fellis:
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.

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

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.

Mr anony:
Lol, it appears you really have no interest in making proper logical inferences.
Lol, I thought we were talking about gender inequality. Interestingly you are now restricting it to "within work". Well, it seems you won't have a problem if companies refused to hire qualified women as long as they paid an equal wage to the lucky ones they chose to hire. That's good to know.
Could the reason be because they get married and have kids and as a result of family commitments they take time off
And I remember asking you:
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?
You dodged those questions because you know that when you do that you will see some industries and some cities where women earn more than men. An overall average of showing a 6.6% gap is such small percentage to me and could easily have gone either way. Such a small gap is not evidence for discrimination.
Lol, is it links you want? Here are some for you

pleep: Is this "discriminiation" Aren't you glad that men don't whine as much as you people do?

pleep: ^ Stop worrying about me and anony and worry about your arguement. Can you do that sweetcakes, or is it to difficult for you to stay on subject?

Why can you accept that a 8-20% difference in pay for women over men can be caused by factors other than discrimination, but you refuse to accept that logic when the genders are reversed.

Are u really that biased?

pleep: Bam. This article summarizes everything

pleep: As the article states; there are some individuals who are simply "married to the idea of female victimhood" and no amount of logic will change that.

What im wondering now, is why logicboy & wiegraf are so entrenched in this patently false ideology. Do you guys get some sort of sexual pleasure from pretending women are helpless?... does the idea of social parity make you fell uncomfortable or threatened?

Please explain it to me

fellis:

Take your trolling away from my thread

fellis:

Take your trolling away from my thread

fellis:
@bold, I refused to agree with your confused point does not mean I am refusing to see things from the logical point.

Secondly, kudos. Great lying skills. I pointed out the difference between discrimination at work and discrimination while seeking employment and you turn to lie about how I'm okay with discrimination againgst men.

Third, I didn't dodge your request for a city by city analysis, don't make me laugh. AAUW controlled for college qualification, hours, occupation and employment skills, while Chung worked with women who had college degrees and men who didn't go to college. After you have been informed of all this you still ask me for a city by city analysis? I can now see why logicboy and wiegraf asked me to not take you serious.

I don't know why you dug up those links to try to prove men suffer discrimination,my point was that women file more discrimination charges than men in the EEOC, not that men are not discriminated against.

fellis: ^Make all the noise you want or go troll elsewhere.
The choice is yours.

Mr anony:
Lololol, so he is now trolling you by generously supplying you with facts and figures that thoroughly debunk your position?
Are you sure you are interested in having an honest rational discussion at all? Or are you only interested in blindly arguing for a position you have already clearly lost?

fellis:

I can see that your plan is to pretend you don't understand what I have been saying and claim that I am blindly arguing.
That doesn't even bother me.
What annoys me is that I have wasted so much time on this thread only to find that you are actually as dishonest as you've been accused of being by those who have argued with you before.

Mr anony:
Lol, really? Please dishonest where?

fellis:
Lol, acting like you don't know that Chung's research has no impact on AAUW research?

Mr anony:
How does Chung's research have no impact on the AAUW research? [size=18pt]they are both investigating the same thing[/size] they only applied different controls.
The point is that you were quick to point out the shortcomings of Chung while happily turning a blind eye to the shortcomings of the AAUW all because you wanted to promote your "discrimination" agenda.

You are only accusing me of dishonesty because you are frustrated that your discrimination hypothesis isn't standing up to scrutiny.

[size=18pt]I think we have successfully proven that gender inequality is not a 21st century issue[/size]. Except in a few countries (mostly islamic) Men and women of nowadays for the most part have equal opportunities available to them.

The funny thing is that in Islamic countries where gender inequality actually exists, you don't hear much noise. meanwhile in first world countries where men and women receive equal treatment; that is where you hear the loudest cries of "discimination! discrimination!"

Oh the Irony.

Logicboy03: Fellis, does this guy love to lie or what?

Logicboy03:


Fellis, does this guy love to lie or what?

fellis: Him and pleep can spin any tells they like, I'm not wasting any more time on them.