You don't even make sense in your spittle spewing rant. What in the hell are you talking about? My argument - SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE supports the notion that men are better candidates for construction jobs because they are stronger (which you cannot disprove) and can work under those conditions for longer (which you also cannot disprove). You simply resort to (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about wage disparity, instead of addressing the evidence provided. I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) if you -think- a woman who can do less then a man in the same construction job should be paid the same, it's irrational and shameful. You don't give one flying (*)(*)(*)(*) about the fact that the male worker is, in all likelihood, going to be more productive, for longer periods of time, then the woman. You simply resort to nonarguments and contrivances to again try and force your point - which is scientifically incorrect in this example - without a SHRED of data to back it up. Sure. I've got to think how you deflect, move goal posts, and try to infer meaning through your lunatic ranting. . What the hell are you talking about? We have and HAVE HAD sundry laws that criminalized the above behavior - and those laws have been on the books for hundreds of years - and they apply EQUALLY to both sexes. This isn't a triumph for feminaziism. It's a triumph of egalitarian society and democracy. You clowns who support this jackbooted genocide brigade are just trying to steal it as an accomplishment. You ignore the fact that domestic violence laws PREDATE FEMINISM BY A CENTURY. Moreover, you ignore the real volatile effects of feminism - and not one (*)(*)(*)(*) is given. You and your slimy ilk don't care one iota that feminism has completely nuked family court, has unfairly and unjustly skewed schools, at all levels, to the detriment of our boys, and has created a vile PC brigade with more power then the highest of the high in the executive branch. You see that as a victory. I see it as an usurping of the rights of 50% of the population. You see my assault on feminism as sexism. Yet you fail to realize true egalitarianism values BOTH SEXES EQUALLY, instead of your nihilistic "Let's institute Male Castration Day" brigade. No, it doesn't. And it won't until feminism lays rotting and stinking in the earth. Instead of debating points, you simply resort to petty nonarguments and soundbytes. What a joke your arguments truly are. The single most biased, partisan batch of BS arguments I've EVER read on this forum. Not even worth a reply. Feminists are a subset of a gender. Your lack of reading is surely showing here, you're just skewing everything to feed your male hating dogma. What's sad is all the pathetic, sordid scum who support a movement that has, without emotion, eviscerated the rights of half the population. What's sad and pathetic is the untold generations of young men and boys who are devalued, emasculated, silenced and shackled, and none of you care, so long as you can elevate women. I'll never, ever give in. I'll never stop calling feminism, and their supporters, on their absolute hypocrisy and sheer BS arguments, based strictly in soundbyte nonsense. And every poster can see from our exchange above, that you've done nothing but prove me right. Have a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing breadstick, man. Enjoy it.
I enjoyed the angst filled rant....life must be hell for you I will respond to the Really Ridiculous comment about how these laws have been on the books for hundreds of years It Really shows you have no knowledge of the history of your country ....they haven't.......and , of course, you have NEVER said what rights men have lost because they haven't lost any, women just GAINED rights and warped thinking deciphers that as men losing....
So, in other words, you wouldn't be compassionate towards the suffering of a man even if it could prevent violence against a woman because feminism is more about hating men, than it is about helping women
In other words, you don't want to address men's violent behaviour and you don't want to address the PROFESSIONAL help that violent men need. You want to intimate and blame women for men being violent. A despicable, depraved and disgusting notion. I repeat: It is the THE VIOLENT MAN who has to show COMPASSION... to the woman. The compassion not to be violent!! Seriously, your posts are so twisted and loopy. You're so obsessed and lopsided in your hatred for feminism I'll call you the 'overboard man' from now on.
it could just be special pleading; it may seem more difficult but that may be due to physiology rather than task.
Rights men have lost, thanks to feminism. -The right to freedom of speech and expression. -The right to equal treatment under the eyes of the law (Family court) -The right to fairness and equality in the field of education -The right to equality under the eyes of the law (Domestic Laws) You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. If a law exists that says it is a crime to assault someone else, there is equality. Because the law doesn't differentiate the sex of perpetrator or victim - it simply exists. Point out for us, will you, ONE LAW that feminism itself has been a sponsor of, that has treated assault EQUALLY for both sexes. You can't. Here's the effects of feminism. Man A is being divorced by woman A. Woman A's lawyer claims she will retain a better settlement if she claims abuse. Woman A claims abuse, despite Man A never being abusive. Man A is then forced to attend anger management courses, social re-engineering courses on empathy, etc, and slammed with alimony and possibly child support, plus losing the rights to see his children. Now, we all know, you don't give a damn about Man A. He is expendable. You'll claim this is a red herring. IT HAPPENS DAILY. You'll claim dad's walk away and don't want to be fathers anyway. Where you fail is that the rest of us, those who aren't and could never be deadbeat dads, are vilified AND lumped in, and thus suffer the same fate as true deadbeat dads - Thanks Feminism! And yes, it is angst filled. Because this filth cannot be allowed to exist. Feminism is a cancer. A disease of the mind and psyche. IT must be eradicated for true equality to exist. Until pundits, charlatans and demagogues admit that, I'll keep blasting your absolute BS arguments for the hypocritical nonsense they are.
So what you are saying is that now the courts no longer rely on evidence to support the accusation, they simply find that the female is telling the truth without any evidence to support it? Do you have any evidence to support that the courts are doing this please?
I disagree, neither men or women have lost the right to freedom of speech and expression. I agree, as far as the law is concerned gender should not be an issue. Is there discrimination if favour of women in this, please can you provide evidence to support your comment. I agree, as far as the law is concerned gender should not be an issue. I have to say that even now in the USA there are states that treat rape within marriage differently to rape outside of marriage, and it was not until 1993 that the last states removed it's marital rape exemptions, the last states to do so being Oklahoma and North Carolina. Although marital rape exemptions had been withdrawn in all states by 1993 or been declared judicially to be unconstitutional, in only 17 states was marital rape treated the same as non-marital rape. In the other states there continued to be significant differences in the way marital and non-marital rape were treated, such as less severe penalties, or excluding situations where no violence is used, or shorter reporting periods. During the 1990s many states differentiated between three categories of victims: unmarried persons, who had full protection by sexual offenses laws, married persons who were in an abnormal marriage (e.g. separated, one spouse had filed for divorce etc.), who were often treated in an intermediate way, although many states treated them either as unmarried persons or as married cohabiting persons, and married persons cohabiting (spouses living together under ordinary circumstances), many state laws were initially very restrictive, criminalizing only the "worst" forms of domestic sexual violence (e.g. requiring violence, a higher level of threat, injury etc.; and often punishing the crime less severely). In the 1990s and beyond, feminists, women's and other organizations have continued to lobby for the amendment of marital rape laws to ensure marital rape is regarded and treated like ordinary rape, though rape laws in the United States are not uniform, and the laws have changed numerous times, but differences remain in some states. South Carolina, for example, remains the only state where the force or violence used or threatened must be of a higher level (force or violence must be of a "high and aggravated nature". Some states continue to treat marital and non-marital rape differently. The relevant laws are detailed below. In Ohio, a rape that happens in marriage when the spouses are living together can only be charged under subsection A(2) of 2907.02 Rape, which states that: "No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another when the offender purposely compels the other person to submit by force or threat of force." By contrast, a person who is not married to the accused or who is married but living separate and apart can rely on many laws which deal with various forms of coercion. It is notable that subsection A(1)(a) of 2907.02 Rape that deals with drugging someone "surreptitiously or by force, threat of force, or deception" to coerce them into sex does not apply in marriage (except in case of separation). The whole article 2907.03 Sexual battery, that deals with various forms of coercion (for instance it states in subsection in A (1) that "The offender [commits a crime when he] knowingly coerces the other person to submit by any means that would prevent resistance by a person of ordinary resolution") does not apply at all to married people. In Idaho (which remains one of the few states which has gender-specific rape laws) a married woman can bring a charge of rape against her husband only under subsections (4) and (5) of 18-6101. Rape defined (because Article 18-6107. Rape of spouse states: No person shall be convicted of rape for any act or acts with that person's spouse, except under the circumstances cited in subsections (4) and (5) of section 18-6101, Idaho Code). A married woman can bring charges: (4) Where she resists but her resistance is overcome by force or violence. (5) Where she is prevented from resistance by the infliction, attempted infliction, or threatened infliction of bodily harm, accompanied by apparent power of execution; or is unable to resist due to any intoxicating, narcotic, or anaesthetic substance. 18-6101. Rape defined has 9 subsections. The first two of them only deal with age (under 16 and 18 - "statutory rape"); but the other subsections deal with various types of criminal threats, exploitation of illness, unconsciousness, and impersonating somebody else. Connecticut has a specific crime dealing with forced sex with a spouse and this doesn't apply only to spouses but also to unmarried cohabitants. The law is more narrow than the other sex laws and it has a shorter penalty. It is called Sec. 53a-70b. Sexual assault in spousal or cohabiting relationship and it reads: "No spouse or cohabitor shall compel the other spouse or cohabitor to engage in sexual intercourse by the use of force against such other spouse or cohabitor, or by the threat of the use of force against such other spouse or cohabitor which reasonably causes such other spouse or cohabitor to fear physical injury." The spousal rape law of Connecticut makes reference to force used or threatened against the "other spouse or cohabitor" while the 'ordinary' sexual assault law deals with force used or threatened against the "other person or against a third person". Nevada law appears to require force or threat of force. Article 200.373 states that: "It is no defense to a charge of sexual assault that the perpetrator was, at the time of the assault, married to the victim, if the assault was committed by force or by the threat of force." This seems to imply that if force or threat of thereof were not used, marriage can be a defense. The general definition of sexual assault uses the wording "against the will of the victim" or "under conditions in which the perpetrator knows or should know that the victim is mentally or physically incapable of resisting or understanding the nature of his or her conduct". In Oklahoma, rape by a spouse can only be charged under subsection (B) of Section 1111 - Rape Defined which states: B. Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a male or female who is the spouse of the perpetrator if force or violence is used or threatened, accompanied by apparent power of execution to the victim or to another person. For instance, a person in Oklahoma can not charge her/his spouse for rape if she/he is compelled to submit due to drugs "administered by or with the privity of the accused as a means of forcing the victim to submit", or when she/he is unconscious, as these situations are dealt under subsection (A) of Section 1111 which define rape as intercourse "with a male or female who is not the spouse of the perpetrator ". In Virginia, the main difference lies in punishment. Under certain circumstances, if the victim and the attorney for the Commonwealth agree, the perpetrator can undergo a therapy program, which if completed successfully, replaces any punishment. This can happen if "the court finds such action will promote maintenance of the family unit and be in the best interest of the complaining witness." While the victim has to agree to this option, this can expose the victim to intimidation and threats from the perpetrator, or to social pressure to remain in the relation. Maryland law states that, if the spouses are living together, a prosecution can take place only if the accused "uses force or threat of force and the act is without the consent of the spouse." If the spouses are separated they are treated as if they were strangers (See Section ยง 3-31 A similar situation exists in Mississippi. A person can be convicted of sexual battery of a spouse when they are living together only if he engages in "forcible penetration against the victim's will". This excludes, among others, situations where the victim is "rendered incapable of knowing or controlling his or her conduct, or incapable of resisting an act due to the influence of any drug, narcotic, anesthetic, or other substance administered to that person without his or her consent". In Rhode Island, Article ยง 11-37-2 'First degree sexual assault', has four subsections; while subsections 2, 3 and 4 apply to spouses, subsection 1 does not; it reads: "The accused, not being the spouse, knows or has reason to know that the victim is mentally incapacitated, mentally disabled, or physically helpless." This has the result of excluding from prosecution, among other situations, incidents where the victim was drugged by the perpetrator ("Mentally incapacitated" is defined by legislation as: "a person who is rendered temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling his or her conduct due to the influence of a narcotic, anesthetic, or other substance administered to that person without his or her consent, or who is mentally unable to communicate unwillingness to engage in the act".) In Minnesota sexual violence occurring between spouses at the time they cohabit or between unmarried partners can be prosecuted only if there was force or threat of thereof, due to exemptions created by Article 609.349 'Voluntary relationships' which stipulates that certain sexual offenses do not apply to spouses (unless they are separated), and neither do they apply to unmarried cohabitants. These are offenses that deal with situations where the lack of consent is due to the incapacity of consent of the victim, including where the victim was drugged by the perpetrator. These situations which are excluded from prosecution are where the victim was "mentally impaired, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless". The term "mentally incapacitated" is defined as a person who "under the influence of alcohol, a narcotic, anesthetic, or any other substance, administered to that person without the person's agreement, lacks the judgment to give a reasoned consent to sexual contact or sexual penetration". (see Article 609.341 for definitions). In Michigan, Section 750.520l excludes situations where the criminality comes solely due to the spouse being "mentally incapable, or mentally incapacitated." Section 750.520a Definitions reads: '"Mentally incapacitated" means that a person is rendered temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling his or her conduct due to the influence of a narcotic, anesthetic, or other substance administered to that person without his or her consent, or due to any other act committed upon that person without his or her consent.' Iowa contains an unusual exemption. Subsection (2) of article 709.4 Sexual abuse in third degree, excludes sexual acts committed by adults with children as young as 12, provided the parties are "cohabiting as husband and wife". This does not refer only to legal marriages, but also to informal cohabitation. (Iowa is one of few states which recognizes common law marriage) In 2012, a man who got his 13-years old live-in-girlfriend pregnant tried to rely on this law. The man, who was of Mexican origin, argued that his relation could be considered as similar to marriage under cultural norms as they exist in his Mexican culture. The court rejected this argument, ruling that the exemption could be used only if the couple "objectively cohabited in the status of husband and wife, whether common law or otherwise", not if they merely believed they did. South Carolina represents the most extreme situation. Not only is marital rape punished less severely and the victims have only 30 days to report, but the law requires a higher level of violence to be used. The law, titled "Spousal sexual battery" reads as follows: (A) Sexual battery, as defined in Section 16-3-651(h), when accomplished through use of aggravated force, defined as the use or the threat of use of a weapon or the use or threat of use of physical force or physical violence of a high and aggravated nature, by one spouse against the other spouse if they are living together, constitutes the felony of spousal sexual battery and, upon conviction, a person must be imprisoned not more than ten years. True equality would make no distinction between whether the man and woman were married or not ot their gender .. rape is rape regardless of the relationship between the parties. So while there are examples of non-equality in favour of women, there are also examples of non-equality in favour of men, and until ALL of these inequalities are removed and men and woman are truly regarded as equal under the law then the confrontations will continue.
So we get an opinion piece influenced by the right wing anti-woman Marty Nemko who says the wage gap is a myth while comparing different jobs. In fact if you compare apples to apples you see a wage gap and that information was provided on here by others.
income inequality is a lie by liberals and socialists. It's just a weasel word meant to manipulate and inflame people and turn them against the wealthy.
So what's the percentage of wage gap when comparing, "apples to apples," because I'll bet you it isn't the 77 cents to a man's dollar the feminists claim the wage gap to be.
https://loveandiron.wordpress.com/the-facts-about-s-a-i-d/ There's the reality - false abuse allegations DO HAPPEN, though feminists will deny deny deny and offer no real argument, because they have none. Men have absolutely zero defense against it. None. It is widespread, disastrous and sickening. Of course, Feminism and the trial lawyers, well, they're loving it - they get to create another monster out of a man to scapegoat and justify, and rake in the cash. Here's just ONE scholarly article on gender bias in our schools. http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/papers/genderbias.html Full citation. You will note, however, that of course, there is no logical response from the vapid feminazi brigades, only more discourse on patriarchy and national castration day memes. re: Marital Rape - laws existed, prior and post change, that made this type of rape illegal - sundry assault and coercion laws, endangerment, etc. These laws were already on the books, but - the government embraced the frothing berserkers in the feminist movement. Instead of enforcing laws already on the books, they created new ones, justifying the necessity of their existence, soaking more from the public coffers to write page after page of duplicated and repeat laws all outlawing the exact same thing. Was it a nicety, a bone for the feminists and their supporters to use as a triumph in the realm of jurisprudence? Sure. But the reality is, it was a waste, a total duplication of existing laws that, instead of enforcing, the government leaped at the ability to suck more funding to create more laws which it already doesn't enforce.
` If you are expecting any facts from the right, forget it. Either they make up things (which they will believe only from a source they approve) or give some excuse not to answer, for example, your legitimate question.
` OR....you could have saved yourself a lot of space here by posting this link; Marital rape (United States law)
and if this is the case then it is wrong and needs to be stopped, this is not equality. Again as I said, if this is the case then it needs to be addressed and stopped. no there were no laws prior, marital rape was not an offence. Traditional rape laws in the US defined rape as forced sexual intercourse by a male with a "female not his wife", making it clear that the statutes did not apply to married couples. The 1962 Model Penal Code stated that "A male who has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife is guilty of rape .." - http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/13023/13335893/downloadables/model_penal_code_sel_sec2.pdf Page #54 - - - Updated - - - Yep I could have, I didn't.
` You could have at least cited the the authors of the article you cut and paste here, verbatim...sheesh.
OK...below is a study by the U.S Department of Labor explaining why the wage gap exists, and it exists as a result of choice not discrimination. If feminism was an equality movement, wouldn't feminists want women to be held just as accountable for the consequences of their actions and choices as men are instead of say blaming the consequences of women's choices and actions on discrimination, on the patriarchy, on white male privilege, on whatever when it's not discrimination that accounts for the wage gap but choice, personal choices. http://www.consad.com/content/report...l Report.pdf As an egalitarean, I believe women should be held just as accountable for the consequences of their choices as men are. As an egalitarean, I believe being equally accountable for your choices is equality. I believe egaltareanism is the real gender and racial equality movement. One of the best studies on the wage gap was released in 2009 by the U.S. Department of Labor. It examined more than 50 peer-reviewed papers and concluded that the 23-cent wage gap "may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers." In the past, women's groups have ignored or explained away such findings. What the 2009 Labor Department study showed was that when the proper controls are in place, the unexplained (adjusted) wage gap is somewhere between 4.8 and 7 cents http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christ...b_2073804.html However, despite these gains the raw wage gap continues to be used in misleading ways to advance public policy agendas without fully explaining the reasons behind the gap. The purpose of this report is to identify the reasons that explain the wage gap in order to more fully inform policymakers and the public. A greater percentage of women than men tend to work part-time. Part-time work tends to pay less than full-time work. A greater percentage of women than men tend to leave the labor force for child birth, child care Women, especially working mothers, tend to value “family friendly” workplace policies more than men. Some of the wage gap is explained by industry and occupation, particularly, the percentage of women who work in the industry and occupation. Research also suggests that differences not incorporated into the model due to data limitations may account for part of the remaining gap. Specifically, CONSAD’s model and much of the literature, including the Bureau of Labor Statistics Highlights of Women’s Earnings, focus on wages rather than total compensation. Research indicates that women may value non-wage benefits more than men do, and as a result prefer to take a greater portion of their compensation in the form of health insurance and other fringe benefits. Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers. This conclusion in reinforced by evidence reported by Joy (2006). Based on results from her statistical analysis, she concludes that the sorting of men and women among occupations begins with their choice of major academic discipline for some occupations, The wages paid to workers are affected not only by the amount of work experience that a worker has accumulated, but also by the continuity of the accumulation. Results from a statistical analysis of the earnings patterns of male and female college graduates over time indicate that leave taken from a career, such as leave for childbirth or for raising children, is associated with reduced income, and that such interruptions are much more prevalent among mothers than among fathers. [Dey & Hill, 2007] Spivey (2005) reports similar results from her analysis of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 (NLSY79). She has found that, although statistically significant career interruptions have occurred more frequently among women than among men, the consequences of the interruptions are less severe for women. Budig and England report that, in their baseline analysis, having children is associated with a 7.3 percent reduction in the wages of mothers. After the effects of the mothers' absence from the labor force and their consequent diminished accumulation of pertinent experience are taken into account statistically, however, the reduction in wages is decreased to 4.7 percent. Then, after accounting statistically for job characteristics that might be especially appealing to mothers, such as part-time status or flexible work schedules, the reduction is decreased further, to 3.7 percent. In all three sets of industry categories, the estimated wage gap is positive in some industries, indicating that on average women's earnings are higher than men's earnings, and is negative in other industries, indicating that on average women's earnings are lower than men's earnings. They also have found that, despite the variation in the gender wage gaps estimated for different industries, industries that pay relatively high wages to men generally also pay relatively high wages to women. The wages paid to men and to women in the various industry categories are highly correlated (0.79 < r < 0.95 for the different sets of categories). After accounting statistically for human capital factors other than gender, however, their results indicate that female workers are more concentrated than male workers in low-paying industries. As a result, based on their estimates of gender wage gaps for the most detailed set of industry categories, Fields and Wolff have found that the industries in which the workers are employed can account directly for as much as 22 percent of the gender wage gap. Further, the observed difference in the distributions of male and female workers among the industries can account for an additional 19 percent of the gap. In total, industry can account for as much as 38 percent of the raw gender wage gap. Olson (2002) has examined whether married female workers who have health insurance coverage through their husbands’ employers tend to choose jobs that do not offer health insurance coverage but pay more than jobs that provide coverage. Using instrumental variables as substitutes for data on the women’s health insurance coverage through their own employers, he has derived estimates that indicate that wives with health insurance coverage from their own employers have received wages that are about 20 percent lower than the wages that they would have been paid on jobs that do provide health insurance. For example, results from the statistical analysis conducted by Rhine (1987) indicate that the value of fringe benefits provided to workers is statistically significantly related to their educational attainment, age, gender, marginal tax rate, full-time work status, working in a white-collar occupation, and working in the services sector. The research conducted by Lowen and Sicilian (200 has classified various types of fringe benefits as either "family-friendly" or "family-neutral", and has found first that women have received more "family-friendly" benefits than men have received. Further, results from their statistical analysis indicate that receiving "family-friendly" fringe benefits generally is statistically significantly and directly related to the size of the gender wage gap. Notably different results are reported by Solberg and Laughlin (1995), however. They have compared the estimated size of the gender wage gap when only wages are measured as earnings and when earnings are measured by an index of total compensation that includes nine types of fringe benefits. Results from their statistical analyses indicate that the average wage rate of females is only 87.4 percent of the average wage rate of males. When earnings are measured by the index of total compensation, however, the average value of the index for females is 96.4 percent of the average value for males. They have therefore concluded that "any measure of earnings that excludes fringe benefits - 14 - may produce misleading results as to the existence, magnitude, consequence, and source of market discrimination." The research conducted in Europe has similarly found that terms and conditions of employment have adjusted in several ways for employees who have worked overtime. Several researchers have found that employees who work nominally unpaid overtime (i.e., overtime hours for which no explicit premium in excess of basic straight-time wages has been paid) are both paid higher wages and experience greater growth in earnings over time than do otherwise comparable workers who do not work overtime or who work fewer overtime hours. [Bell & Hart, 1999; Bell, Hart, Hubler, & Schwerdt, 2000; Pannenberg, 2002] Extant economic research has identified numerous factors that contribute to the gender wage gap. Many of the factors relate to differences in the choices and behavior of women and men in balancing their work, personal, and family lives. These factors include, most notably, the occupations and industries in which they work, and their human capital development, work experience, career interruptions, and motherhood. Other factors are sources of wage adjustments that compensate specific groups of workers for benefits or duties that disproportionately impact them. Such factors for which empirical evidence has been developed include health insurance, other fringe benefits, and overtime work. It is not possible to produce a reliable quantitative estimate of the aggregate portion of the raw gender wage gap for which the explanatory factors that have been identified account. Nevertheless, it can confidently be concluded that, collectively, those factors account for a major portion and, possibly, almost all of the raw gender wage gap
Yes. If employers could get away with paying anyone less be they women, aliens, whatever for doing the same work they'd only hire women and aliens. Take some personal responsibility for the consequences of your actions and choices. You're not a victim. No one told you that you weren't allowed to study STEM. If you're a women and you want to make a lot of money work hard and pursue a career in STEM. Take responsibility for the consequences of your own actions and choices.
If you couldn't hack getting a degree in STEM you either weren't smart enough, you didn't work hard enough, or it was a combination of both. You weren't discriminated against. Take responsibility for your shortcomings. You're an adult.
The 'wage gap' is nothing more than the effects of decades of leftist, socialist meddling in the free market. Socialism cannot exist without creating a societal 'problem' that seems to always take more and more $$$$ to solve only, it never gets solved because the more needy these central government programs are, the more tax dollars they can take from the working population. Moreover, even if problems get 'solved' you can be certain that more 'problems' will be created.
"""""Yes. If employers could get away with paying anyone less be they women, aliens, whatever for doing the same work they'd only hire women and aliens.""" But then they couldn't get away with it.
Why don't you read the study and learn the truth for yourself or you can continue believing a lie that you think benefits you. It's up to you...
