So, basically, what the economist said is that the mere existance of the paygap when accounting for the most important variables is debatable and that if it even exists is miniscule and cannot be traced back to discrimination even with the bulk of the current evidence, so, the paygap due to discrimination is just as real as the flying spaghetti monster.

What the flying spaghetti monster isn't real! Say it isn't so. Other than that I agree with your post.

Dude, the spaghetti monster and the wage gap are both real. Black Jesus told me so.

There's more sound philosophy on the existence of a divine than the existence of the wage gap due to sexist.

But nice try though.

Excellent discussion of the true reasons behind the statistics! I could not agree more.

Dear Sir/Madam,

On the subject often raised by feminists, female pay equality I have the following novel interpretation:

Why don't women complain about the lack of female representation down in a coal mine or in a sewage treatment plant or in a cotton field or the millions
of other low-wage, low-value jobs that poor men dominate? Oh right because white middle class women are too privileged to have a job like that. I guess that the men can keep that sort of work while white middleclass women just sit around whining that they only get payed 10 x more than a woman serving at a checkout at supermarkets.

Also, given that 90% of world GDP is probably spent on women's clothes, and things that men think that women will like, I really think that female pay inequality is a non-issue and a red-herring.

Food for thought!

Indeed. I'll worry about equal pay for movie stars, more women CEO's, and more women in Congress right after we have equal gender representation on the village maintenance crew repairing the broken water main in the busy 4-lane street at midnight on Christmas Eve. In the freezing rain.

Or sign up for the draft.

Perhaps some ignorant lazy whiners who never bother looking think that women don't do that. Perhaps they aren't even aware that women apply to those positions all the time but get passed over at higher percentages than men with the same experience. Or perhaps those same whiners are completely unaware of the studies showing that dummy resumes with exactly the same information, except for "obviously" male or female names, get the most attention when submitted with male names rather than female names. Oh, but sure, male supremacists will just counter that there's some reason why that wouldn't be evidence of blanket discrimination... they just couldn't say *or justify* why they erroneously think that way.

"Perhaps some ignorant lazy whiners who never bother looking think that women don't do that. " Really? Prove it. Economics would say that if you could pay a group less, they would hire those. Look at China or India. I mean those racist pigs, hiring those people of color!

"Perhaps they aren't even aware that women apply to those positions all the time" All the time? Like how often is that weasel word supposed to mean? Like just as often as men? Or all the time like those people are hired all the time? You do realize that the professor says you are wrong. The one that said the sexism is real but there is no data to prove it yet. But you know better.

"but get passed over at higher percentages than men with the same experience." Everything was the same? You should really let the professor above know about that.

"Or perhaps those same whiners are completely unaware of the studies showing that dummy resumes with exactly the same information, except for "obviously" male or female names," Non-sequitur. Was that study in higher paying, more dangerous fields like those discussed?

"Oh, but sure, male supremacists will just counter that there's some reason why that wouldn't be evidence of blanket discrimination." Do you see the irony of blanketing a group as discriminatory? Do you?

Cool, your logical fallacies are totally legit because you believe woman deserve to be suppressed, but targeting male supremacists on their lies and insecurities is off limits...? By your own ignorance, nobody could ever address anybody over any issue as you twist words around to serve your own delusions of oppression. Your weak insecurities really keep you down. Maybe you'll come around some day and leave your excessive fragility behind. Poor thing.

And don't confuse ad hominem with personal opinion like you have already. Learning a few new words to toss about because they applied to you in other comments isn't the same as actually using those terms correctly.

"Cool, your logical fallacies are totally legit because you believe woman deserve to be suppressed" But your Straw man there is completly legit. Hahaha.

"targeting male supremacists on their lies and insecurities is off limits...?" Sigh. Really? Are you missing the argument this much? Take the blinders off. Your faith may be shaken a little but is that really a bad thing? Talk about fallacies.

"By your own ignorance" What ignorance? Everyone is ignorant by definition. Please be a little more specific.

"nobody could ever address anybody over any issue as you twist words around to serve your own delusions of oppression" Funny, that applies to you so well and you have no idea. Honey, that is projection. I don't think men really are oppressed but neither are women. There isn't data to show otherwise and the laws are mostly equal (actually they favor women anywhere gender is specified).

"Your weak insecurities " You mean your own insecurities?

"really keep you down. " But men aren't oppressed remember?

"Maybe you'll come around some day and leave your excessive fragility behind. Poor thing." Sweetie, if fighting for equality hurts your feelings this much, then you are adding evidence of the weaker gender. :)

"And don't confuse ad hominem with personal opinion like you have already. " Ad Hominem mean you are attacking the person, not the point. WHich is all you seem capable of doing. Provide data there is inequality, something the Harvard professor knows is there but can't find it, and we can talk about oppression. Instead you are doing little more than trying in vain to attack me. That is Ad Hominem. Learn.

See, I can say that I give the benefit of the doubt to everyone and feel that innocence until proven guilty is tantamount. So until there is strong and irrefutable, beyond a reasonable doubt that people were doing something wrong, I am going to ask you to refrain from calling me a sexist.

And don't get me wrong, you can insult AND refute the point. As long as it isn't the only thing you do. Like you have done. All you have done is come in and said "Male supremacist" without backing up anything. Stupid feminist.

"Learning a few new words to toss about because they applied to you in other comments isn't the same as actually using those terms correctly." Ditto. Hahahaha

Troll on, fragile snowflake, troll on.

Sweetie. You are just digging yourself deeper and proving my point.

In your own mind, the only place you care about. Which proves my point.

What was your point? Did you have one?

The number of women currently working as miners is 3500. That's down from 11,500 in 1980.

Women are complaining about the loss in jobs. Because women want to work in the mines because the wages are better.

As for cotton fields, or migrant labor, you're pretty ignorant if you think women don't do these jobs. You're also ignoring all the manual jobs like housecleaning, hotel maids, practical nursing etc. which are low wage, low value jobs.

"Women are complaining about the loss in jobs." Really? Like all those 8K or just a few loud ones or others?

"manual jobs like housecleaning, hotel maids, practical nursing" You are conflating the point with false comparisons. Housecleaning manual work cannot compare to mine work or other dangerous jobs. Sweat =/= pay. Hard work isn't paid the same. Skill level required and conditions all play a part. Life and limb loss is much higher for men than women, and I would say a life and limb is more important than sore feet and back. We aren't ignoring them, they just aren't comparable to the topic at hand.

"As for cotton fields, or migrant labor, you're pretty ignorant if you think women don't do these jobs."

"Most cotton in the United States, Europe and Australia is harvested mechanically, either by a cotton picker, a machine that removes the cotton from the boll without damaging the cotton plant, or by a cotton stripper, which strips the entire boll off the plant. Cotton strippers are used in regions where it is too windy to grow picker varieties of cotton, and usually after application of a chemical defoliant or the natural defoliation that occurs after a freeze. Cotton is a perennial crop in the tropics, and without defoliation or freezing, the plant will continue to grow." That was a the proper response. Not your "women too" drivel.

Migrant labor isn't what we are talking about. It is all lower and generally physical strength may actually be a factor, a point feminists point to the reason the wage gap should not exists, as the physical strength advantage men have shouldn't be a factor in many jobs. Don't know why you brought that up.

"which are low wage, low value jobs." Yup. Exactly, that was Richard's point.

It does not equal. =/= is not equal to. Just because you worked hard does not mean you get paid more than someone that sweated less. That was my point to your response that women sweat hard in other types of jobs like housekeeping and should be paid like miners that also sweat hard. The point isn't the sweat, it is the risk which is additional value to be compensated for.

"Which means I've never seen any actual proof that men are actually
stronger compared to women who do the same jobs or train the same way."
Men are stronger pretty much from the second they're born, approximately +50% upper body strenght and +30% lower body strenght, there's simply no contest, and if you had taken 5 seconds to google it you would know it.

You you were a little smart you would know that men only start getting physically stronger than women when they hit puberty, not when they are born, sweetheart. And that doesn't stop women from doing any type of manual work. Calm down and control your superiority complex.

Saying the average woman is anywhere near the average man is ridiculous. I have coached athletes of both sexes for decades. The best women are barely comparable to average men. The standards are usually lowered when they get into a field like fire.

Ah, so you are advocating getting rid of gender in sports entirely. I can get on board with that. No more men's and women's events. Just human events. And you can't make qualifying and you see only the best athlete's (read: all men) then we make sport all that much better. What is the law you have to have equal women's and men's sports in Uni? Overturn that and make it so there is no men's or women's and then we don't have to worry about it. Hey, looks like we have common ground here. Let's ally on this and get this passed. Let's have a uni-gendered sports system! Let's do this thing. Equality for all!

So you are on board then? let's get the noisy SJW brigades on this, post haste! I mean, the current system is binary and totally transphobic. You tell me when and where and I will be there blaring for this change. Or should I not hold my breath like waiting for an "everyone is equal" draft?

Lol!

"You've never done housekeeping in a hotel, if you think that's not manual labor." I didn't say it wasn't manual. Just that it isn't on the same level. What was the risk of death or dismemberment in that job?

"I've heard the argument that men are stronger most of my life." Yes, good. At least you aren't ignorant of the data.

"Except I've also known women who DID THOSE JOBS most of my life as well." So your anecdotal evidence trumps the empirical stuff? Think about it this way. The bell curves aren't separated by a space. There will be overlap. There will be outliers. But on the whole a majority of men are stronger than a majority of women. And since we are talking big picture, aggregate populations that seems like a more apt way to look at it.

"Which means I've never seen any actual proof that men are actually stronger compared to women who do the same jobs or train the same way." You found an exception and that makes you think you haven't seen proof? Do you even know how reasoning and logic works?

"Please bring up the Army." Oh yes, glad you brought that up. So you are in favor of including women in the draft, that they must sign up for the selective services on their 18th birthday? Please say yes. Adding fodder to the pool makes me less likely to be selected.

Also, you mean the military.

"Because the Army has never had women train the same way as men do. The officer who is leading the charge to do just that is getting much much better results from his female recruits." Better, maybe. But as good as the men? Physiologically I don't see that as possible. Men have greater upper body strength AS A GROUP. We are two masses, there are outliers but one bell curve is clearly above the other. Get over it. This is a tangent to the conversation anyway. Men also have a greater risk tolerance than women. AS A GROUP. This allows them to take more dangerous jobs in larger numbers and therefore take greater pay to compensate that greater risk.

I have also seen data that the casualty rates of groups with women. Those casualties tend to be in the men that trusted the women to back them up.

Great area of conversation, glad you brought that up.

Wait, you just argued that men are so stupid compared to women that the military takes advantage of their lower intelligence to put them into areas of greater harm merely by throwing a few more dollars at them? You just did yourself NO favors, Joe.

No I didn't. You that was the straw man you created. Men are better suited physically and have a higher risk tolerance. It isn't about intelligence to make that decision based on competitive advantage. As a group on average.

1. Not a strawman in sight on my end of this, that's a straight-up causal path stemming from your illogical claims and assertions.

2. And now you have totally derailed your own argument by inserting "on average", which is exactly what makes your assertion worthless. An individual within that spectrum is NOT the same as the derived average, he would only help to determine the average of that particular group in that particular place at that particular time. That's why your narrow pigeon-holing of all men and all women completely fails, you can't treat them individually as if each were representative of the average. Plenty of people will be on one side of any spectrum such that excluding all of them based on the average will exclude almost half of them that exceed the average.

"Not a strawman in sight on my end of this" Of course you wouldn't see the strawman, I hope you don't intentionally employ fallacies. You misrepresented what I said. The military isn't taking advantage of them because they are voluntarily signing up. It isn't a matter of intelligence but of physical ability and risk tolerance.

"And now you have totally derailed your own argument by inserting "on average", which is exactly what makes your assertion worthless." WHAT?!?! Are you mental? That is what the pay gap argument is ALL about. You took an average of all men and all women's pay. So on average man's behavior and average woman's behavior are going to contribute to that difference.

"That's why your narrow pigeon-holing of all men and all women completely fails," I would agree. But you don't seem to see that is why is actually ruins your argument. You know that one that you aggregate ALL men and ALL women pay (not even compensation) and start the argument there.

"you can't treat them individually as if each were representative of the average." I didn't, I said on average, this is a male behavior and mentality. The major portion of the bell curve is in a higher risk tolerance and physical strength than the bell curve of women. I don't even understand what you are trying to say.

"Plenty of people will be on one side of any spectrum such that excluding all of them based on the average will exclude almost half of them that exceed the average." I know that is why I said on average. Not every individual follows that rule. Some men are not physically stronger than women or have a lower risk tolerance. But we are working in large averages.

"Denying you made one doesn't mean you didn't do it" - Hilarious. Just mistake it for a taste of your own medicine, then, since that's the only way you know how to "argue". But you should be pleased with yourself, if you were any smarter, you'd know what you were doing wrong. Too bad someone smarter had to disrupt your fragile bubble. And claim ad hominem all you want, just more proof in my favor.

I appreciate the amusement you provide. I wonder what irrelevant or fallacious nonsense you have coming up next.

Your hypothetical has absolutely nothing to do with gender and everything to do with income and privilege. I fail to see your point.

Privilege is not a real thing, you'll need to argue with actual evidence, not some sudo science malarkey.

For failing to see the point, you summarized it well.

Don't be hating. I'm a white MC female who has held jobs like that, and poopy diapers are no picnic either. I don't understand the whining either. " Women drive 70-80% of all consumer purchasing, through a combination of their buying power and influence." Maybe that has something to do with it. Whose $$ are we spending? https://www.forbes.com/site...

Junk food. Since you just thought of it, you're completely ignorant to the fact that THEY DO. Period. But you might not think it's important enough to look up since you're only contributing to undermine the equality of others. Bold move. Bravo.

I don't believe for a minute women apply to do the work I described. I'm going to need one whole helluva lot of convincing that they do in significant numbers. You don't know what all I've seen, what I've witnessed.

But you don't elaborate or counter any points. That's right, keep the argument purely ad hominem and don't argue with any specifics. That is rational. Ya, totally.

Are you employed in the mining industry? Do you want to be employed there?

Men and women are equal. So if your answer was no to the above questions...

Bad argument.

To take an individual and extrapolate it to a population would be stupid and a terrible argument. The point obviously flew over your head. Men take jobs that are more risky and are compensated higher due to that greater risk. There is a basic economic priciple that with greater risk, there must be a greater chance for reward AND supply/demand dictate that greater bodily risk will lower the supply and increases the price compared to other work. Men and women are equally able to make their own decisions and should not be treated differently because they have a different looking genitalia. BUT with that agency they can choose NOT to earn more by working in safer jobs. One thing they are not equal in as an agregate is body structure. Men have a greater risk tolerance as well as greater upper body strength. They tend to develop muscle easier. This is biology. Hormones do wonderful things to your mind and body as any pube knows. They are different but treated equal. And this is the result. Sorry if that hurts your feels. Truth hurts. Bad argument indeed. Try again.

You are absurd haha. Good God. Go change something!! Don't just sit at your computer!

I am absurd and yet you are the one commenting on an years old comment. I did, before and the years after this comment. Perhaps now it is time to take your own advice. Which is kinda funny because that is all the banshee femi supremist that whine about their undetectable specter demons should also do and take your advice as well - instead of whining about some unseeable patriarchy or discrimination, perhaps they should just so out and make an actual difference.

It is interesting that on the same day years later that two anon accounts make a comment to this same story in reply to me. What are the odds.

" Men have a greater risk tolerance as well as greater upper body strength. They tend to develop muscle easier." So men are more suited to mining jobs? SO STOP CRYING IF WOMEN DON'T TAKE UP MINING JOBS!

I am not. You are.

If you take jobs that have greater risk, you get paid more. Did you fail basic economics? I am saying that feminists should stop crying about it. And I am not crying, it is fact. Sorry, facts may make you cry, but not me. People make choices, they get consequences of those choices. That is life, deal with it. Or should we take the women's choice away so they can be equal?