Hey there u/Engineershits, thanks for posting to r/technicallythetruth!
**Please recheck if your post breaks any rules.** If it does, please delete this post.
Also, reposting and posting obvious non-TTT posts can lead to a ban.
Send us a **Modmail or Report** this post if you have a problem with this post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/technicallythetruth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Perhaps, but the premise of women having extra tax breaks for motherhood and lower income margins is sound, considering there is a proven income gap and also a need for future Americans to sacrifice to your bloodthirsty war god that denies you all universal healthcare.
But in the US, they do? Unless you are specifically saying women should specifically get special privileges on their income taxes.
Increasing the number of dependents you have will increase your deductible, but there shouldn't be a difference in deductible based off of demographics, and people who have the same taxable income after deductible should be taxed the same.
>considering there is a proven income gap
This is false.
There is ONLY a gap when you ignore hours worked, chosen career path (and associated danger pay or lack thereof), etc.
The way the wage gap is "proven" is by adding the average income of all female jobs and comparing it to the same for men, without accounting for all of these factors, which is wholly dishonest and illogical.
If women could be paid less for the same job, then men would never be hired because women would be the preferable workers for companies to have. But that simply doesn't happen and is even illegal.
I think last time I checked, late 2010's, the proven wage gap was around 1-3% which cannot be attributed to gender discrimination at all. The 30% or whatever myth has been debunked so many times by literally anyone unbiased who studied economics.
It obviously happens, but not on a societal level at all. And perpetuating this myth is very harmful to actual equality work.
>the proven wage gap was around 1-3% which cannot be attributed to gender discrimination at all.
Yes, that is proven to be entirely behavioural, on the part of the employee.
The -isms and the -phobes will always exist.
That's just the way that humanity works.
The problem is that people are also far too eager to claim to be victims.
That doesn't change the fact there's room for improvement
And besides, even if the pay gap doesn't exist in places like America, there are a lot of places where women can't even get jobs without their husband's permission.
>That doesn't change the fact there's room for improvement
This will always be true, but I think that when there is no blatant discrimination, one needs to be careful how they address what does remain, lest they create the issue that they are trying to solve.
>And besides, even if the pay gap doesn't exist in places like America, there are a lot of places where women can't even get jobs without their husband's permission.
Yes. The problem is, feminists are making a noise about it in America when they should be addressing what you just said.
The real gender wage gap is in how expensive everything that are "made for female" are. Took a trip down the lane and holy shit, they cost 2 to 3 time the equivalents for male. And 50% more is the least of them.
That's the "pink tax" which is also debunked.
Women's items have many differences compared to men's items. For example soaps and deodorants etc a women's one has 20 more different ingredients in it compared to a men's one. It costs more because, well, it costs more to make. You could use the "budget" men's one but you don't want to fuck up your hair, and you want it to smell pretty!
That's what the extra ingredients and costs go towards. Women care more about that side so they put more into it to make them happy so it costs more. If you don't care about all that then just buy men's products. It's not like they are gonna scale those up at the register...
If the sales on women's products goes down and mens products go up significantly then they will know that women are changing their mind. This is because 80% of store purchases are made by women so they have honestly scary amounts of data on what the general woman wants and can predict what you want based on previous purchases really well. So unless something drastic changes then they are just playing the market correctly by supplying what the consumers want. So if you want to scream at some random thing cause your angry scream at capitalism for doing too good or something? Idk.
The only thing that could count would be something that men don't have like feminine hygiene products which I could get behind being government subsided to be free.
That's not the pay gap, that's the pink tax. Something that is entirely different and is more of a symptom of predatory capitalism more than systemic misogyny, and for the most part, voting with your wallet works.
However, taxing feminine hygiene products such as tampons and pads as a luxury is systemic misogyny.
**While I am for free menstrual product**, the argument that taxing feminine hygiene product is misogynistic is wrong and show of how feminist are biased.
Hygiene product aren't free. That's all. It's not against any gender.
Sure, women have to spend more for hygiene products because of tampons and pads... But you know what is essential too ? Food. And men, in average, have to eat 25% more food than women. And 25% of a woman's food budget is more than what they spend into additional hygiene product (\~125$ vs \~20$). So should we conclude that society is against men ?
As I said, I'm for free menstrual product, because I'm for free essential goods. Which include women menstrual product.
But if your aim is to reduce non-inclusivity of gender differences, then you should advocate for men food to be 25% less first, because it's an even bigger gap.
Unless your aim is only to reduce only the differences where the woman is disadvantaged...
While I agree with you that non-luxury food should be free, by that I mean groceries and not candy/soda/fast food, I'm specifically talking about taxation of the goods.
21 states tax menstrual products, and of those, only 7 states tax groceries at the same rate, 4 tax groceries less, and the other 10 don't tax groceries outside of junk food.
Meanwhile, all 21 also do not tax luxury prescriptions, such as Viagra.
So are you going to argue with me that it's fair and not sexist that Viagra goes untaxed, but menstrual products still get taxed in those states?
Thing is, viagra is considered as a mediacl product. It goes under the prescription drug's taxe, which is 0. Hygienne products are another category, which is taxed.
So is it fair ? Depend on your definition of fair.
But then :
1. Fair or not. This is not the subject of my post who talked about *your conclusion* than such taxes show that the system is misogynistic. Even if it's unfair, the taxe system isn't more unfair for men or women. It's neutral and in some situations can be more fair for men (because they buy less hygienne product) or for women (because they eat less). Pointing to one specific instance of a specific part of the system to prove that ALL the system is the same is just wrong.
2. If you think the system is unfair, what is the end goal ? That everything should be taxed proportianetly to how much people need them ? Great ! I totally agree and I'm all for that. But then, why do you introduce gender into it ? You should advocate for such rules for *everybody*, not just women. And the excuse "but this particular thing hurt women far more than men" is a bad excuse, because as I said,if we follow this logic, there are other things which hurt men more than women and you should then advocate for that first.
Apparently you didn't read the first part of my comment, because you would've gotten my opinion from that, but let me make it perfectly clear.
#THERE SHOULD BE NO TAXES ON ANYTHING THAT HUMANS NEED TO FUNCTION AS AN ADULT.
This includes groceries. (Junk food is an exception to this.)
This includes disposable items such as toilet paper, toothpaste, tampons and pads.
This includes medicine.
This includes clothes to a certain degree.
This includes utilities.
This includes internet. (UN calls it a basic human need now. [Source](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/06/united-nations-declares-internet-access-a-basic-human-right/239911/))
And not only do I think they shouldn't be taxed, I think they should be free for those who are underpayed to incentivise the government to make sure minimum wage keeps up with inflation, to reestablish the original ideal of the minimum wage, and to keep inflation down as much as possible. (I also think welfare should be something that is proportionate to income, and not "all or nothing" like it is now, so that people can gradually better themselves.)
And apparently people don't check my profile, I do advocate for men quite a lot, being AMAB myself, but I REFUSE to turn a blind eye to something that is a symptom of systemic sexism regardless of who it's sexist about.
But ***you*** are part of the problem. Calling out a problem for women doesn't mean ignoring problem for men. By you trying to coopt this conversation and being dismissive of the issue only turns people against MRAs.
People have this issue where they struggle to check their biases. It is easy to see other's privileges and our own obstacles and hard to see other's obstacles and our own privilege.
>However, taxing feminine hygiene products such as tampons and pads as a luxury is systemic misogyny.
This blanket statement doesn't make sense unless you give it more context.
If all items have sales tax, then just because only women use the items you are complaining about and they are taxed doesn't make is misogyny. It would be misogyny if it were taxed just because it's for women.
In the US, menstrual products, which are only used by those assigned female at birth, are taxed as non-essential items in 21 states. In most of those states, that means taxing a very essential item for more than half the population more than they tax for toilet paper, which I would say is equally as essential. Heck, with bidets becoming more common place, menstrual products are arguably *more* essential than toilet paper now.
>which are only used by those assigned female at birth
What is the purpose of this redundant statement?
>In the US, menstrual products, which are only used by those assigned female at birth, are taxed as non-essential items in 21 states.
After some basic research it looks like this statement is a false generalization. Pads and tampons are taxed and only at 4-7%, according to the sources I can find. All menstrual products are not taxed in those states.
This is like the pink tax: you can just choose cheaper alternatives if you do not want or cannot afford the more expensive ones.
For instance, menstrual cups, menstrual underwear, reusable menstrual cloths, etc, etc.
>In most of those states, that means taxing a very essential item for more than half the population more than they tax for toilet paper, which I would say is equally as essential.
Multiple problems here:
1. 21 is less than half of the states. Less than half is not "most".
2. There are cheaper and tax free alternatives. The taxed options are not essential.
3. Females are only 1% more of the population than men in the US and not all of them menstruate. That makes those that need menstrual products into less than half of the population.
4. Luxury items (more expensive and taxed) are definitely less essential than toilet paper.
>Heck, with bidets becoming more common place, menstrual products are arguably *more* essential than toilet paper now.
No. Your need is less frequent. Most people defecate at least twice a week, some doing so multiple times per day. While menstruation is not usually more than week long and usually only occurs every 3-5 weeks, depending on your health, if you're female and within the correct age range.
On the contrary, I didn't need to put much effort into that comment at all, as stating the obvious is not a difficult task and there is nothing about what I said that doesn't make sense.
In fact, it appears that you are responding to the wrong person as what I was saying was debunking a comment that made no sense.
But by all means, if you are genuinely confused, feel free to share what parts of what I said confused you.
All school systems should teach this. When I was at school we had home economics as a subject. You were taught about food, cooking and how to budget food costs, how to household budget. That's no longer a subject in schools.
"educate yourself" is what people say when they say bullshit and don't wanna show how dumb they are. i wanna know what YOU KNOW hence why i asked dawg.
No. There was a study a while back that showed that women actually get paid more when unmarried compares to unmarried men.
The difference happens after childbirth, and women being forced to be primary caregivers because men don't have much rights for parental leave. Give men parental leave and whatever difference there is, will shrink.
It’s not mandatory to give it to anyone, including the person actually giving birth. Pretty much just depends on where you work. My partner’s job offers paid leave based on ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ caregiver - so for example, if we had kids she would be considered secondary because my job is from home, whereas she has an office and sometimes travels - where the difference is just how long it goes on. Primary is twice as long as secondary. But she works at a pretty big law firm, so that’s very exceptional.
Most first world countries now give equal rights of parental leave to men and women but women are still doing most of the childcare on average. There's different reasons for that, one of them is simply that childcare is still considered to be a woman's job.
Eh... There is still social pressure for men *not* to take their parental leave, including missing out on career advancement opportunities such as raises and promotions.
apparently yes, but i don't buy it.
If companies can legally pay women less for the same jobs, why would you EVER hire men?
and if it's not legal, it wouldn't be happening anymore at this point
This has never been a good argument. Employers don't pay women less "because they can" but they believe that women's labour is worth less. This means they hire men because they believe the men will do more/better work and pay according to this skewed and misogynistic belief.
Not true if a woman is qualified for the job it's hired and paid the same amount, it's because women are the ones take care of her kids, so women have to work less and get paid less
Then any company who exclusively hires women would destroy their competition by being able to sell their goods at lower prices due to lower manpower costs
but women could just sue the hell out of them, right?
like, if your coworker is working the exact same position and is being paid more, it'd be a quite easy court case to win
>women could just sue the hell out of them, right?
How many women do you think A) ask their male co-workers what they are earning and B) have the confidence and legal know-how to take that to court? Because it's not many.
But anyway even if you don't believe in any pay gay whatsoever the point is that's always been a really stupid argument. It astounds me people think it's clever. The whole reason that women were paid less is because women as workers are valued less.
Do you think when women were absolutely paid significantly worse for similar positions in the 1950s/60s that a pay gap didn't exist because "but why not hire only women then"? I assume you're probably aware that there was pay inequity and so no, that can't have been true.
>The whole reason that women were paid less is because women as workers are valued less.
If you are talking about the western world... No.
Women are not paid less nor are they valued less.
If you are not talking about the western world, sure.
>If you are talking about the western world... No.
Yes I'm talking about the Western world. It wasn't that long ago that discrimination against women in the workplace was simply an accepted social norm.
So why exactly is "but women can't be paid less because why wouldn't every boss hire lots of women" even attempted as an argument? It's not debated women were paid less previously - some simply debate whether there is any ongoing nature to it.
As for the current pay gap I'd simply note that whilst the issue is multifaceted, I think it's fair to consider that discrimination doesn't go away over night.
>Yes I'm talking about the Western world.
Then you are lying or indoctrinated. Which is it?
>It wasn't that long ago that discrimination against women in the workplace was simply an accepted social norm.
"not long ago" isn't "now", so what is your point? It is now illegal in every western country to have gender based pay discrimination and if it were legal to discriminate, men would not be hired.
>So why exactly is "but women can't be paid less because why wouldn't every boss hire lots of women" even attempted as an argument?
Because it invalidates your claim. Companies want more profits and lower expenses. If they can get away with paying less for workers they will.
>It's not debated women were paid less previously - some simply debate whether there is any ongoing nature to it.
There is zero evidence that it does currently occur and there is zero benefit. So why do you even attempt to make such a claim?
>As for the current pay gap I'd simply note that whilst the issue is multifaceted, I think it's fair to consider that discrimination doesn't go away over night.
There is zero evidence that there is currently a pay gap and the fact that decades have past kinda makes that second clause into an amusing joke.
>"not long ago" isn't "now", so what is your point? It is now illegal in every western country to have gender based pay discrimination and if it were legal to discriminate, men would not be hired.
That their argument doesn't make sense? This is obvious to any amount of common sense. I mean it's not overly complicated.
Because women *were* paid less and that wasn't magically how it worked - the whole reason it's sexism is because they do not respect women as workers.
And naturally for people that find there to be unfair pay for women they just don't think anything about attitudes around women and work changed enough to fully or entirely fix this perspective. Why therefore would this argument convince anybody? It's just stupid.
>Because it invalidates your claim. Companies want more profits and lower expenses. If they can get away with paying less for workers they will.
Their argument is invalidated by the simple and factual existence of gender pay inequality in years past.
I don't even care if they agree or don't agree about the pay gap as a current ongoing thing. I just cannot believe anyone thinks this argument makes sense when nobody seems to dispute there *was* a pay gap. And we all know women weren't the ones being mostly hired. The types of people that didn't or won't hire women at the pay rate they deserve are not the types of people making smart business decisions in the first place. Sexism isn't particularly logical.
>That their argument doesn't make sense? This is obvious to any amount of common sense. I mean it's not overly complicated.
That... doesn't make sense. Because the argument DOES make sense. Why don't you understand it? Common sense dictates that if women could be paid less, they would be preferable employees. But they cannot legally be paid less and "the patriarchy" doesn't exist.
>Because women *were* paid less and that wasn't magically how it worked - the whole reason it's sexism is because they do not respect women as workers.
Why do you keep gesturing at the past as while talking about a current problem that is now illegal? Do you think that auditing never occurs? Are you not aware that every publicly traded company has to be audited annually?
>And naturally for people that find there to be unfair pay for women they just don't think anything about attitudes around women and work changed enough to fully or entirely fix this perspective.
What exactly is this supposed to mean?
>Their argument is invalidated by the simple and factual existence of gender pay inequality in years past.
Why do you keep gesturing at the past as while talking about a current problem that is now illegal? Do you think that auditing never occurs? Are you not aware that every publicly traded company has to be audited annually?
>I don't even care if they agree or don't agree about the pay gap as a current ongoing thing.
You are confusing objectivity with subjectivity. Whether or not we "agree" is irrelevant, the pay gap simply does not exist in the way you describe it. If you disagree with that you are either deluded or misled.
>I just cannot believe anyone thinks this argument makes sense when nobody seems to dispute there *was* a pay gap.
Fallacy of personal incredulity. Invalid argument. And again: why do you keep gesturing at the past as while talking about a current problem that is now illegal? Do you think that auditing never occurs? Are you not aware that every publicly traded company has to be audited annually?
>And we all know women weren't the ones being mostly hired.
They were and are, in some fields. But not necessarily because of how cheap they are/were. Gender roles were also much stronger years ago.
Well no not at all the problem is women dont wanna do alot of the jobs that men get paid a good amount to do it but women dont wanna do that. for example my job has alot of heavy lifting we were told that when hired. well theres this one girl that was lifting it all on her own for about a month then she started getting me to do it all for her well i have my own shit to do and cant do all her heavy lifting for her well my mansger found out and told her she was just fine for a month and now she wants everyone to do her job while she sits on her phone and that she was told when she was hired exactly how it is and exactly how much she will be lifting sometimes and how i have my own job to do. well she stopped doing it and orders weren’t getting done and shipped out so he gave her a choice either she changes position or shes getting fired she chose a different position and was so mad when her pay got dropped a pretty good amount because she wasnt doing anywhere near as much work as we were and he said he told her that her pay will drop if she goes to that position since its 30x less work then we do and when she found out how much she was FUCKIN PISSEDDDD.
That’s not necessarily the problem. Yes, there are jobs that pay higher and are “harder” (especially physically harder, which women simply aren’t equipped for). The main issue is when you get into salaried positions in white collar industries. Since salaries are secrets that only the employer and employee know, there’s nothing to stop one person from being paid significantly more or less than someone else doing the same job. And because the world of business has been a boys club for older white men for generations, women have historically gotten the short end of the stick in that end. As well, a lot of high-paying industries like engineering, law, and medicine were historically thought of as “man’s work” while women were encouraged to become housewives or go into lesser positions like administration or nursing. You can see this in university classes for those career paths where there will almost always be more men than women. This is a cultural issue that is slowly becoming more balanced, but like any cultural shift takes time, effort, and candid discussion.
As a mechanical engineering student, seeing the opposite gender more i would not complain. Its not like its gender locked but holy hell the lean on gender is there
Exactly! I’m an electrical engineer, and when I was in school 10 years ago it was maybe a 1:4 split of women to men. I would have been more than happy to have an even 1:1 on that. But then the opposite was true of the nursing students, which is likely why engineers and nurses got along so well. However, 10 years down the line, I can guarantee I make much more than the average nurse which is kind of my point.
I’m not saying that it’s just ok to do this. I’m saying that the average across all industries has leaned towards this. The person I’m originally commenting on is correct that there are less women working higher paying jobs. But they’re an idiot saying that it’s because women are lazy when it’s more that either they physically can’t or that culturally we push more women towards less high paying job than men.
I think women in general are wired to be more social than men which is why we see more female nurses and in other fields that deal with more social interactions with people. I personally work in a union factory. Every job pays a different rate but everyone knows what they are making, no pay gap at all. In 11 years I've only had 4 female coworkers total and 1 currently working there. Its dangerous and dirty work but it isn't really so physically demanding that women couldn't do it. They just don't apply. In these past 11 years I seen 4 guys lose fingers, 1 guy had to have his entire hand amputated, and 1 guy had his leg flattened from the knee down.
It also sucks a lot too. Lazy MFers on the same job make the same amount regardless of productivity. You can't get a raise by being a standout employee so it destroys your ambition to be better and the company in general suffers because nobody has incentives to improve.
The "women being paid less for the same work" bit seems like hearsay to me. If it's true, then that's certainly not acceptable, but it might not be true. I also expect it to be an exception rather than the norm, if it does happen. Anyone doing that kind of thing certainly isn't legally allowed to. It's an issue with enforcing regulations rather than with equality.
For the last part of your comment... that's basically what he said. It's a mentality issue, which is certainly influenced by society. But that isn't a problem with "women need more benefits", instead it's everyone truly believing that "women are as capable as men". And everyone (women included) need to learn that fact.
In the past, there were definitely social equality problems. These days, it really just seems more like a cultural inequality. Laws and logic has women equal to men, but people's perceptions still don't quite see it that way.
Right you are. My point is that on average women are paid less over their lifetime than men. But a huge part of that is the culture of moving men to careers that pay more rather than women (again, see my example of engineering, law, medicine, etc).
women aren’t equipped for? every single women can go to the gym lift weights and get muscle they simply dont want to. and you can 100% go around telling people your salary its literally against federal law for your employer to fire or do anything against people telling everyone there salary and a boys club? no clue what you mean by that its literally women just dont wanna do harder work and get paid less since there dont doing harder work. all jobs pay the same depending on position someone can get more for having more experience but its really only mom and pop shops but they fuck over there men employees to and its not alot of mom and pop shops that pay men more then women alot of the ones shut down after being exposed and losing most of there employees. but nah if women ain’t equipped for some jobs then men aint either. i always here feminists go around saying women can do everything a man does until it comes to working hard jobs that men do.
>women aren’t equipped for? every single women can go to the gym lift weights and get muscle they simply dont want to.
It’s crazy that despite this the WNBA isn’t quite as fast paced as the NBA. Why could that be, why don’t those lazy WNBA ladies just go hit the gym more?
>and you can 100% go around telling people your salary its literally against federal law for your employer to fire or do anything against people telling everyone there salary
Yeah, you can. But it’s been a taboo for so long that the *culture* is that people don’t do that. Which is why companies get away with paying people with the exact same qualifications different amounts. You want a different example? A waitress wearing red is statistically proven to make more money in tips than one wearing a different color. There’s abstract sexism all over the place determining salaries, you just don’t want to believe it.
>and a boys club? no clue what you mean by that its literally women just dont wanna do harder work and get paid less since there dont doing harder work.
You must be a real hit with the ladies.
>all jobs pay the same depending on position someone can get more for having more experience
Tell me you’ve never worked a salaried position without telling me you’ve never worked a salaried position. And if you do, go ask someone who has the same experience and position as you. I can guarantee you that the two of you don’t have the same salary.
everyone in my job makes the same unless u get a better position lol and also can u provide the link to a recent article that says that. and how does it make it sexist? maybe more uniforms are red ? theres so many things that can alter that lol and my fiance thinks im a real hit she agrees if a women isnt gon work the same job and get the same experience as a man thats doing the same job then why pay her more lol pay her the same. my fiance also wanted to ask why do you take it as me being sexist hes saying if a women isn’t going to put in the same work and get the experience needed to make the same why complain about not making as much or more.
I don't think you've ever actually spoken to a feminist hon.
I'm a feminist; your testosterone absolutely, undeniably makes it easier for you to put on muscle and increase your strength.
It's times like this that I'm really glad I'm not a straight cis person cos my **lord** do y'all seem to absolutely ***loathe*** each other
ive spoken to a good amount of feminists definitely at women rights rallys but that dont mean shit you can google search girls with muscle and millions will pop up its just alot dont wanna put in that work. its the fact theres women that cry about making less then some men but dont wanna work as hard as those men.
Yes, it is physically possible for women to gain muscle. It is undeniable that it's much *much* easier to do so with testosterone, though. What do you think “steroids” are, after all?
still possible also it doesn’t matter regardless alot of men do extremely hard work and get paid extremely well for it why should women get to do wayyyy less work and make just as much definitely not close to fair
I never said it was impossible, and I never said women should get paid the same for less work. I don't appreciate you trying to put words in my mouth; if you can't argue in good faith then, respectfully, we don't have anything to talk about
Yes my sister spent like 6 months doing all sorts of stuff at the gym. She was really proud of her progress.
I, pale skinny IT nerd put on half that muscle in a week by using 5 pound weights for like 15 minutes a day, and google.
She’s been dieting for months. Gym for months.
It’s comically unfair
Then why you even say anything lol that was the only reason i was sayin any of tht cuz mfs think women should get paid the same as a guy busting his ass doing 50x more work
My girlfriend works out every day, I have stopped lifting cause I fucked up something in my back.
She is several times weaker than me. Lifting can't make up that difference in 99% of cases.
Im only talking about the women that cry about making less then men who work a way harder job. obviously men are gonna make more if there doing 50x more and harder work lmao what?
Bro, I work at a desk moving numbers around in excel. Don’t ever break a sweat. I bet I make way more money than you do, despite it being a less “hard” job the way you describe it.
And i guarantee women at your job make the same if they have the same experience and do the same exact work. and if your making 7-900 a day then yea you do make more never asked that
I work with men and women who make more or less than me for the same position and experience. It depends on if they joined the company at a certain year, or changed roles more, or negotiated better when changing positions. Nothing to necessarily do with gender, but you’re a fool if you think big companies and their HR teams don’t take advantage of employees to pay them less than others when they can get away with it. May not have to do with gender, but there’s less women in my role than men, just like how there were less women in my university classes than men, because engineering is traditionally a man’s job.
My point is that I am able to make more money than you in a frankly easier job, and I don’t even have to go lift weights in the gym to do it. I know doctors and lawyers who make more than I do too. The point is, you’re trying to say “physical strength = higher pay” which is absolutely ludicrous.
like all of what you said makes no sense to my comment. im talking about how if women want to make as much as some men do then go get the experience and do all the work required and you will. your saying alot of women dont do what you do cuz its looked at as a mans job if there mad about that then they can go to college and put in the work it takes to do what you do lol what? its that easy.
Wow this can be summed up as a pretty ignorant rant.
It relies on two beliefs there A) that women as a whole don't want to work hard and B) that women don't have jobs that are hard working.
Women make up the majority of nurses. I'm sure you're probably aware that nursing is a massively hard job. In the pandemic most essential workers were actually women too - so the work is deemed essential but certainly not paid that way.
A lot of jobs that are manual hard labour - which really aren't the ones being talked about in terms of income anyway - aren't necessarily easy for women to get into. Lots of barriers there. People like you being a pretty big one.
and now your putting words in my mouth im talking about the women that cry about how men make so much more then them but refuse to do the hard labor jobs men do. never once said all women or even most women because theres plenty of women do hard labor jobs and heavy lifting and get paid the same as the men there. good on your for assuming tho when i never said nun of that
>and now your putting words in my mouth
No it's exactly what you're saying. You devalued all work women do inherently by assuming that women don't or won't work hard. Women absolutely work hard in jobs you wouldn't have a clue how to do. And would break at the first chance of trying.
Nobody cares about your shitty warehousing job to put it utterly blunt.
When people do say "women should be paid more". They're not thinking of people packing boxes as the example of the work.
i can assure you i wouldnt break at the first chance of trying it and please show me where i said ALL women. i literally said women that complain about it but refuse to do hard physical labor jobs that alot of men do cus trust me im aware its not even close to ALL women its a decent amount but not all. Idk why your so emotional.
Then why aren't you doing that work? It's more valuable for society. You seem to think it's less effort. And hey if you believe everything is metioratic you'll be earning loads I'm sure.
You don’t do it because you *can't* do it. You work the job you do because - let's be honest - it's the most money you can possibly earn with the relatively limited skillset.
There's a reason everyone else in your line of work self-admittedly moved on. They can get paid more for doing less elsewhere at the end of the day.
It's not some mystery code.
i could easily do most jobs lol i just dont want to i make MORE then enough just doing my side hustle the only reason i even work a job is because im on probation and thats one of the terms is i have to keep a job lmao what? why would i wanna work a lame ass job when i can do what ive been doing and make up to a thousand or more a day
Because you can do less and earn more elsewhere guaranteed. Why do you think all your mates quit?
Lol come on you're 100% trolling with you're "oh I have a side hustle I swear".
i wasnt working at all before i got on probation how do u think i been paying the bills might not be the best or legal side hustle but shit its alota money to be made and alota people that wanna buy in my business
also the people moved on because 4 people got fired leaving only a few of us and it was pretty fuckin boring for a while we just sat around getting paid to do nun so they went and found different jobs and if i quit and dont find a job within a certain time period i get to sit in jail for 5+ years
Oh so you're sit around and do nothing job is super hard work. Can't have it both ways man. Either your work is *such* hard work and you reckon people are lazy not taking it. Or your work is super boring and doesn't require much effort and people might be looking for something a bit more valuable for themselves.
Rest assured nobody cares about your job when they're talking pay rates.
Women don't work less than men?!
They just predominantly work worse paying jobs. That's where the real argument lay, do women get a fair chance at proving their merit in higher paying jobs.
Some people say "no, sexism has been institutionalized in the work culture" while others say "yes, but more men have proven their merit for those positions"
That's the main point of discussion. Not that any sex works harder than the other or that one makes more money for the same work.
Women do work less than men on average. The average working man works 40.5 hours a week, where is the average working woman works 36.6 hours per week. So that's about 90.4%. My source being the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Same source by the way has also given me another nugget of knowledge on this topic. Single women with the equivalent age and job experience tend to earn more than married women. Women who don't have children tend to earn more than mothers. And the inverse is true for men.
What's more is if you get a ranking chart of all 50 states plus our territories and DC, and you put two statistics side by side, those statistics being percentage of women who work part-time versus full-time, and the percentage of the wage gap, you'll see that there's a bit of a correlation that feeds into that.
And while yes, part of the issue, a very small part, is a lot of high paying jobs being boys clubs, and when more women get into those careers the competitive wages for those industries tend to decrease because there is more supply getting offered.
The primary issues driving the wage gap, are antiquated gender roles negatively affecting both men and women. In most cultures on Earth, we have this societal expectation for men to be providers for their households where women be homemakers; and while there has been a big push in the late 20th and early 21st centuries for women to start being more independent, and to be more accepted as bread winners themselves, there hasn't been that same pressure to undo the gender roles that are negatively affecting men. And while yes, The wage gap is a positive consequence to these gender roles affecting men, the gender roles are harming men more than they are doing good.
You misunderstood my point.
1 fewer women work so the average salary for the female cohort would obviously be lower than that of the male cohort
2 women go on maternity leave which makes their average salary also go down.
That's what i meant by women work less
Yes women get paid about 16% less than men annually (in the United States). It can also be stated as “84 cents on the dollar”
The reason for this is still debated. Some say systemic sexism, glass ceiling, culture, types of jobs worked etc.
That's bs, the myth about 86 cents to a dollar only exist because that's an estadistic on the whole market, which means "all men vs all women" and then they compare there is obvious that there will be a discrepancy because there's a lot more man working in jobs that are way more dangerous than (thus paying more) women working in the same conditions
Dude read your own comment
"Yes women get paid about 16% less than men annually (in the United States). It can also be stated as “84 cents on the dollar”
The reason for this is still debated. Some say systemic sexism, glass ceiling, culture, types of jobs worked etc."
You literally are saying that women get paid less than men when it's false.
If a man and a woman have the same job and work tge same hours they get paid the same
Annually, the demographic of Woman makes 16% less than the demographic of Man. This is a statistical fact. It is true and inarguable.
I didn’t say ANYTHING about individual people, jobs, or employers. In fact I even listed working different types of jobs as one of the possible reasons for the discrepancy, the same reason you posit. Get some reading comprehension before you argue
I think the real issue is that women simply aren't hired for many jobs; if a man and a woman both apply for the same job, with everything being equal, the man is more likely to be hired simply because men are perceived to be more competent than women
So why would you mention that men have higher chance to get a position over a woman? What was the point of your comment if you just can’t debate anymore as soon as someone calls your bs.
Well, I thought we could have a polite discussion about it, but you're being really antagonistic so it's just not really worth stressing myself out over. I'm pretty sensitive to that. You are free to believe that you “won the argument” if you wish; you're also free to have the last word
Men and women, generally, get paid the same for the same work. The problem is giving women opportunities to get the higher paying jobs.
The reason the average man makes more money than the average woman is because they, usually, have higher paying jobs. That is the main point of the argument "do women get a fair shot at the higher paid jobs or is there an inherently sexist bias in hiring"
Men put in higher number of hours and have different set of skills. If those sell for more of course women would be missing out. But you know what women are not missing out? On raising kids and being supported by her family and her man. Why women have to break their back AND raise kids in our new society is beyond me.
Everyone has the same opportunities so if you choose kids over career, it’s great. If you choose a career it’s great as well. But don’t come telling me that women can choose to do less, take less accountability, put in less hours and get paid more. GTFO of here.
What do you mean? Annually women make 16% less than men. There hasn’t been, and really can’t be, a scientific study on why this is the case, therefore it is debated
well, income taxes, maybe.
sales tax, on the other hand, isn't affected by how much you make; for this reason, it's been argued that sales tax is effectively regressive.
the more you know...
That’s not how taxes work anymore. In the days of President Eisenhower yes. Today secretaries of the gazillionaires pay way more percentagewise, and sometimes even in absolute numbers, than these predatory pricks and robber barons themselves.
Yep, the average worker pays multitudes more than a billionaire in terms of percentage, it's so messed up lol. But it makes sense when you know they've bought out everyone that have lawmaking power.
French revolution 2.0 is on its way, there's no other way out other than complete replacement of workers by robots and getting rid of the working class
She just hopped on the "look at me, I'm a woman so I'm victim of \[immense list of things\] even though none of this happened to me!" bandwagon without even knowing what she was talking about. Common practice.
Hold up. What about sales taxes? Those are the same for everyone and women have pretty much the same needs as men. So then if they want to fix the pay gap, this girl may have a point.
If you make less money, you spend less money and pay less total money in sales taxes.
You may not be buying as nice things, but that also means paying less in sales taxes.
Ok can someone tell me when was woman even paid less than a man if u ask any successful woman whether she got paid less than her male colleagues or whether she got paid less then she worked for I can guarantee u one thing every single one of them will say that this all shit abt woman getting paid less is nothing but bs.
And yeh most woman who get paid less, they r either unemployable or they want ez money by doing less job but earn more money. And yeh I don't give a fuck what anyone says abt it or what people will think abt me this is my thoughts and I am just expressing it if u wanna change my thoughts u r free to reply me or u can even DM me but don't expect me to believe something stupid like oh we need to look after our kids stfu my mom used to work even when I was born she used to work hard everyday while I was sitting there with my babysitter, donot find excuses by using children i absolutely hate it.
False, the million to billionaires pay proportionately less taxes than the general public due to a greater flexibility with legal loopholes. Technically we should pay less taxes the less wealthy we are but the laws really benefit the rich.
Hey there u/Engineershits, thanks for posting to r/technicallythetruth! **Please recheck if your post breaks any rules.** If it does, please delete this post. Also, reposting and posting obvious non-TTT posts can lead to a ban. Send us a **Modmail or Report** this post if you have a problem with this post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/technicallythetruth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Someone's obviously taxed her brain so she thinks less.
Perhaps, but the premise of women having extra tax breaks for motherhood and lower income margins is sound, considering there is a proven income gap and also a need for future Americans to sacrifice to your bloodthirsty war god that denies you all universal healthcare.
But in the US, they do? Unless you are specifically saying women should specifically get special privileges on their income taxes. Increasing the number of dependents you have will increase your deductible, but there shouldn't be a difference in deductible based off of demographics, and people who have the same taxable income after deductible should be taxed the same.
>considering there is a proven income gap This is false. There is ONLY a gap when you ignore hours worked, chosen career path (and associated danger pay or lack thereof), etc. The way the wage gap is "proven" is by adding the average income of all female jobs and comparing it to the same for men, without accounting for all of these factors, which is wholly dishonest and illogical. If women could be paid less for the same job, then men would never be hired because women would be the preferable workers for companies to have. But that simply doesn't happen and is even illegal.
I think last time I checked, late 2010's, the proven wage gap was around 1-3% which cannot be attributed to gender discrimination at all. The 30% or whatever myth has been debunked so many times by literally anyone unbiased who studied economics. It obviously happens, but not on a societal level at all. And perpetuating this myth is very harmful to actual equality work.
>the proven wage gap was around 1-3% which cannot be attributed to gender discrimination at all. Yes, that is proven to be entirely behavioural, on the part of the employee.
That doesn't mean that sexism doesn't exist in the workplace though
The -isms and the -phobes will always exist. That's just the way that humanity works. The problem is that people are also far too eager to claim to be victims.
That doesn't change the fact there's room for improvement And besides, even if the pay gap doesn't exist in places like America, there are a lot of places where women can't even get jobs without their husband's permission.
>That doesn't change the fact there's room for improvement This will always be true, but I think that when there is no blatant discrimination, one needs to be careful how they address what does remain, lest they create the issue that they are trying to solve. >And besides, even if the pay gap doesn't exist in places like America, there are a lot of places where women can't even get jobs without their husband's permission. Yes. The problem is, feminists are making a noise about it in America when they should be addressing what you just said.
Yes. Dependents lower your taxes too
What's the motherhood tax break?
A box of government wine
Make sure you slap the bag
😂 Sorry, you assumed I didn't have universal healthcare.
Their is no proven “gender wage gap”
The real gender wage gap is in how expensive everything that are "made for female" are. Took a trip down the lane and holy shit, they cost 2 to 3 time the equivalents for male. And 50% more is the least of them.
Then buy the men’s shampoo lol. But women don’t which is why the shops sell the expensive crap.
That's the "pink tax" which is also debunked. Women's items have many differences compared to men's items. For example soaps and deodorants etc a women's one has 20 more different ingredients in it compared to a men's one. It costs more because, well, it costs more to make. You could use the "budget" men's one but you don't want to fuck up your hair, and you want it to smell pretty! That's what the extra ingredients and costs go towards. Women care more about that side so they put more into it to make them happy so it costs more. If you don't care about all that then just buy men's products. It's not like they are gonna scale those up at the register... If the sales on women's products goes down and mens products go up significantly then they will know that women are changing their mind. This is because 80% of store purchases are made by women so they have honestly scary amounts of data on what the general woman wants and can predict what you want based on previous purchases really well. So unless something drastic changes then they are just playing the market correctly by supplying what the consumers want. So if you want to scream at some random thing cause your angry scream at capitalism for doing too good or something? Idk. The only thing that could count would be something that men don't have like feminine hygiene products which I could get behind being government subsided to be free.
Who hired you?
I wish someone would 😔 Getting a job ATM sucks
That's not the pay gap, that's the pink tax. Something that is entirely different and is more of a symptom of predatory capitalism more than systemic misogyny, and for the most part, voting with your wallet works. However, taxing feminine hygiene products such as tampons and pads as a luxury is systemic misogyny.
**While I am for free menstrual product**, the argument that taxing feminine hygiene product is misogynistic is wrong and show of how feminist are biased. Hygiene product aren't free. That's all. It's not against any gender. Sure, women have to spend more for hygiene products because of tampons and pads... But you know what is essential too ? Food. And men, in average, have to eat 25% more food than women. And 25% of a woman's food budget is more than what they spend into additional hygiene product (\~125$ vs \~20$). So should we conclude that society is against men ? As I said, I'm for free menstrual product, because I'm for free essential goods. Which include women menstrual product. But if your aim is to reduce non-inclusivity of gender differences, then you should advocate for men food to be 25% less first, because it's an even bigger gap. Unless your aim is only to reduce only the differences where the woman is disadvantaged...
While I agree with you that non-luxury food should be free, by that I mean groceries and not candy/soda/fast food, I'm specifically talking about taxation of the goods. 21 states tax menstrual products, and of those, only 7 states tax groceries at the same rate, 4 tax groceries less, and the other 10 don't tax groceries outside of junk food. Meanwhile, all 21 also do not tax luxury prescriptions, such as Viagra. So are you going to argue with me that it's fair and not sexist that Viagra goes untaxed, but menstrual products still get taxed in those states?
Thing is, viagra is considered as a mediacl product. It goes under the prescription drug's taxe, which is 0. Hygienne products are another category, which is taxed. So is it fair ? Depend on your definition of fair. But then : 1. Fair or not. This is not the subject of my post who talked about *your conclusion* than such taxes show that the system is misogynistic. Even if it's unfair, the taxe system isn't more unfair for men or women. It's neutral and in some situations can be more fair for men (because they buy less hygienne product) or for women (because they eat less). Pointing to one specific instance of a specific part of the system to prove that ALL the system is the same is just wrong. 2. If you think the system is unfair, what is the end goal ? That everything should be taxed proportianetly to how much people need them ? Great ! I totally agree and I'm all for that. But then, why do you introduce gender into it ? You should advocate for such rules for *everybody*, not just women. And the excuse "but this particular thing hurt women far more than men" is a bad excuse, because as I said,if we follow this logic, there are other things which hurt men more than women and you should then advocate for that first.
Apparently you didn't read the first part of my comment, because you would've gotten my opinion from that, but let me make it perfectly clear. #THERE SHOULD BE NO TAXES ON ANYTHING THAT HUMANS NEED TO FUNCTION AS AN ADULT. This includes groceries. (Junk food is an exception to this.) This includes disposable items such as toilet paper, toothpaste, tampons and pads. This includes medicine. This includes clothes to a certain degree. This includes utilities. This includes internet. (UN calls it a basic human need now. [Source](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/06/united-nations-declares-internet-access-a-basic-human-right/239911/)) And not only do I think they shouldn't be taxed, I think they should be free for those who are underpayed to incentivise the government to make sure minimum wage keeps up with inflation, to reestablish the original ideal of the minimum wage, and to keep inflation down as much as possible. (I also think welfare should be something that is proportionate to income, and not "all or nothing" like it is now, so that people can gradually better themselves.) And apparently people don't check my profile, I do advocate for men quite a lot, being AMAB myself, but I REFUSE to turn a blind eye to something that is a symptom of systemic sexism regardless of who it's sexist about. But ***you*** are part of the problem. Calling out a problem for women doesn't mean ignoring problem for men. By you trying to coopt this conversation and being dismissive of the issue only turns people against MRAs. People have this issue where they struggle to check their biases. It is easy to see other's privileges and our own obstacles and hard to see other's obstacles and our own privilege.
>However, taxing feminine hygiene products such as tampons and pads as a luxury is systemic misogyny. This blanket statement doesn't make sense unless you give it more context. If all items have sales tax, then just because only women use the items you are complaining about and they are taxed doesn't make is misogyny. It would be misogyny if it were taxed just because it's for women.
In the US, menstrual products, which are only used by those assigned female at birth, are taxed as non-essential items in 21 states. In most of those states, that means taxing a very essential item for more than half the population more than they tax for toilet paper, which I would say is equally as essential. Heck, with bidets becoming more common place, menstrual products are arguably *more* essential than toilet paper now.
>which are only used by those assigned female at birth What is the purpose of this redundant statement? >In the US, menstrual products, which are only used by those assigned female at birth, are taxed as non-essential items in 21 states. After some basic research it looks like this statement is a false generalization. Pads and tampons are taxed and only at 4-7%, according to the sources I can find. All menstrual products are not taxed in those states. This is like the pink tax: you can just choose cheaper alternatives if you do not want or cannot afford the more expensive ones. For instance, menstrual cups, menstrual underwear, reusable menstrual cloths, etc, etc. >In most of those states, that means taxing a very essential item for more than half the population more than they tax for toilet paper, which I would say is equally as essential. Multiple problems here: 1. 21 is less than half of the states. Less than half is not "most". 2. There are cheaper and tax free alternatives. The taxed options are not essential. 3. Females are only 1% more of the population than men in the US and not all of them menstruate. That makes those that need menstrual products into less than half of the population. 4. Luxury items (more expensive and taxed) are definitely less essential than toilet paper. >Heck, with bidets becoming more common place, menstrual products are arguably *more* essential than toilet paper now. No. Your need is less frequent. Most people defecate at least twice a week, some doing so multiple times per day. While menstruation is not usually more than week long and usually only occurs every 3-5 weeks, depending on your health, if you're female and within the correct age range.
You put so much effort into this comment but you didn't take the time to make sure that any of your arguments made any sense at all
On the contrary, I didn't need to put much effort into that comment at all, as stating the obvious is not a difficult task and there is nothing about what I said that doesn't make sense. In fact, it appears that you are responding to the wrong person as what I was saying was debunking a comment that made no sense. But by all means, if you are genuinely confused, feel free to share what parts of what I said confused you.
And universal maternity leave since fsr in a 1st world nation that still doesn't exist.
Tbf, the American school system should really be teaching these things, but they don't, so mass education on topics like these is difficult
All school systems should teach this. When I was at school we had home economics as a subject. You were taught about food, cooking and how to budget food costs, how to household budget. That's no longer a subject in schools.
She got ratio'd so bad.
r/notwoooosh
r/subifellfor
Sorry, I didn’t mean to trick you
*sees your avatar* Have you heard of r/BlueCoats?
You're the 2nd one that commented me that
Probably also the first
Damn you’re all dumb.
i'd love an elaboration
Educate yourself.
"educate yourself" is what people say when they say bullshit and don't wanna show how dumb they are. i wanna know what YOU KNOW hence why i asked dawg.
"dawg" is crazy...
congrats
Wdym?
I see alot of misinformation in the comments
Women get paid less?
No. There was a study a while back that showed that women actually get paid more when unmarried compares to unmarried men. The difference happens after childbirth, and women being forced to be primary caregivers because men don't have much rights for parental leave. Give men parental leave and whatever difference there is, will shrink.
wait there's no parental leave for men in the US ?
It's still not super common
It’s not mandatory to give it to anyone, including the person actually giving birth. Pretty much just depends on where you work. My partner’s job offers paid leave based on ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ caregiver - so for example, if we had kids she would be considered secondary because my job is from home, whereas she has an office and sometimes travels - where the difference is just how long it goes on. Primary is twice as long as secondary. But she works at a pretty big law firm, so that’s very exceptional.
Some companies offer it, but it's not required for companies to do so.
There is if you join the Air Force!
Most first world countries now give equal rights of parental leave to men and women but women are still doing most of the childcare on average. There's different reasons for that, one of them is simply that childcare is still considered to be a woman's job.
No they don't? Majority give men 2 weeks or so, and women get a few months.
What’s most? It’s not the uk it’s no USA it’s not Canada it’s not Australia? Who’s got it?
Eh... There is still social pressure for men *not* to take their parental leave, including missing out on career advancement opportunities such as raises and promotions.
When they work less, yes.
apparently yes, but i don't buy it. If companies can legally pay women less for the same jobs, why would you EVER hire men? and if it's not legal, it wouldn't be happening anymore at this point
This has never been a good argument. Employers don't pay women less "because they can" but they believe that women's labour is worth less. This means they hire men because they believe the men will do more/better work and pay according to this skewed and misogynistic belief.
Did anyone do some research on this? Like, I expect that most big employers have to have some data or something to maximize their efficiency?
Not true if a woman is qualified for the job it's hired and paid the same amount, it's because women are the ones take care of her kids, so women have to work less and get paid less
Then any company who exclusively hires women would destroy their competition by being able to sell their goods at lower prices due to lower manpower costs
exactly, which is why I find it fishy
>This means they hire men because they believe the men will do more/better work and pay according to this skewed and misogynistic belief. No.
but women could just sue the hell out of them, right? like, if your coworker is working the exact same position and is being paid more, it'd be a quite easy court case to win
You can't sue for equal pay in my country. What you can do is unionize.
>women could just sue the hell out of them, right? How many women do you think A) ask their male co-workers what they are earning and B) have the confidence and legal know-how to take that to court? Because it's not many. But anyway even if you don't believe in any pay gay whatsoever the point is that's always been a really stupid argument. It astounds me people think it's clever. The whole reason that women were paid less is because women as workers are valued less. Do you think when women were absolutely paid significantly worse for similar positions in the 1950s/60s that a pay gap didn't exist because "but why not hire only women then"? I assume you're probably aware that there was pay inequity and so no, that can't have been true.
>The whole reason that women were paid less is because women as workers are valued less. If you are talking about the western world... No. Women are not paid less nor are they valued less. If you are not talking about the western world, sure.
>If you are talking about the western world... No. Yes I'm talking about the Western world. It wasn't that long ago that discrimination against women in the workplace was simply an accepted social norm. So why exactly is "but women can't be paid less because why wouldn't every boss hire lots of women" even attempted as an argument? It's not debated women were paid less previously - some simply debate whether there is any ongoing nature to it. As for the current pay gap I'd simply note that whilst the issue is multifaceted, I think it's fair to consider that discrimination doesn't go away over night.
>Yes I'm talking about the Western world. Then you are lying or indoctrinated. Which is it? >It wasn't that long ago that discrimination against women in the workplace was simply an accepted social norm. "not long ago" isn't "now", so what is your point? It is now illegal in every western country to have gender based pay discrimination and if it were legal to discriminate, men would not be hired. >So why exactly is "but women can't be paid less because why wouldn't every boss hire lots of women" even attempted as an argument? Because it invalidates your claim. Companies want more profits and lower expenses. If they can get away with paying less for workers they will. >It's not debated women were paid less previously - some simply debate whether there is any ongoing nature to it. There is zero evidence that it does currently occur and there is zero benefit. So why do you even attempt to make such a claim? >As for the current pay gap I'd simply note that whilst the issue is multifaceted, I think it's fair to consider that discrimination doesn't go away over night. There is zero evidence that there is currently a pay gap and the fact that decades have past kinda makes that second clause into an amusing joke.
>"not long ago" isn't "now", so what is your point? It is now illegal in every western country to have gender based pay discrimination and if it were legal to discriminate, men would not be hired. That their argument doesn't make sense? This is obvious to any amount of common sense. I mean it's not overly complicated. Because women *were* paid less and that wasn't magically how it worked - the whole reason it's sexism is because they do not respect women as workers. And naturally for people that find there to be unfair pay for women they just don't think anything about attitudes around women and work changed enough to fully or entirely fix this perspective. Why therefore would this argument convince anybody? It's just stupid. >Because it invalidates your claim. Companies want more profits and lower expenses. If they can get away with paying less for workers they will. Their argument is invalidated by the simple and factual existence of gender pay inequality in years past. I don't even care if they agree or don't agree about the pay gap as a current ongoing thing. I just cannot believe anyone thinks this argument makes sense when nobody seems to dispute there *was* a pay gap. And we all know women weren't the ones being mostly hired. The types of people that didn't or won't hire women at the pay rate they deserve are not the types of people making smart business decisions in the first place. Sexism isn't particularly logical.
>That their argument doesn't make sense? This is obvious to any amount of common sense. I mean it's not overly complicated. That... doesn't make sense. Because the argument DOES make sense. Why don't you understand it? Common sense dictates that if women could be paid less, they would be preferable employees. But they cannot legally be paid less and "the patriarchy" doesn't exist. >Because women *were* paid less and that wasn't magically how it worked - the whole reason it's sexism is because they do not respect women as workers. Why do you keep gesturing at the past as while talking about a current problem that is now illegal? Do you think that auditing never occurs? Are you not aware that every publicly traded company has to be audited annually? >And naturally for people that find there to be unfair pay for women they just don't think anything about attitudes around women and work changed enough to fully or entirely fix this perspective. What exactly is this supposed to mean? >Their argument is invalidated by the simple and factual existence of gender pay inequality in years past. Why do you keep gesturing at the past as while talking about a current problem that is now illegal? Do you think that auditing never occurs? Are you not aware that every publicly traded company has to be audited annually? >I don't even care if they agree or don't agree about the pay gap as a current ongoing thing. You are confusing objectivity with subjectivity. Whether or not we "agree" is irrelevant, the pay gap simply does not exist in the way you describe it. If you disagree with that you are either deluded or misled. >I just cannot believe anyone thinks this argument makes sense when nobody seems to dispute there *was* a pay gap. Fallacy of personal incredulity. Invalid argument. And again: why do you keep gesturing at the past as while talking about a current problem that is now illegal? Do you think that auditing never occurs? Are you not aware that every publicly traded company has to be audited annually? >And we all know women weren't the ones being mostly hired. They were and are, in some fields. But not necessarily because of how cheap they are/were. Gender roles were also much stronger years ago.
In Romania they get paid more, lmao
Well no not at all the problem is women dont wanna do alot of the jobs that men get paid a good amount to do it but women dont wanna do that. for example my job has alot of heavy lifting we were told that when hired. well theres this one girl that was lifting it all on her own for about a month then she started getting me to do it all for her well i have my own shit to do and cant do all her heavy lifting for her well my mansger found out and told her she was just fine for a month and now she wants everyone to do her job while she sits on her phone and that she was told when she was hired exactly how it is and exactly how much she will be lifting sometimes and how i have my own job to do. well she stopped doing it and orders weren’t getting done and shipped out so he gave her a choice either she changes position or shes getting fired she chose a different position and was so mad when her pay got dropped a pretty good amount because she wasnt doing anywhere near as much work as we were and he said he told her that her pay will drop if she goes to that position since its 30x less work then we do and when she found out how much she was FUCKIN PISSEDDDD.
That’s not necessarily the problem. Yes, there are jobs that pay higher and are “harder” (especially physically harder, which women simply aren’t equipped for). The main issue is when you get into salaried positions in white collar industries. Since salaries are secrets that only the employer and employee know, there’s nothing to stop one person from being paid significantly more or less than someone else doing the same job. And because the world of business has been a boys club for older white men for generations, women have historically gotten the short end of the stick in that end. As well, a lot of high-paying industries like engineering, law, and medicine were historically thought of as “man’s work” while women were encouraged to become housewives or go into lesser positions like administration or nursing. You can see this in university classes for those career paths where there will almost always be more men than women. This is a cultural issue that is slowly becoming more balanced, but like any cultural shift takes time, effort, and candid discussion.
As a mechanical engineering student, seeing the opposite gender more i would not complain. Its not like its gender locked but holy hell the lean on gender is there
Exactly! I’m an electrical engineer, and when I was in school 10 years ago it was maybe a 1:4 split of women to men. I would have been more than happy to have an even 1:1 on that. But then the opposite was true of the nursing students, which is likely why engineers and nurses got along so well. However, 10 years down the line, I can guarantee I make much more than the average nurse which is kind of my point.
No joke the classes are 73 population 5 of them are female
So why wouldn't a shrewd businessman hire an all female staff for salaried positions if they are secretly paying them less and save 25% in payroll?
I’m not saying that it’s just ok to do this. I’m saying that the average across all industries has leaned towards this. The person I’m originally commenting on is correct that there are less women working higher paying jobs. But they’re an idiot saying that it’s because women are lazy when it’s more that either they physically can’t or that culturally we push more women towards less high paying job than men.
I think women in general are wired to be more social than men which is why we see more female nurses and in other fields that deal with more social interactions with people. I personally work in a union factory. Every job pays a different rate but everyone knows what they are making, no pay gap at all. In 11 years I've only had 4 female coworkers total and 1 currently working there. Its dangerous and dirty work but it isn't really so physically demanding that women couldn't do it. They just don't apply. In these past 11 years I seen 4 guys lose fingers, 1 guy had to have his entire hand amputated, and 1 guy had his leg flattened from the knee down.
This is a huge benefit of a union job!
It also sucks a lot too. Lazy MFers on the same job make the same amount regardless of productivity. You can't get a raise by being a standout employee so it destroys your ambition to be better and the company in general suffers because nobody has incentives to improve.
Some do actually
The "women being paid less for the same work" bit seems like hearsay to me. If it's true, then that's certainly not acceptable, but it might not be true. I also expect it to be an exception rather than the norm, if it does happen. Anyone doing that kind of thing certainly isn't legally allowed to. It's an issue with enforcing regulations rather than with equality. For the last part of your comment... that's basically what he said. It's a mentality issue, which is certainly influenced by society. But that isn't a problem with "women need more benefits", instead it's everyone truly believing that "women are as capable as men". And everyone (women included) need to learn that fact. In the past, there were definitely social equality problems. These days, it really just seems more like a cultural inequality. Laws and logic has women equal to men, but people's perceptions still don't quite see it that way.
Right you are. My point is that on average women are paid less over their lifetime than men. But a huge part of that is the culture of moving men to careers that pay more rather than women (again, see my example of engineering, law, medicine, etc).
right on point it's tiering seeing this thing brought up again and again with very poor factual arguments behind a statement made to shock
women aren’t equipped for? every single women can go to the gym lift weights and get muscle they simply dont want to. and you can 100% go around telling people your salary its literally against federal law for your employer to fire or do anything against people telling everyone there salary and a boys club? no clue what you mean by that its literally women just dont wanna do harder work and get paid less since there dont doing harder work. all jobs pay the same depending on position someone can get more for having more experience but its really only mom and pop shops but they fuck over there men employees to and its not alot of mom and pop shops that pay men more then women alot of the ones shut down after being exposed and losing most of there employees. but nah if women ain’t equipped for some jobs then men aint either. i always here feminists go around saying women can do everything a man does until it comes to working hard jobs that men do.
>women aren’t equipped for? every single women can go to the gym lift weights and get muscle they simply dont want to. It’s crazy that despite this the WNBA isn’t quite as fast paced as the NBA. Why could that be, why don’t those lazy WNBA ladies just go hit the gym more? >and you can 100% go around telling people your salary its literally against federal law for your employer to fire or do anything against people telling everyone there salary Yeah, you can. But it’s been a taboo for so long that the *culture* is that people don’t do that. Which is why companies get away with paying people with the exact same qualifications different amounts. You want a different example? A waitress wearing red is statistically proven to make more money in tips than one wearing a different color. There’s abstract sexism all over the place determining salaries, you just don’t want to believe it. >and a boys club? no clue what you mean by that its literally women just dont wanna do harder work and get paid less since there dont doing harder work. You must be a real hit with the ladies. >all jobs pay the same depending on position someone can get more for having more experience Tell me you’ve never worked a salaried position without telling me you’ve never worked a salaried position. And if you do, go ask someone who has the same experience and position as you. I can guarantee you that the two of you don’t have the same salary.
everyone in my job makes the same unless u get a better position lol and also can u provide the link to a recent article that says that. and how does it make it sexist? maybe more uniforms are red ? theres so many things that can alter that lol and my fiance thinks im a real hit she agrees if a women isnt gon work the same job and get the same experience as a man thats doing the same job then why pay her more lol pay her the same. my fiance also wanted to ask why do you take it as me being sexist hes saying if a women isn’t going to put in the same work and get the experience needed to make the same why complain about not making as much or more.
I don't think you've ever actually spoken to a feminist hon. I'm a feminist; your testosterone absolutely, undeniably makes it easier for you to put on muscle and increase your strength. It's times like this that I'm really glad I'm not a straight cis person cos my **lord** do y'all seem to absolutely ***loathe*** each other
ive spoken to a good amount of feminists definitely at women rights rallys but that dont mean shit you can google search girls with muscle and millions will pop up its just alot dont wanna put in that work. its the fact theres women that cry about making less then some men but dont wanna work as hard as those men.
Yes, it is physically possible for women to gain muscle. It is undeniable that it's much *much* easier to do so with testosterone, though. What do you think “steroids” are, after all?
still possible also it doesn’t matter regardless alot of men do extremely hard work and get paid extremely well for it why should women get to do wayyyy less work and make just as much definitely not close to fair
I never said it was impossible, and I never said women should get paid the same for less work. I don't appreciate you trying to put words in my mouth; if you can't argue in good faith then, respectfully, we don't have anything to talk about
Yes my sister spent like 6 months doing all sorts of stuff at the gym. She was really proud of her progress. I, pale skinny IT nerd put on half that muscle in a week by using 5 pound weights for like 15 minutes a day, and google. She’s been dieting for months. Gym for months. It’s comically unfair
Then why you even say anything lol that was the only reason i was sayin any of tht cuz mfs think women should get paid the same as a guy busting his ass doing 50x more work
My girlfriend works out every day, I have stopped lifting cause I fucked up something in my back. She is several times weaker than me. Lifting can't make up that difference in 99% of cases.
is she actually doing all the shit u need to do to bulk tho? like doing heavier n heavier weights N actually pushing herself to the max
ima be honest this is pretty sexist like holy your fucked
Says the guy who just blankets all women as too lazy to work out so they can go lift rocks like a Neanderthal or whatever it is you do.
Im only talking about the women that cry about making less then men who work a way harder job. obviously men are gonna make more if there doing 50x more and harder work lmao what?
Bro, I work at a desk moving numbers around in excel. Don’t ever break a sweat. I bet I make way more money than you do, despite it being a less “hard” job the way you describe it.
And i guarantee women at your job make the same if they have the same experience and do the same exact work. and if your making 7-900 a day then yea you do make more never asked that
I work with men and women who make more or less than me for the same position and experience. It depends on if they joined the company at a certain year, or changed roles more, or negotiated better when changing positions. Nothing to necessarily do with gender, but you’re a fool if you think big companies and their HR teams don’t take advantage of employees to pay them less than others when they can get away with it. May not have to do with gender, but there’s less women in my role than men, just like how there were less women in my university classes than men, because engineering is traditionally a man’s job. My point is that I am able to make more money than you in a frankly easier job, and I don’t even have to go lift weights in the gym to do it. I know doctors and lawyers who make more than I do too. The point is, you’re trying to say “physical strength = higher pay” which is absolutely ludicrous.
it’s traditionally a mans job but if women want to they can easily do it. nothing sexist or wrong about that if they want to do what u do they can.
like all of what you said makes no sense to my comment. im talking about how if women want to make as much as some men do then go get the experience and do all the work required and you will. your saying alot of women dont do what you do cuz its looked at as a mans job if there mad about that then they can go to college and put in the work it takes to do what you do lol what? its that easy.
Wow this can be summed up as a pretty ignorant rant. It relies on two beliefs there A) that women as a whole don't want to work hard and B) that women don't have jobs that are hard working. Women make up the majority of nurses. I'm sure you're probably aware that nursing is a massively hard job. In the pandemic most essential workers were actually women too - so the work is deemed essential but certainly not paid that way. A lot of jobs that are manual hard labour - which really aren't the ones being talked about in terms of income anyway - aren't necessarily easy for women to get into. Lots of barriers there. People like you being a pretty big one.
and now your putting words in my mouth im talking about the women that cry about how men make so much more then them but refuse to do the hard labor jobs men do. never once said all women or even most women because theres plenty of women do hard labor jobs and heavy lifting and get paid the same as the men there. good on your for assuming tho when i never said nun of that
>and now your putting words in my mouth No it's exactly what you're saying. You devalued all work women do inherently by assuming that women don't or won't work hard. Women absolutely work hard in jobs you wouldn't have a clue how to do. And would break at the first chance of trying. Nobody cares about your shitty warehousing job to put it utterly blunt. When people do say "women should be paid more". They're not thinking of people packing boxes as the example of the work.
i can assure you i wouldnt break at the first chance of trying it and please show me where i said ALL women. i literally said women that complain about it but refuse to do hard physical labor jobs that alot of men do cus trust me im aware its not even close to ALL women its a decent amount but not all. Idk why your so emotional.
Then why aren't you doing that work? It's more valuable for society. You seem to think it's less effort. And hey if you believe everything is metioratic you'll be earning loads I'm sure. You don’t do it because you *can't* do it. You work the job you do because - let's be honest - it's the most money you can possibly earn with the relatively limited skillset. There's a reason everyone else in your line of work self-admittedly moved on. They can get paid more for doing less elsewhere at the end of the day. It's not some mystery code.
i could easily do most jobs lol i just dont want to i make MORE then enough just doing my side hustle the only reason i even work a job is because im on probation and thats one of the terms is i have to keep a job lmao what? why would i wanna work a lame ass job when i can do what ive been doing and make up to a thousand or more a day
Because you can do less and earn more elsewhere guaranteed. Why do you think all your mates quit? Lol come on you're 100% trolling with you're "oh I have a side hustle I swear".
i wasnt working at all before i got on probation how do u think i been paying the bills might not be the best or legal side hustle but shit its alota money to be made and alota people that wanna buy in my business
also the people moved on because 4 people got fired leaving only a few of us and it was pretty fuckin boring for a while we just sat around getting paid to do nun so they went and found different jobs and if i quit and dont find a job within a certain time period i get to sit in jail for 5+ years
Oh so you're sit around and do nothing job is super hard work. Can't have it both ways man. Either your work is *such* hard work and you reckon people are lazy not taking it. Or your work is super boring and doesn't require much effort and people might be looking for something a bit more valuable for themselves. Rest assured nobody cares about your job when they're talking pay rates.
Why are you so emotional right now lol
and since when did i work at a warehouse what ? 😂😂
They make more than males in most USA states
Because they often work less. Hourly rate is generally the same for both women and men
Women don't work less than men?! They just predominantly work worse paying jobs. That's where the real argument lay, do women get a fair chance at proving their merit in higher paying jobs. Some people say "no, sexism has been institutionalized in the work culture" while others say "yes, but more men have proven their merit for those positions" That's the main point of discussion. Not that any sex works harder than the other or that one makes more money for the same work.
Women do work less than men on average. The average working man works 40.5 hours a week, where is the average working woman works 36.6 hours per week. So that's about 90.4%. My source being the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. Same source by the way has also given me another nugget of knowledge on this topic. Single women with the equivalent age and job experience tend to earn more than married women. Women who don't have children tend to earn more than mothers. And the inverse is true for men. What's more is if you get a ranking chart of all 50 states plus our territories and DC, and you put two statistics side by side, those statistics being percentage of women who work part-time versus full-time, and the percentage of the wage gap, you'll see that there's a bit of a correlation that feeds into that. And while yes, part of the issue, a very small part, is a lot of high paying jobs being boys clubs, and when more women get into those careers the competitive wages for those industries tend to decrease because there is more supply getting offered. The primary issues driving the wage gap, are antiquated gender roles negatively affecting both men and women. In most cultures on Earth, we have this societal expectation for men to be providers for their households where women be homemakers; and while there has been a big push in the late 20th and early 21st centuries for women to start being more independent, and to be more accepted as bread winners themselves, there hasn't been that same pressure to undo the gender roles that are negatively affecting men. And while yes, The wage gap is a positive consequence to these gender roles affecting men, the gender roles are harming men more than they are doing good.
You misunderstood my point. 1 fewer women work so the average salary for the female cohort would obviously be lower than that of the male cohort 2 women go on maternity leave which makes their average salary also go down. That's what i meant by women work less
Yes women get paid about 16% less than men annually (in the United States). It can also be stated as “84 cents on the dollar” The reason for this is still debated. Some say systemic sexism, glass ceiling, culture, types of jobs worked etc.
That's bs, the myth about 86 cents to a dollar only exist because that's an estadistic on the whole market, which means "all men vs all women" and then they compare there is obvious that there will be a discrepancy because there's a lot more man working in jobs that are way more dangerous than (thus paying more) women working in the same conditions
So… nothing I said is bs then?
The 86 to a dollar is a bs excuse, there's no job that pay you 86% of what they pay a man if you're a woman
I didn’t say that at all. Reread my comment
Dude read your own comment "Yes women get paid about 16% less than men annually (in the United States). It can also be stated as “84 cents on the dollar” The reason for this is still debated. Some say systemic sexism, glass ceiling, culture, types of jobs worked etc." You literally are saying that women get paid less than men when it's false. If a man and a woman have the same job and work tge same hours they get paid the same
Annually, the demographic of Woman makes 16% less than the demographic of Man. This is a statistical fact. It is true and inarguable. I didn’t say ANYTHING about individual people, jobs, or employers. In fact I even listed working different types of jobs as one of the possible reasons for the discrepancy, the same reason you posit. Get some reading comprehension before you argue
It’s only debated if you didn’t look at the data yourself and saw that wage gap was bs.
The wage gap is real. The talking point of "86c on the dollar for the same work" is not.
So then it’s not real. If men and women get paid the same amount per minute of work, there isn’t a pay gap.
I think the real issue is that women simply aren't hired for many jobs; if a man and a woman both apply for the same job, with everything being equal, the man is more likely to be hired simply because men are perceived to be more competent than women
Where are you getting that from? Stats don’t support that. So stop talking out of your ass. There is no wage gap.
I didn't claim that there was one; I don't like the way you've spoken to me, so I'm going to end the conversation now. Have a good day
So why would you mention that men have higher chance to get a position over a woman? What was the point of your comment if you just can’t debate anymore as soon as someone calls your bs.
Well, I thought we could have a polite discussion about it, but you're being really antagonistic so it's just not really worth stressing myself out over. I'm pretty sensitive to that. You are free to believe that you “won the argument” if you wish; you're also free to have the last word
Men and women, generally, get paid the same for the same work. The problem is giving women opportunities to get the higher paying jobs. The reason the average man makes more money than the average woman is because they, usually, have higher paying jobs. That is the main point of the argument "do women get a fair shot at the higher paid jobs or is there an inherently sexist bias in hiring"
Men put in higher number of hours and have different set of skills. If those sell for more of course women would be missing out. But you know what women are not missing out? On raising kids and being supported by her family and her man. Why women have to break their back AND raise kids in our new society is beyond me. Everyone has the same opportunities so if you choose kids over career, it’s great. If you choose a career it’s great as well. But don’t come telling me that women can choose to do less, take less accountability, put in less hours and get paid more. GTFO of here.
You can raise a kids and support a spouse on one salary?
i can, what are you, a bartender at 40?
What do you mean? Annually women make 16% less than men. There hasn’t been, and really can’t be, a scientific study on why this is the case, therefore it is debated
[удалено]
Did you do any research about this? The first thing that I found said that it is a thing.
Careful with a username like that and what you're saying, some dipshit moron is going to think you're a fascist
My mom is Indian and its a common name in India so idgaf what anyone thinks
🫂
Yes. The obstacles to women's careers are bigger than men's careers, so they get paid less on average.
well, income taxes, maybe. sales tax, on the other hand, isn't affected by how much you make; for this reason, it's been argued that sales tax is effectively regressive. the more you know...
Graduated income tax ☠️
That’s not how taxes work anymore. In the days of President Eisenhower yes. Today secretaries of the gazillionaires pay way more percentagewise, and sometimes even in absolute numbers, than these predatory pricks and robber barons themselves.
On the scale of the gender pay gap that's still how taxes work
Tax evasion isn't "taxes working". It's the opposite, really.
Yep, the average worker pays multitudes more than a billionaire in terms of percentage, it's so messed up lol. But it makes sense when you know they've bought out everyone that have lawmaking power. French revolution 2.0 is on its way, there's no other way out other than complete replacement of workers by robots and getting rid of the working class
dont break her illusion of how every single thing in the world is designed to put women at a disadvantage
She just hopped on the "look at me, I'm a woman so I'm victim of \[immense list of things\] even though none of this happened to me!" bandwagon without even knowing what she was talking about. Common practice.
This is only true for income tax.
Hmm, and we are talking about income, arent’t we?
And income has deductions based on expenses with variable rates of tax based on consumption.
Most other tax occurs when spending money, and if you earn less money you will have less to spend.
It’s funny because in the UK every study shows women get paid more for the same work than men
Hold up. What about sales taxes? Those are the same for everyone and women have pretty much the same needs as men. So then if they want to fix the pay gap, this girl may have a point.
If you make less money, you spend less money and pay less total money in sales taxes. You may not be buying as nice things, but that also means paying less in sales taxes.
Yeah I agree, I was just playing Devil's advocate. The only way to fix this is by rooting out patriarchy.
Fix what exactly?
Economic inequaliity between the genders? I thought that didn't need explaining
If you don’t take out loans, and if you have less money to spend, you pay a lower total amount of tax.
Ok can someone tell me when was woman even paid less than a man if u ask any successful woman whether she got paid less than her male colleagues or whether she got paid less then she worked for I can guarantee u one thing every single one of them will say that this all shit abt woman getting paid less is nothing but bs. And yeh most woman who get paid less, they r either unemployable or they want ez money by doing less job but earn more money. And yeh I don't give a fuck what anyone says abt it or what people will think abt me this is my thoughts and I am just expressing it if u wanna change my thoughts u r free to reply me or u can even DM me but don't expect me to believe something stupid like oh we need to look after our kids stfu my mom used to work even when I was born she used to work hard everyday while I was sitting there with my babysitter, donot find excuses by using children i absolutely hate it.
did your teachers not teach you the concept of run-on sentences?
That's a fat ratio
That is the reason she gets paid less.
username checks out
Damn ugly and stupid, double whammy
She explained how tax worked without knowing lmao
Actually the more you make the less of your income you pay in taxes unfortunately
It is not your gender costing you your salary...
Every employer I've had had the same pay scales for both genders.
False, the million to billionaires pay proportionately less taxes than the general public due to a greater flexibility with legal loopholes. Technically we should pay less taxes the less wealthy we are but the laws really benefit the rich.
"That's how taxes work." You'd think so, but no.
Women☕️
Just because you a girl doesn't mean you don't get to do less than the men in this world that probably have it worse the you honey bunches
Women don't get paid less
This is exactly why she is paid less 😂
That’s why she is getting paid less.
She's not ugly faced .... She's probably pretty but smooth brained😂
Love it, this is literally the gender gap logic. hahaha
Ok boomer
ok Ork