skipped everything I said only to replay your tape from yet another female oriented organization.

It is also very interesting that you have now admitted that there is discrimination on both sides however your new claim now is that women are discriminated against more. Let us test that claim shall we?

Here's an excerpt from an article from the guardian dealing specifically with Gender bias:

Men are the new victims of sex discrimination at work, according to a ground-breaking new study suggesting that professions once regarded as male bastions are now biased towards women.

Male applicants were up to four times as likely as women to suffer differential treatment when seeking jobs in accountancy and computer programming, according to researchers who submitted hundreds of pairs of fake CVs to employers - offering identical qualifications and experience, but alternating male and female names.

The CVs sent by the fictional 'Emma' were less likely than those from her alter ego, 'Phillip', to trigger an invitation for interview when both applied for the same job in engineering, suggesting this career was still seen predominantly as 'man's work'.

But it was 'Phillip' who lost out not only in applications for secretarial jobs - traditionally stereotyped as 'female' - but also for jobs in accountancy and computer programming.

The results present a startling picture of the modern workplace, suggesting employers may now be employing a form of stealth 'affirmative action' and actively trying to recruit more women.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2006/jan/22/discriminationatwork.workandcareers

Notice that so far the links I have been posting are not biased links from men's rights activists rather I have been posting Government figures and independent media reports. You on the other hand have been filling the thread with links from groups with an obvious feminist agenda.

fellis:
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Are you kidding me? Mr anony?
After all these pages of talking about the AAUW research and how they selected males and females with similar college qualifications for the research?

Abeg keep quiet joor make i hear word.
Did the AAUW give us a city by city comparison of results or did they just take a total average?
Did the AAUW give us a detailed Industry by industry comparison of results or did they just take a total average?

We have already seen that in some fields women of the same qualifications earn more than men on average, we have also seen that in some cities there are more females than there are male graduates therefore it will be more likely women earn more than the men there on average. All these things will affect the overall average. A small pay gap of 6.6% at the end is the kind of pay gap one should expect. I see no discrimination there.

The research pleep posted clearly mentioned the reason for the gap ie that women in the same age group as men in big cities get more college qualifications and get higher paying white collar jobs as opposed to men that get lower paying blue collar jobs.

I think you have forgotten that you highlighted this:
"US Census figures from 2006-2008 show that of the total population age 25-34 with a bachelor's degree or higher, 32.7% were women and only 25.8% were men"

The fact that the number of female graduates is more than the number of male graduates in some cities makes it more likely for the median pay for the females to be slightly higher than those of males in those cities.

All the participants in the AAUW research were college graduates with white collar jobs for heaven's sake, the participants in Chung's (pleep's) research consisted of less educated men working blue collar jobs and graduate women working white collar jobs.

It's like you don't know how wide a range "white collar jobs" is. I hope you know that a person working in a bank and a person working as a teacher are both doing white collar jobs.

The 7% gap in AAUW research was still there even after making sure both males and females were graduates with white collar jobs,

Lol, let us look at your "white collar jobs". Doctors, Lawyers, Teachers, Accountants and Computer Analysts are all white collar jobs. In situations where lawyers generally earn more than teachers and most lawyers are male and most teachers are female, there will be a gender pay gap. The fact that the gap is 6.6% after collating all the numbers should tell you that there is good healthy competition overall in white collar jobs

How can you even say the reason for that gap is the same thing?Are you kidding me? God.

I never said anything about the reason being the same. I only pointed out how you have argued that the cause for a pay gap is really qualifications and not gender. You have effectively debunked your own position

I cannot believe what I just read
If I had made a silly statement like this pleep would have jumped on it and started saying all women are incapable of logical reasoning and he has no respect for feminists but because it is a male (who he has a crush on) making the statement he sees nothing wrong with it.

lol, calling a statement silly does not make it silly. Secondly I am not concerned about pleeps views on women's logical ability. I am only interested in pointing you to the facts of what actually affects the amount of a person's wages.
1.We have been able to establish that every business that is serious about profit pays commensurate wages to the productivity of it's employees.
2. We have also established that some jobs pay higher than others.
3. We have established that women have an equal opportunity to get educated and get hired
4. We have established that the more women get educated and qualified, the more they get paid.
5. The fact that the pay gap is steadily shrinking as more and more women get better qualified is evidence that it is not gender discrimination that is holding them back rather it is the number of women with the commensurate skill.

Mr anony:
Urhm I'm afraid you are mistaken here. You have made an illogical jump from a "can be" to "it is"
I'll give you an example. (which you'll probably ignore again only to come back and cry foul)
......You seem to think that the mere fact that a gap exists is evidence of discrimination. That is simply not true especially when the gap is a mere 6.6%.

Long stories,
You agreed that the gap can be caused by discrimination. If the gap is caused by discrimination then the gap is evidence of discrimination.
The end. I don't understand this long story of how the tortoise lost his shell you've started telling me.

Here's an excerpt from an article from the guardian dealing specifically with Gender bias:
Men are the new victims of sex discrimination at work, according to a ground-breaking new study suggesting that professions once regarded as male bastions are now biased towards women.
Male applicants were up to four times as likely as women to suffer differential treatment when seeking jobs in accountancy and computer programming, according to researchers who submitted hundreds of pairs of fake CVs to employers - offering identical qualifications and experience, but alternating male and female names.
The CVs sent by the fictional 'Emma' were less likely than those from her alter ego, 'Phillip', to trigger an invitation for interview when both applied for the same job in engineering, suggesting this career was still seen predominantly as 'man's work'.
But it was 'Phillip' who lost out not only in applications for secretarial jobs - traditionally stereotyped as 'female' - but also for jobs in accountancy and computer programming.
The results present a startling picture of the modern workplace, suggesting employers may now be employing a form of stealth 'affirmative action' and actively trying to recruit more women.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2006/jan/22/discriminationatwork.workandcareers
Notice that so far the links I have been posting are not biased links from men's rights activists rather I have been posting Government figures and independent media reports. You on the other hand have been filling the thread with links from groups with an obvious feminist agenda.

I brought a link containing an estimate of the number of women filing work related complaints and an some of the complaints they filed about discrimination faced at work and you bring a link that talks about employment discrimination? The subject we are talking about is lower pay and the cause of it, not employment discrimination. How can men that have not been employed by a company face discrimination while at work? That guardian link you posted only talked about how men are preffered for some jobs and how women are preferred for some jobs. It says nothing about men facing discrimination while at work or after employment.
The reason why I showed you the link about women's complaints of discrimination at work is because discrimination at work, after employment, can lead to lower pay. Not discrimination while selecting employees.
Anyway here's an excerpt from a link that talks about how women face more discrimination at work than men and this time it isn't from a feminist organisation.

Gender discrimination covers both males and females, but because of the unique nature of the history of gender in this country, it is females who feel the effects of gender discrimination in the workplace more so than men, and the vast majority of EEOC gender claims are filed by women.

http://answers.mheducation.com/management/employment-law/gender-discrimination

Mr anony:
Lol, let us look at your "white collar jobs". Doctors, Lawyers, Teachers, Accountants and Computer Analysts are all white collar jobs. In situations where lawyers generally earn more than teachers and most lawyers are male and most teachers are female, there will be a gender pay gap. The fact that the gap is 6.6% after collating all the numbers should tell you that there is good healthy competition overall in white collar jobs
I never said anything about the reason being the same. I only pointed out how you have argued that the cause for a pay gap is really qualifications and not gender. You have effectively debunked your own position

Chung's research found that the only women who earned more than men were women under thirty years of age who were single and childless. Those women who were not in this very thin margin did not earn more than their male counterparts regardless of their qualification, infact most of them fell on the unfavourable end of the divide ie they got paid less than men.
I don't know how you'd think such a tiny bracket of women earning more than men equally balances out the wage divide and makes the wage gap inconsequential.
Besides the reason why those women earn more was very clearly stated in the article; EDUCATION. Men who had the same educational qualifications as the women DID NOT EARN LESS.
The AAUW research we have been talking about involved graduates with similar college qualifications, similar work experience and similar age range and the gap still persisted. Most of the men Chung worked with did not even go to college at all, compared to the women, majority of whom were college graduates.
There is still an wage gap which is unfavourable to women, nothing got balanced out.
Infact if you read the link I posted earlier on about women facing more discrimination, you'd find an instance of an employer telling his female staff he'd pay her more money if only she was a man with her qualifications.