Men's RightsGood response to a feminist who drags out the old "77 cents on the dollar" argument... (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by [deleted]

We're all aware of the misinformation surrounding the "women earn 77 cents to the dollar" myth that has been perpetuated by feminists over the last 40 years. It's easy enough to dispute this - the myth has been fairly well debunked, and it takes about 10 minutes on the Internet to prove it.

But what is more fun, and makes a more lasting impression, is the reply I give to women who still try to pass off this old chestnut as though it were about discrimination. My reply to "Women still only earn 77 cents to the male dollar", is "Must be nice."

The typical response to my reply ranges from complete bafflement to utter outrage, but whatever reaction I get, there is a visible increase in her blood pressure that gives me an almost physical feeling of pleasure.

Usually it takes a moment or two, but my conversation partner eventually manages to ask what I mean by my reply. (With varying degrees of vitriol...)

The logic is very simple. The current wage gap is described largely by choices women make about their careers. They choose professions that earn less, and they choose to work fewer hours at those jobs. Lower paying professions typically require less education, are less demanding, and are less stressful than the professions that pay more. Of course, the professions they choose not to engage in still must be done. So who does the hard work? Men, of course. They do the work women don't want to do, and die (97% of work fatalities are men) while doing it. They don't have the choice women do to opt out. So I say again. Must. Be. Nice.

Edit: Thanks for the gold, kind stranger!

[–]TheFiremind88 335 points335 points [recovered]

Every time this topic comes up, Bo Burnham's viewpoint on it is my personal favorite.

"For every dollar that a man makes, a woman makes 70 cents. That doesn't make sense. That's not fair. The Man's only left with 30."

[–]The_BeardedGentleman 43 points44 points  (1 child)

Oh the first time I heard that I got a good belly laugh in.

[–]bitches_be_crazy86 65 points66 points  (7 children)

Actually it's not a joke. Look it up - women are responsible for almost 80% of consumer spendings in the US.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 20 points21 points  (1 child)

It's telling the truth in the form of a joke.

If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you. -Oscar Wilde

This is one of the quotes I've seen recently that I think is very applicable to TRP.

[–]ringob82 1 point2 points  (0 children)

pretty meta too, seeing as how the quote itself is a joke.

[–]WakeAndVape 33 points34 points  (2 children)

Here's what I found:

“It is not possible to say how much spending women control because so much spending is done at the household rather than the individual level... women are involved in 78 percent of consumer spending... By the same measure, men are involved in 76 percent. There is not much difference because married couples account for the bulk of spending, and both men and women are involved in those spending decisions.”

It does NOT mean that women spend $4 for every male $1 spent.

[–]ThePedanticCynic 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I think it's also important to note how the money is spent. Based on how ads are generally targeted, i would say men are responsible for bigger ticket necessities whereas women are responsible for luxury and designer goods.

[–]SpawnQuixote 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Women do however control 60% of the nations wealth.


[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

women are responsible for almost 80% of consumer spendings

As far as most can tell, that is statistic that was pulled out of thin air by women-focused marketing executives sometime in the last half century. It's been quoted to death but never substantiated in any meaningful way. In fact, it's nigh impossible to actually parse out control of spending by gender since so much spending is done at the household level. Look it up, indeed.

Is it something that has an element of truth to it? Yes.

Is it something to uncritically assert while making fun of feminist bastardization of econometrics? Hell no.

[–]through_a_ways 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I haven't watched Bo Burnham since 2008, but I get the feeling that that was the point of the joke.

[–][deleted] 84 points85 points  (13 children)

Or ask, if hr departments are primarily run by women, why are they allowing this?

[–]TattedGuyser 37 points38 points  (6 children)

On top of that, why aren't all these HR feminists coming forward and outing their companies (even if anonymously) showing this gap? They generally have access to all this information... so where is it?

[–][deleted] 13 points13 points

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (4 children)

Hey if I could work less hours with no stress and not take a massive SMV hit I would in a heartbeat

[–]EmanuelGold 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Thought id chime in here, I thought it was funny.

1) Ive been interviewing with large companies recently, and its true most of HR are women, and you know what I found? HR treat recruitment like dating - the guys who are confident, dress well and are typically better looking get past HR. They act more bitchy to girls who are attractive etc because thats what women do.

2) HR rarely make the final hiring decision. HR basically vets applicants based on if they like them or not ('cultural fit' etc). Then senior managers etc make the final hiring decision, its a boys club at the top and confident guys normally can negotiate on salary

edit: Also, women don't tend to handle stress as well in the high paid jobs. A girl at my current job who has a senior position was telling me at work drinks how she cried earlier that day due to the stress -> this is typically why women don't perform as well in high paid, high stress jobs, they tend to prefer less stress at work which logically comes with less pay.

[–]Ubergeeek 3 points4 points  (4 children)

HR departments don't set salaries though.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Then upper management would make sure HR hired nothing but women since it would save the company money over hiring the higher paid men! Probably get tax write offs for hiring women, too.

[–]hiphoprising 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Compensation and benefits is a part of HR when it comes to standardizing pay rates based on experience. They usually set "bands" although they don't set individual salaries

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

That argument is unsound. Every role has a salary range. HR departments are privy to this information as well as what every person is offered. They certainly have a role in this process. And any company consistently paying females less than males would raise red flags. This is the same department that blatantly tells managers what gender and race is needed to get the corporate quotas in line.

[–]Ubergeeek 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Discrimination law is very much a HR issue. Along with all hiring policy.

Depending on the company, salaries are typically part of each departments budget and set by department heads or directors.

Yes, the HR department would need to know salaries, but what business would they have in a different departments budget!

[–]OneShotAtGlory 28 points29 points  (2 children)

Maddox did a video talking about this myth: How every company in America can save 23% on wages

Very informative.

[–]SilentForTooLong 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I should've made this fucking video... I've been making this argument for years. Since the first time I ever heard it.

If the wage gap were real, how long would it be before some capitalist pigs just started copycat companies of all the major ones and beat the tar out of them in the market by severely undercutting their prices by simply hiring only female staff, who are 23% cheaper than male staff?

The only counterargument I ever heard to this was that greed can be trumped by prejudice, as when white business owners could have hired cheaper black labor, but didn't due to racism. However, it seems like a false equivalency, since blacks were being denied education in such periods, and may have actually been lower quality labor, whereas women are actually overeducated as a class currently, if anything (they hold the majority of college degrees for example). I don't know. I think there are enough feminist capitalists out there that some of them would have started a copycat Apple, and would be selling iPhones for 23% less in order to become megawealthy AND prove a feminist point if it was true.

[–][deleted] 155 points156 points  (52 children)

I would simply argue it is preposterous logically using math:

If women made (.75) for every man, than why would any business hire a man (1)?

(cost of hiring) 4 women X 0.75 = 3

(cost of hiring) 3 men X 1 = 3

A business looking at profits would clearly hire the women over the men right? If they perform the "same output" as it is claimed (while anyone that has ever worked with women knows better).

If they perform the "same output", then why is the pay different? Well different jobs mostly, when looking at groups of men and women in the same field with the same level of experience, surprise surprise the wage gap vanishes. Perhaps the questions should not even be the wage gap. That is misdirection. The question should be why are women's abilities to earn income so lacking? Then tell them to put that in their pipe and smoke it.

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana 46 points47 points  (4 children)

This video has the best response:


Man: "If they can pay women much less for the exact same work, wouldn't companies hire all women, make huge profits, and run their competitors out of business?"

Feminist: "No, they're too sexist to try that."

Man: "So corporations care more about hanging out with dudes at the office then they do about getting rich?"

Feminist: "Yes, corporations aren't greedy enough."

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points  (0 children)

I think that hamster is broken.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

No, it has been tried (and also forced).

Company boards: https://c4mb.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/121113-the-five-studies-showing-that-increasing-female-representation-on-boards-leads-to-a-decline-in-corporate-performance.pdf

Women-only workforce: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1168182/Catfights-handbags-tears-toilets-When-producer-launched-women-TV-company-thought-shed-kissed-goodbye-conflict-.html

(similar article about it in the Telegraph for those who hate the Mail, but their search function is rubbish). Note that nobody seems to have made a fuss that this women hired only women deliberately. Naturally, the feminists would be up in arms if a man deliberately hired only men, because sexism.

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Most reasonably rational people could list 10 reasons as to why this idea won’t work.

Bringing up this hypothetical possibility is more of a checkmate situation for feminists.

Feminists claim that:

  • Women who do the EXACT SAME JOB get paid 77 cents for every dollar a man makes.
  • Women are just as good as men in all respects and situations.

If you were playing some sort of business video game where these two items were true, your best strategy would be to hire only women. This strategy would give you a huge advantage.

So why doesn’t it work in the real world? Watch the feminists femsplain their way out of that - but what they’ll never admit is that one or both of the above conditions is false, which is the most logical explanation.

[–]dennislang 219 points220 points  (19 children)

This response is too 'serious'. If someone were to bring up the 75% 'statistic' to me, I would not feel its appropriate to give a sincere response.

Play dumb instead: "You know what, you've given me a brilliant idea. I'm going to start a business and hire women exclusively and pay them 75% of what I would have paid a man. The money I save, I'll put back into the business. I'll have a significant competitive advantage over companies that choose to hire men. This is brilliant, why has no one thought of this before?", and pause. Sit there completely silently awaiting a response, give a subtle wink to any RP men in your company.

[–]patpend 21 points22 points  (4 children)

I reverse it. I say if that is true, you should start a business and hire only women. Your cost of labor will be 25% less than your competition. You can't help but make money, put your male-dominated competition out of business, and chalk up another win for women.

What? You don't want to make money and help women in the process? Why? Could it because you have no idea what you are talking about?

[–]1beerthroway 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Much better play on it because it forces them to consider putting their money where their mouth is rather than having a man take responsibility.

Plus it avoids the "men are too sexist to hire women only" nonsense.

[–]paynehouse 12 points13 points  (2 children)

I would say, let me as you a few questions; so you think women can work just as well as men? "Yes, of course!" And they make less? "Yes, that's the problem!" Shit, well then I'm going to create an exclusively female workforce and save 25%!

[–]WillWorkForLTC 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Go even as far as saying ''hell, half of 25% at 12.5% would still leave me rolling in it!''

[–]neveragoodtime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Come work for me! I'll pay you 90% of whatever I pay the men. Deal?

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (5 children)

This is Milton Friedman's argument. Wage disparities due to reasons independent of output/value (sex, race, etc.) create an imperfect market in which competing firms are hugely incentivized to take advantage of. Literally to the degree that you outline.

Also - I'm a business owner. Who in the fuck offers different amounts to men vs. women? I have a job and the pay is $X for it. Please apply at the email address below.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 0 points1 point  (2 children)

That's part of the 'wage gap' stuff though.

Most places don't advertise what they're paying unless it's minimum wage. You end up negotiating and men tend to be better at negotiating than women because men need that extra buck or two an hour.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Absolutely. I would also argue that men are simply designed to negotiate those things more out of natural makeup than need.

But you have great point, which is women often have the "second" job, and her need for it is marginal in step with the family's financial need. In that sense, while men need every buck they can, women with kids (perhaps) may think they just need "a job." i've never considered that.

[–]ElonMuskOfficiaI 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yes, you have to communicate emotionally to people like that. Their mind doesn't process or comprehend logic.

[–]user_none 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hah, I love it. Agree and Amplify against a stupid argument and bogus numbers.

[–][deleted] 58 points59 points  (7 children)

You can't use logic against those idiots, it's equivalent to talking to a cat.

[–]The_BeardedGentleman 69 points70 points  (2 children)

Actually I enjoy talking to cats more than trying to convince a feminist why shes retarded.

[–][deleted] 28 points29 points  (1 child)

At least when you talk to cat, there's a chance you'll get to rub pussy. Talking to a feminist tends to be a complete waste of time.

[–]CumForJesus 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy.

If you would like to do the same, add the browser extension GreaseMonkey to Firefox and add this open source script.

Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.

[–]csehszlovakze 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Our family cat is dumb as fuck (even compared to other cats), but sometimes even she seems to be smarter than your average feminist.

[–]WillWorkForLTC 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey I talk to my cat and he talks back. We're besties. Let's not put down cats here.

[–]fingers144 8 points9 points  (4 children)

They would respond with, "But women are opressed in high paying job fields."

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

its called golden handcuffs. they get slapped on everyone.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (1 child)

That's the thing most feminist don't get, they get treated nicely because they're women and then when they ask for equality they get suprised with how shitty everyone treats each other. It's been this way forever, you've just had a protective blanket cast over you, the world sucks and most well paying jobs are soul sucking. If I could score the perfect wife and only make 3/4 of what she is making I'd be estatic, instead my life has to account for providing for both of us or getting left for a man who can. That's on top of the fact that the wage gap is a lie

[–]blue_27 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Feminists are just victims. They need something to bitch about, imagined, or otherwise.

[–]BramRhodesDouglas 23 points24 points  (1 child)

Logic is BS to females bud. Use emotions and dramatized ideas to convince them. Still plugged in;)

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

indeed. play with the hamster

[–]TRP VanguardtrpSenator 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah, that's sort of the nail right there. Apparently companies are ruthlessly on the search for profits, except when it comes to upholding the patriarchy.... Got to keep those women oppressed.

[–]Ojisan1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You do realize that you're trying to logic your way to agreement with an emotional argument? The 77 cents trope isn't about logic. If it was, it wouldn't persist.

[–]NakedAndBehindYou 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The problem with this argument is that it relies on logic and facts, which feminists are incapable of understanding.

[–]anonlymouse 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would simply argue it is preposterous logically using math:

This is great for people who want the statistic to be wrong, they'll be incredibly happy to listen. It's not very useful at all with someone who wants to be indignant. If you're dealing with the latter, it's only useful to present facts and logic for an audience.

[–]WillWorkForLTC 0 points1 point  (2 children)

It's a world built for men by men. I wouldn't expect women to be able to simply will it to change. They have to innovate new jobs that suit their skills. I have yet to see a female Elon Musk of sorts, and its my opinion that if they want a workplace better acclimated to their needs and strengths then they must innovate and create rather than demand others to change ingrained economic truths because reasons/hamster says so.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

but they want to be "in the tribe" with the men. they feel left out. they are incapable of being on their own.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also 4 women vs 3 men would mean less expenditure on things like overtime hours because hours are spread out over 4 people instead of 3.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (2 children)

You can't win by telling them they are wrong, and in my experience they've all heard the argument about women's career choices as well (usual response: they make choices because of socially-imposed gender roles that unjustly shape their personal desires from infancy).

What you do instead is change the terms of the debate. Remind them of the golden rule of arguing with statistics: anyone who tries to support their argument with a single, out-of-context data point is selling fertilizer.

I tend to start by conceding that we'll assume, for now, that the 20-year-old statistic they're quoting is still true today. Then I ask why money alone is the determining statistic. Is that all a person is worth? Money? Is that all we value? Because if so, women also control about 80% of consumer spending. Isn't it better to spend the money than to make it? Then ask about free time. Women take more time off work, as OP pointed out. Obviously that must be what they value more, given that flex time is mentioned by every feminist trying to pitch a more female-friendly work environment. If women value free time more than money beyond a certain threshold, and they're getting what they value, where's the discrimination? Look at any poll, and it backs that up - women value free time and time to raise their children more than extra money. Men don't. We're getting what we all want.

That's when you drop the earlier assumption. Point out that women under 35 suffer no wage gap at all. Women under 30 are making more than men are. If feminists are going to attack this as a problem, then they have to recognize the intersectionality of age. Young people are being unfairly targeted by policies because of old people. For obvious reasons, this one works best on young women. Sometimes they'll then say that the discrimination is a matter of age of childbirth and not one's generation, at which point you'll have to be statistically literate enough to explain that today's 35-year-olds face different circumstance than the 35-year-olds of five years ago, without confusing the feminist.

Frame it all as benefiting women and unfairly targeting other groups. Sometimes I'll get the "socialized expectations affecting judgment" nonsense again, but my response there is the Warren Farrel one: I'm an atypical guy and I value my free time more than money, once the bills are paid. I chose a lower-paying, lower-stress field than I could have, and I think more people would be happier with that choice. I think women are generally making the right choice now, and that it's men who are being unfairly duped into working too hard. Make the personal political, challenge the terms of the debate. And always do it in public, because the feminist will forget the whole thing within the hour, but spectators will reconsider the argument, and perhaps remember the golden rule next time they listen to a feminist pundit.

[–]Wtfiwwpt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good post. And don't forget to do this in the presence of others if you can. If you speak in a reasonable tone, with a little humor, and don't get worked up, you'll come out on top. Most women already get this. Then there are the un- or ill-informed women, and finally the hardcore haters who will never see the truth. By doing this in public, you will help to educate the bystanders. If it's a standard feminist, she'll end up looking poorly in the exchange. If it's the ill- or un- kind of woman, you might be able to help show her the way forward and inoculate her against the hatred espoused by so many 'feminists'.

[–]GuitarHero07 82 points83 points  (9 children)

It's funny how these folks conveniently ignore the fact that women account for the majority of consumer spending. Must be nice having a man to foot most of the bills.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Source? I mean a man with children most likely works and his wife would be with the kids. That means the wife is buying groceries, school supplies, their clothes, household items, etc. This almost seems as faulty as the wage gap statistic, in that the way you are using it doesn't account for the reasoning behind it. You're acting like women are presupposed to just spending in a way that isn't relatable to men.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Not even kidding. There is an old joke that if a man has $20 and his wife has $5, then his wife has $25.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

For a married man, that's his footbill.

Stay mindful.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (3 children)

Majority in every election since they were given the right to vote, 2/3rd of consumer wealth, 2/3rd of college students = oppressed

[–]WakeAndVape 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Not by very much, though. According to the Wall Street Journal:

“It is not possible to say how much spending women control because so much spending is done at the household rather than the individual level... women are involved in 78 percent of consumer spending... By the same measure, men are involved in 76 percent. There is not much difference because married couples account for the bulk of spending, and both men and women are involved in those spending decisions.”

[–]prodigyx 46 points47 points  (10 children)

I usually just drop this in a reply whenever I see it come up on facebook:

Wage Gap Myth

[–]The_BeardedGentleman 13 points14 points  (5 children)

Also over half of women's deaths in the workplace are because of vehicle accidents and homicides.

[–]randompants123 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Do you have a source for that? I would love have more things like this lying around incase of a debate.

[–]The_BeardedGentleman 11 points12 points  (3 children)


Women had a higher percentage of fatal work injuries resulting from highway incidents and homicides. It should be noted that over one half (206) of the female fatalities occurred in those two categories. Men had a higher percentage of fatal work injuries resulting from contact with objects and equipment, falls, exposure to harmful substances or environments, and fires and explosions.

[–]RocketManV 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I believe you, and if you won't I will, but do you have the sources for this infographic?

[–]tits_out_forTheBoys 56 points57 points  (7 children)

During my senior year of college, I took an Econometrics course with about 50 other students in my class, all of whom were males (despite there being no gender limitations for enrollment).

Our professor spent an entire class debunking the wage gap myth by using a simple statistical analysis. He said the numbers clearly explain that the gap in pay is a direct result of inferior career choice, less schooling, and a lack of career progression (as measured by time) due to women giving birth to children.

He ended the discussion by saying "Look around you. Are there any women here working their asses off to 'fight the wage gap?' No, there aren't. Clearly,'sexism' isn't what's causing the wage gap. Women are the reason why women get paid less."

Everyone laughed their asses off.

[–]readitreddit0 15 points16 points  (1 child)

LMAO I just completed an Econometrics course with a female professor. She would use wage gap as an example of binary regression. She always showed us that predicted female wages are usually lower than men. She never actually proved it to us, though.

[–]Bwhitty23 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Sounds like a scene out of a movie. I'm not saying your lying it's that I would love to have been there.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Forget about stem, business school is another display of this concept. Women take marketing classes. Men? Finance and economics. Guess which pays more

[–]prodigy2throw 58 points59 points  (7 children)

Best response to feminists is staying the fuck away from one.

The second best way to make one feel stupid is to ask her why she doesn't care that the justice system thinks women are the same as children and have no agency and are not as responsible for their crimes than a man would be.

Their brain will literally shut down. You'll be able to see the gears grinding to a halt.

[–]machimus 48 points49 points  (1 child)

Totally agree. Arguing with them is like playing chess with a pigeon, they'll just shit all over the board and strut around like they've won.

[–]prodigy2throw 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Best way to put it. Exactly this

[–]1CowardlyPetrov 27 points28 points  (0 children)

I don't know why people ever say this. I have never seen this. Their hamster keeps running without missing a beat. Gears coming to a halt would imply there was some sort of machine at work. There is not. They're retarded.

[–]KermitTheeFrog777 4 points5 points  (2 children)

I understand this intuitively, but can you drop 1 or 2 easily digestable examples I can use?

[–]prodigy2throw 17 points18 points  (0 children)

I had a debate about feminism on PurplePillDebate a few days ago (honestly I don't recommend going on that sub too often. It gets addictive and is a massive waste of time. You realize soon enough that the BP there are deranged and can't put together simple conclusions).

You can maybe go through my post history or I can post a link to it later tonight. But yeah basically if feminists are about equality they should be actively against lighter sentences for women. But they don't give a shit about that issue. They want all of the good and none of the bad stuff. That's not equality.

[–]Tom_The_Human 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Their brain will literally shut down. You'll be able to see the gears grinding to a halt.

Or, when they go on about white male privilege, start talking about the number of incarcerated blacks who were falsely accused of rape.

[–][deleted] 27 points28 points  (1 child)

Women carry their families in their bellies for 10 months. Men carry their families on their back for a lifetime.

[–]AndrewPresnal 4 points5 points  (6 children)

I pointed this out to one my of my SJW friends and this was her response... "Well that is because society makes it seems like women don't have the opportunity to pursue these higher careers...if you tell people to draw a picture of scientist, 95% of them are going to draw a man"

I can't argue against emotion and not logic. I pointed out that for every 100 men who get a degree, 140 get a degree.. She just got mad and said I was bringing us back 20 years. What should I have said

[–]1independentmale 3 points4 points  (0 children)

if you tell people to draw a picture of scientist, 95% of them are going to draw a man

That's because most scientists are men. Tell her, you want to be a scientist, honey? Go to college, get a degree in a relevant field and go be a scientist. Not only is there nothing stopping her, colleges will throw free money at her - there are countless scholarships available only to women.

Not that this response will help. With women, it's all feels before reals. Whatever she feels becomes her reality and there's not a damn thing you can say, no amount of logic or facts you can use to change her mind. It's incredibly frustrating and is why I can't fucking stand to debate anything of importance with women.

Women like this would rather change the entire social paradigm via shaming, manipulation and control so when people think of scientists, they think of women, regardless of the truth of the matter: Women by and large do not pursue higher education in STEM fields despite ample opportunity to do so. We throw financial incentives at them and give them all sorts of extra help in the field that men don't get and still they aren't interested.

[–][deleted] 3 points3 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]csehszlovakze 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All feminists "live" in the past, as far as arguments go. The moment I point that out they launch an all-out ad hominem. After that I just start linking fallacies and laugh in their faces.

[–]UgUgImDyingYouIdiot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Tell her she's bringing you back 20 years with this childish "fairness" shit.

[–]BigDiggerNick74 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just show her this. Gender disparity in STEM explained: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CD3Kfw8WgAAUBBm.jpg

[–]1independentmale 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Gender discrimination is illegal and has been for decades. Point this out, ask her who is breaking federal law and why hasn't she turned them in to the EEOC?

Ask her, "Is your company paying you less because you're a woman?" If she says yes and can prove it, she has the basis for a very lucrative lawsuit under title 7 of the Civil Rights Act and the Federal Equal Pay Act. In my experience, they can't answer this question because the truth doesn't fit their perceived victim status. Or they'll just "hurrr durrr yeah absolutely" with nothing to back it up.

Either prove your allegations with a successful EEOC action or shut the fuck up. You can't just go around making baseless claims about businesses violating federal law. These are criminal accusations, you better fucking be prepared to back them up with evidence that would stand up in a court of law.

[–]BetterBadIdeas 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Must be nice to make 43% of the money, for only 3% of the risk.

[–]Trail_of_Jeers 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Currently sitting in one if the best restaurants in town. No service, just order and pick up. Its backbreaking cooking work.

No women.

Not that they can't, just that they don't.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

because there's no waitress jobs where they can take credit for a cook's work and get the tips for it.

[–]kempff 2 points3 points  (1 child)

The highest-quality response to 77-cents garbage is in my opinion Milton Friedman's:

TL;DW: Wage equalization takes away women's ability to compete against men in the job market, by eliminating an employer's incentive to preferentially hire women.

Another response that strikes me as useful, but I have not yet tested it in the field, is to ask a 77-center whether she (he) pays her own male and female employees the same. We can assume her response would be that she has no employees of her own. My next move would be to disqualify her opinion - in the fashion of a liberal shutting down a dialogue - and point out that since she does not create jobs, she is no more qualified to have an opinion on how to pay workers, than a man does on whether abortion should be legal, since men do not get pregnant.

This latter style of arguing is based on Douglas Heppner's "Double Blue Pill" strategy that I reviewed in this sub a few months ago. Quoting myself:

In other words, you agree, but for amplification you reinterpret your opponent's objection as an even more egregious offense against some other fatuous obsession he holds dear. What makes this a blue pill move is that you are feigning being a champion of some other silly liberal/SJ/feminist cause that trumps your opponent's cause in its weightiness or exposes a Catch-22 implicit in his overall belief system. [...] But just to stick closer to Heppner's specifics, what Heppner is suggesting is not simply to be prepared with snarky comebacks for the talking-points-du-jour. The subtlety of Heppner's approach lies in pitting together incompatible beliefs in the opponent's worldview - making your opponent look like a self-contradicting idiot, which is indeed a powerful rhetorical strategy.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well blacks make EVEN LESS than women. And they're likely to not be hired even with better credentials! So stop worrying about yourself you white privilege shitlord woman!!

Hehe I tried it!

[–][deleted] 3 points3 points

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 3 points3 points

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 3 points3 points

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (17 children)

Where do you think women aren't equal?

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (15 children)

Oh that was about you personally. I was asking about why you are a feminist, like how are women not equal? You know if you really want a nice guy there's millions and they won't get scared off by any amount of gushing. It would seem you gravitate towards the abuse.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (13 children)

Your dad was a good person and great father, you're just being sexist and you can't give credit to a man.

Yes you want what you can't have, I think we're all like that. And I don't think that's the real reason you don't like nice guys.


[–][deleted] 1 points1 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]Code_Bordeauxx 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Allright, it's hardly a relevant post, adresses a very small issue, and could have been somewhat shortenend.... But I like it. Could see this work. Have an upvote.

[–]rich_ripped_redneck 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Yup. Whenever this comes up, I ask "So why don't companies only hire women if they can pay them less?" and that blows their small minds.

[–]Code_Bordeauxx 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Because deep rooted sexism that's why! /s

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

All throughout school us men knew we would have to be heads of the house one day. Even if I end up marrying a woman who works, I will still need to make more than her or else I will be emasculated.

Girls don't have to worry about being head of the house. Girls know exactly the opposite, that their husband will always make more than them. So of course women take less lucrative majors, work less hard, and are less ambitious.

After years of schooling amplifying this small difference in work ethic, the woman gets married and has a child. If she, by chance, still decides to work, all of her friends and hormones will constantly nag her to quit her work and stay home with the kid. She will be distracted raising the child. Her work ethic will never be the same. A man? He is only more motivated to work knowing that he has another mouth to feed.

I work at an accounting firm. Some of the best workers are women, some of which have kids. But many more men than women are employed, and this is why.

[–]Blaphtome 1 point2 points  (0 children)

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Another component: a males status and therefore his sexual desirability hinges so much on career that it drives many, if not most, men to take those jobs. Being a speech therapist, a career volunteer, a secretary, etc is nice and all but you will have a greater difficulty of winning over a partner or having peers respect you. Men simply don't have the option to chase their passion projects without facing severe repercussions

There is no glass ceiling for women. They have every opportunity men have at their fingertips, if not more. The only reason they haven't yet succeeded is simple: they don't have to

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is the best argument in in my opinion, as follows:

Purpose of a company or corporation is to make profit through the least amount of effort. So if women offer to work for a lower pay than men, as they claim to, then why aren't the majority of workers in every industry women? Why are companies standing to pay their hard earned profits to men through higher salary? Why would any such company forgo this wonderful way to make profit off of cheap labor and hire only women? Either because they are:

A. unjustly Prejudiced

B. Finding legitimate proof that men work better than women in said industries/ Justly prejudiced

If the employers are truly unjustly prejudice, they are really just shooting themselves in the knee/ going to be driven out of business. Given that the prejudice is unjust and not based on solid proof, women would be of the same quality workers as men. Women would not want to work for lower wages when other employers would recognize their work value and pay them the same as their male counterparts. Less workers means less total profits due to less total production, so the employers who are being prejudiced on no proof would lose a lot of profit and be outmatched by the companies that the women go to. They would have no choice but to stop being prejudiced on no basis.

Either way, there would be no point in calling a change for the supposed wage gap because of "prejudice" as it would take care of itself in Scenario A, or would not be the underlying issue, as in Scenario B

Now if scenario B is true, then other companies would also not hire women for the same salary as men given that men do a better job. Calling a change to the wage gap would be pointless without calling for women to become more proficient in skills required in the industry, in this case. Prejudice wouldn't be the underlying issue, it would rather be that women are incompetent at the job.

[–]1761 1 point2 points  (0 children)

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I'm probably get downvoted to the outerworld here, but I don't think it's fair that kindergarten educators and teachers (jobs mostly occupied by women, and they are very good at it) are paid just above minimum wage. These jobs are probably some of the most important for a civilized society because they forge the youth of tomorrow.

[–]Alabastercrab 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The teachers I know make six figures. A second grade teacher....yeah.....six figures....at a public school

[–]IceCreamnCakenCake 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Tell her that white women make more than black and Latino men. That should shut them up. Honestly this argument makes me so angry.

[–]Falc0n7 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Plus the average women has to postpone her career for several years to raise children.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Proper response:

"Oh really? That's interesting..."

Go about your day, and don't acknowledge that person again.

[–]aa223 2 points3 points  (7 children)

Or you can simply say if there was such a massive wage gap then how come companies don't hire more women? Watch them hamster faster.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]aa223 0 points1 point  (5 children)

There are child laborers as well and they are cheaper. Yes it is illegal and unethical but something to think about and it makes the whole cheap labor and for profit labor hit home.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]aa223 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Well you call it scum I call it being choked by US regulation. Otherwise, if the US was a entrepreneur's dream then more businesses would be here instead of overseas.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]aa223 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Yeah there is that and I support regulation but only if people want it. Obviously, I like my clean air and my companies to be clean and sanitary but overegulations and arbitary laws are not the way to do it.

And yeah China can live on $5 a day due to all these laws but at least they are doing something about the enviornment by shaming people who litter by getting their DNA and posting it on public. You know what the world is fucked five ways to Sunday.

[–]StrikePrice 1 point2 points  (4 children)

It's a good post, but I really don't understand it. Help me.

  1. I'm talking to a woman I want to fuck. Response: "Your dumb shit is boring me, let's talk about how wet you are for me right now."

  2. I'm talking to a woman I don't want to fuck: "Go away with your stupid shit. I'm going to fuck this hot chick over here."

  3. I'm taking to a male feminist. Wait this never happens.

What is the point of engaging in this argument? Anyone who argues that stupid shit cannot be reasoned with anyway, so there is no point in even having the discussion. I'm not trying to shut down rational debate, but that side does not do rational as we all know.

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]StrikePrice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Now this is interesting! I must think on this. :)

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey man I think a good point to add to your argument is that most of this equality bull shit is because both men and women are struggling but the fems only worry about themselves. We just went through a terrible recession and our markets are still shit. Instead of being called a piece of shit and not being able to provide for themselves they make up a statistical lie to protect their sense of well being, the system is broken but only for them mentality. Of course when women can't make money this idea will gain traction, I ntead of taking on the rich and actually seeing social and economic gains, they just want to stack the deck ever more in their favor. They want to be dominate in relationships but cant lead, want to be desired but can't stop eatting/work out, and they want more money from a market that doesn't have it. Let alone the fact that if there is a wage gap it is from higher executive postions which the general public could give a damn about anyways. Ah she only made 200,000 because she's a women, she is oppressed /s

[–]RPaccount1000 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I immediately consider anybody who makes the 77 cents argument a complete moron and basically next them from my life. In my opinion, life is too short to be around such retards.

[–]chinawinsworlds 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Holy shit, this seems like what a sociopath would say. I love it!

[–]cazzah123 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Ari Shaffir did a great bit on his podcast about why its bullshit.

He said that the stats come from taking the average salaries of different professions. The problem is that most woman will end up quitting or lowering their hours to get pregnant and become a house wife.

So a male and a female actually earn the same amount but the woman will drop out while the guy stays employed and keeps getting those pay raises.

You cant make an accurate stat about average pay when the data pool consists of a female that worked the job for 5 years and a guy that worked the job for 15.

[–]DaREALCount_Spatula 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very true. I always ask them if women are making .77 to every 1.00 a man makes then why the hell aren't there way more women then men in the workforce? If I was in HR I'd be laying off dudes left and right just to cut payroll by 23%.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Do you guys actually come across these types of people in real life?? Seriously, I see this stuff on reddit, but I've never personally known a woman complain about the wage gap..

[–]unsafeword 1 points1 points [recovered]

Do you guys actually come across these types of people in real life?

Oh god, yes. That and the attempts to put $96k/year on the value of the work done by a stay-at-home wife. People with these views are very real. Any workplace or social circle with a concentration of recent graduate school students or modern humanities students is awash in people pushing these views.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wonder if it's a regional thing.. I live in the Midwest, what the liberal TV calls redneck.. Maybe our beliefs are why the media are always attacking us in the conservative states

[–]TurgidMeatWand 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's dependent on where you live mostly, and how much time the women around you spend on tumblr.

I've only got I into the 20% pay gap conversation once quickly debunked it, and she turned into about how if it was true she'd be upset. I honestly think a lot of these sjw types just like being angry and righteous.

[–]SuperRuub 0 points1 point  (0 children)

as a student who hopes for a nice interesting well paying desk job I can definitely not make this argument

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

There is no such thing as good feminists. Its all rigged to destroy man.

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Trust humanist, never trust feminist.

[–]csehszlovakze 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you haven't read this gem about feminists (trp archive link) do it ASAP.

[–]apackofwankers 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Dont forget the other statistic, women spend twice as much as they earn.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't even bother typing anymore. Anyone who still repeats that nonsense isn't worth the effort. I just copy paste this:

In every serious study, the wage gap between the entire male and female genders has been shown to not be systemic discrimination, but down to different choices and preferences. The wage gap comparison fails to take into account critical factors like education, career, specialized fields, parttime/fulltime, maternity leave, hours worked, asking for raises, etc. When a man and a woman make the exact same choices, the wage gap disappears. In fact, recent studies in the UK showed that women under 30 actually make more than men for the exact same work. And yet the claim is maintained by some as a desperate attempt to prove men are oppressive and the system is rigged against women.

Women aren't paid less for the same work. As an average women are paid less than men, but that's a meaningless comparison unless you account for all contributing factors. Otherwise it's as useless as taking an average of the entire populations income and saying that average is what each person makes, ignoring the different classes ánd the massive difference between the 1% and the rest of us.

Women also control over 60% of the wealth in the US, and control over 80% of household budgets. And for women, things like insurance, club entrance, gym membership etc are much cheaper than they are for men. And men are also still expected to pay for dinner & drinks, even when women earn more than they do.

[–]DaphneDK 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Scott Adams on the pay thingy: My Verdict on Gender Bias in the Workplace

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the right response is either "yeah you should do something about that"


"I don't care" said like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAp-T8Gklw0

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Lower paying professions typically require less education, are less demanding, and are less stressful than the professions that pay more

Last time I checked, being a cop/firefighter/marine isn't a lot of pay. But its more demanding/ more stressful/ more hazardous than being an engineer or office monkey. I don't understand your argument here.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

women typically don't bother, instead choosing to take lower paying, less stressful jobs that don't require a lot of effort (or education/skill) to get.

Which explains why there are more men in higher ranking positions in companies than there are females. Those that have gotten there are due to affirmative action for the most part.

But it does not explain how many men are still doing labor oriented jobs, such as construction. Are they not choosing to take lower paying, less stressful jobs that don't require a lot of effort (or education/skill) to get? Can you help me with that part? (I'm playing devil's advocate)

[–]Dr_Wally 0 points1 point  (1 child)

you left out a very important bit of information. the statistic you are referring to uses all jobs on all levels across all markets that all females and males have. It compares 'apples to oranges'. When you actually compare a male and female with similar experience, education, age, knowledge and skills in the same job women make 1:1 to men. Ask them, next time, if they got their facts from the silly telly or if they actually looked it up. 99.99% of the time this 'fact' was told to them.

[–]SILENTSAM69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What you are paid is not the same as what you earn. Those who work more earn more at equal pay.

[–]Nezzajj 0 points1 point  (1 child)

New to RP, what are yours guys take on the glass ceiling effect?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

see the response below you by bulldoozer.

[–]BlaiseDB 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I used to teach grade 12 economics and there was always a chapter on "wage determinants". I trotted out the 77 cents on the dollar statistic (which is correct on its own grounds) and asked the students if they thought it was "fair". Of course they said no. Then I walked them through every one of the wage determinant and they had to agree that, in almost every case, men did more to boost their wages than women did.

The only area where it gets murky is with the level of education. The problem is that women tend towards bird courses so a man's 4 year bachelor degree is not the same as a woman's. At higher levels, women choose less intensive work. Among doctors, women will choose to family medicine over emergency medicine (they will still earn six figures, but that means $150k a year rather than $350k). Female lawyers burn out earlier and move into government, non-profits, corporate counsel or other 9-5 jobs that limit their earning potential.

[–]Johndoesmith67 0 points1 point  (0 children)

mo money mo problems....

guess you have less issues, ma'am

[–]snakehayter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This couldnt be more true. My buddy hooked me up with a job he used to work for two years before he got promoted, and the woman who trained me said shes never worked overtime, and refused promotion offers because the workload was too much, shes also been working that job for 22 years, the same job my friend only had for 2.

[–]koji8123 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not to mention. I'd wage gap were true, and a man and woman with same experience/education/hours worked/level of dedication/ work ethic etc were to walk in asking for employment and one claims they'll take 77 cents to every dollar the other makes.

who would you hire? No brainier. The one you can get away with paying less for.

[–]mikesteane 0 points1 point  (1 child)

If I was immortal and had time to talk to such people, I would suggest that retirement age be made proportional to the life expectancy of each sex. That way women can make a fair contribution to their own retirement, not retire with too little to live on and close the wage gap all at the same time.

[–]frankgold 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I simply ask them what is stopping them to build their own business with female only employees, save %23, and crush the competition... :P

[–]Dravous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I really like this approach. the biggest obstacle you deal with with these types of types of people is making your point before they shutoff. this forces them to consider an explanation for the gap, before they realize that's what's happening.

[–]yelnats25 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If a woman says this, all you have to ask them is: "If women get paid 77 cents to the man's dollar, why don't corporations hire strictly women as CEOs?"

load more comments (29 replies)