477
478
479

Men's RightsBBC reports David Cameron is ready to "tackle gender pay gap" by "pressuring firms into boosting women's wages". Public comment section absolutely rejects gender gap as myth. (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by [deleted]

I thought I'd share something I found interesting today to serve as a reminder that, despite what feminists will tell you, women don't have it so bad and sometimes men out and out get a raw deal. The BBC has run an article detailing David Cameron's (British Prime Minister) intention to "tackle the gender pay gap". He intends to "pressure" firms into boosting women's wages.

Depressing stuff, huh? If you've done your reading you will know that the gender pay gap is a myth and that studies repeatedly confirm that women absolutely, 100% get paid the same wages for the same job when performing at the same ability. You'll also know that this mean's that, should it pass, Cameron's proposal could potentially turn the tide well in favour of women in the workforce by essentially forcing companies to pay women more for them doing the same job or forcing companies to pay a lesser performing woman the same as a man who works his backside off.

But there is hope. The comment section of the general public absolutely rejects the gender pay gap. Normal, every day people simply are not taking this lying down; the general public know it is a lie and are starting to have the guts to speak out against it. Mr Joe Public are starting to see the feminist agenda as out of control and are actively calling out initiatives that add bloated support to a group of people based solely on the genitals they were born with.

What should we take from this?

  1. A developed western country wants to force firms into paying people more money if they are female. This is a cold, hard reminder that if you're a man no-one will go out of their way to do you favours. If you're a woman and want to succeed people will bend over backwards to help you. If you're a man? You're on your own.

  2. The common man isn't so easily spoon fed nonsense. People are waking up.


[–]evileddy 168 points169 points  (52 children)

What about all the sexism in coal mines? We should force more women into that career.

[–]kanji_sasahara 144 points145 points  (38 children)

Don't forget construction, installation/maintenance/repair, production, transportation/material moving, architecture, engineering, or actually anything that requires making/moving things in the US.

Men. Getting shit done.

[–]LuvBeer 87 points88 points  (22 children)

Sanitation workers, undertakers, exterminators, oil rig crew, deep sea fisherman, skyscraper window washers, animal control, sewer maintenance...all these jobs would certainly benefit from equal representation as well.

[–]solbrothers 48 points49 points  (21 children)

I cant wait for a 4'10", 93lb womyn to have to carry me down a ladder from a burning building.

[–][deleted]  (8 children)

[deleted]

    [–]QQ_L2P 22 points23 points  (2 children)

    I remember having a "conversation" somewhere on Reddit about this. They said that technology like exosuits overrides the arguments about females limited physical capacity in the military.

    So I asked them would they spend £10,000 patching up an old car when you could just buy a new one for £5,000.

    They asked me if I was stupid.

    To which I asked, why would someone spend billions of dollars making exoskeletons that could fail in a combat zone when you could just send a dude in and achieve the same thing at a far cheaper cost.

    Yeah, apparently that makes me sexist. OK then.

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

    It's only sexist because you're treating men and women differently. But whaddya know? Men and women are different!

    [–][deleted] 24 points25 points  (4 children)

    Here in Toronto there has been a fire alarm in my building. When the fire department came a huge guy (2 meters tall) came out, followed by the most ripped guy I've ever seen and....a small, 160cm, fat woman that could barely hold her equipment.

    Thankfully it was a false alarm. When they got out of the building, guess what? The woman was bitching aloud about having to move her ass because of "incompetent people who can't even know if there is a fire or not".

    [–]solbrothers 6 points7 points  (3 children)

    Surprised the guys didnt carry her out.

    [–]xBlackLogic 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    That probably happens if she has to use the equipment.

    [–]Destroyer_Wes 9 points10 points  (3 children)

    Aren't you legally handicap at 4'10?

    [–]solbrothers 18 points19 points  (1 child)

    That triggers me. Really though, i think you are right.

    [–]TRP VanguardHumanSockPuppet 34 points35 points  (0 children)

    It doesn't matter if he's right. Your feelings were hurt.

    Accuse him of raping you.

    [–]OwlsExterminator 2 points3 points  (1 child)

    I saw firsthand two women rescue workers show up and miserably fail. Two men had to show up and rescue the sick woman and slap some sense into the two female "rescue" workers who stood around with radios.

    Story: A woman passed out from heat exhaustion/vomiting/etc. in the forest. Two female rescue workers show up with a wheeled stretcher. Looked like a giant wheelbarrow. They couldn't move the stretcher an inch with this seemingly 100lb woman on it. Mind you this was a horse trail and not very rocky whatsoever. Woman got off and lay there on the ground for ~4 more hours until 2 paramedic men showed up and carried her back to civilization.

    [–]trollmang 20 points21 points  (12 children)

    It's already happening in engineering, at least here in aus. Companies have blatantly been "asked" by the government/council in their area to consider women in engineering when job (particularly internship/cadetship) hiring. I can go into detail on the problems I have witnessed first hand from this shit but that would end up field report length

    [–]newls 33 points34 points  (8 children)

    I don't know why people think that company directors sit in their offices cynically plotting ways to stop women from being hired.

    If more women applied for those jobs, I'm sure more would get hired.

    If the women applying were of higher quality than all the men who applied, I'm sure more would get hired.

    There's way too much of this bullshit about 'welcoming women into tech'. FUCK OFF. Bosses will hire the best people who apply, period.

    If a woman keeps getting rejected, she should realise that the only person at fault is herself, and that she clearly needs to take responsibility for improving her CV.

    When people learn to code, there's no pop-up on a website telling them they can only continue if they're a man. Learning to code is completely and utterly free and democratic.

    There is absolutely no barrier whatsoever to women entering tech. None whatsoever.

    [–]kinklianekoff 12 points13 points  (1 child)

    Quite the opposite, women mostly receive positive discrimination in tech and engineering whether it is mandated or not.

    In some masculine fields sometimes men forget to treat women as women when they start working there. This will often lead to a complete emotional breakdown. They simply can't handle being shit tested like a man, while most men are more accustomed to handling shit tests coming from men.

    Women surviving such environments deserve respect though, As they dip slightly into masculinity and come out competent and productive(probably with a lessened value for LTR though).

    The only barrier to entry for women is when they are treated like men.

    [–]newls 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    In some masculine fields sometimes men forget to treat women as women when they start working there. This will often lead to a complete emotional breakdown.

    When you're used to preferential treatment, equality feels like discrimination.

    [–]jcrpta 7 points8 points  (1 child)

    Not to mention, it doesn't even stand up to the slightest bit of intellectual scrutiny.

    Picture the scene: Hiring manager, budgets are tight this year, a man and a woman apply. Both are equally qualified and would be a good fit with the team. But I can get away with paying the woman less. Who do I hire?

    [–]drallcom3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Isn't the man just overqualified then? It's quite common to reject overqualified candidates because of costs.

    [–]kanji_sasahara 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Totally agree with you. I mean 82% of of all engineering and CS majors are men. The hiring demos will reflect that.

    [–]Stand_Your_Ground_ 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    If this bill passes and equal pay becomes women getting payed 10 to 20% more for no reason, you can guarantee businesses will be looking at ways to NOT hire women due to the extra expense.

    [–]newls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Big public companies will do these ridiculous PR schemes because they can afford it, but small businesses don't have the time nor the money for inferior candidates, especially if they're artificially priced higher.

    [–]kanji_sasahara 20 points21 points  (1 child)

    Currently happening in computer science. Have a couple of friends who are devs and the managers had to do "Lean in Training". Spending more time training female devs over male devs due to "emotional differences" or some shit.

    [–]Kashmon777 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    what mangina company is this?

    men are fucked...

    [–]1aguy01 12 points13 points  (0 children)

    All these 'independent women' have never depended more on men than they do now. Women today would literally commit suicide if they didn't have the cars, clothes, buildings, food, starbucks, netflix, and internet that men provide for them.

    [–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 33 points34 points  (11 children)

    And prisons. Clearly female crimes are under-represented in the prison population. Women are the equal to men, so female crimes must be going unpunished.

    Oh wait.... this is no longer ironic :

    [–]evileddy 18 points19 points  (10 children)

    Look at all the pink collar jobs dominated by women!

    http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/54e376936bb3f70d36c66d19-2557-1789/9-out-of-10-registered-nurses-are-female-1424184635.39-1844336.png

    This is an outrage! We need to fund more men into these fields, immediately!!!

    [–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 7 points8 points  (0 children)

    We need to fund more men into these fields, immediately!!!

    And to balance things out for the future, men need to be given these jobs regardless of merit! Because pat... matriarchy!

    [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

    Christ that's a lot of synonyms for "secretary."

    [–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 6 points7 points  (3 children)

    How long ago was that graph made because honestly... I have seen a huge number of men going into nursing as RN's and such. I play video games with some online friends once and a while and like 2-3 of them were RN's and one was in school for it.

    Men go where the money is... whether it's drilling for oil, digging for gold, shovelling shit or flipping 500 pound patients over so they don't develop bed sores.

    [–]CharlieIndiaShitlord 2 points3 points  (1 child)

    Men don't tend to last as RN's from what I've read. The nursing colleges I've been exposed to have had nearly 80-90% female students.

    [–]1003rp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Most male RNs don't last long because they make their way into management positions. Look at nursing managers and there are tons of men in them because men shoot up quickly into management when they go into nursing.

    [–]xBlackLogic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    My s.o. is a nurse, and it is at least 90% or higher. There was one male taking the course when she was in school, and I know of none that have worked at either of her last two locations.

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

    what would happen to a man that gets a HR manager job? I recently got the PHR cert and I plan on using it when I get my MBA to secure a cushy 830-4 Job. Thats a real HR shift, others get half Fridays, or every other friday off- source job postings and my SIL that has a PHR.

    [–]reigorius 3 points4 points  (1 child)

    As an European I have no idea what you just wrote.

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

    PHR-professional in human resources. One of the two most important HOUR certs and the one that appears in most job posting. Usually clerks work for a phr.

    MBA Masters in business. An advanced university degree. associates is a two year, bachelor is four. Masters can range from a 1 year cert program or a 3-4 year period with an internship. Masters are predicated on having a Bachelors

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

    I work in a warehouse for a major auto parts retail company. Our HR manager (actually, the only HR person) is a man. It's a salaried position, so lots of paperwork and reminding people to keep up on their training videos, but I have also seen him by the conveyor, packing parts into totes, after office hours.

    [–]8n0n 14 points15 points  (0 children)

    What about all the sexism in coal mines?

    Ditto gold mines.

    Not that I wouldn't mind women being literally gold diggers, I'd be quite happy to play the foreman's position as I know some good ground worth digging for the 'traditional' currency.

    [–]Di-onysos 94 points95 points  (3 children)

    Noo, he's ruining my secret of running a massively profitable company: since women earn less than men for the same work, I just hired 100% female workforce and cornered the market by providing the same service cheaper than anyone else, since no one figured this out before.

    Why everyone is not doing this..I wonder?

    [–]randomuserwot 43 points44 points  (1 child)

    They did ... it ended up being unprofitable. Catfights everywhere. Edit: And surprise surprise, they weren't paid less than their male counterparts, despite being catfighting, unproductive schlobs.

    [–]FinallyRed 34 points35 points  (0 children)

    This has me thinking that even if the wage gap were real, it would probably be deserved. Men are what make institutions productive and innovative. Women come along for the ride preferably under male supervision.

    [–]2Sepean 155 points156 points  (51 children)

    Cameron's proposal could potentially turn the tide well in favour of women in the workforce by essentially forcing companies to pay women more for them doing the same job or forcing companies to pay a lesser performing woman the same as a man who works his backside off.

    This is not what will happen. All experience show that when you make a group of people more expensive to hire than what they're worth, companies will stop hiring them.

    So what will happen is that the unemployment rate for women will increase until the only women employed are those whose qualifications, work ethic, work/life balance, etc. are such that they are on average worth the same as the average male employee.

    I'm also sure that Cameron (or at least his advisors) are smart enough to realize this. I'll bet you money that this is just a PR stunt to appeal to female voters and the legislation will only be symbolic.

    [–][deleted] 83 points84 points  (39 children)

    You think it'll stop there? Next up feminists will push for 'equal representation' in the workforce. There are no brakes on this faux equality train. Everything can be spun to appeal to female voters, who are the majority in the western world.

    http://www.euractiv.com/sections/innovation-enterprise/new-swedish-government-mulls-quotas-women-company-boards-308834

    A new Swedish government could introduce quotas to bring more women onto company boards if businesses don't act themselves during the next two years, a spokesman for the Green Party said on Wednesday (1 October).

    "We are sending a clear signal to the big companies that if by 2016 they don't have at least 40% of women on their boards, then we going to try and get a law passed in parliament," Green Party spokesman Gustav Fridolin said.

    In 2003, Norway became the first country in the world to impose a gender quota requiring at least 40% of public limited company board members to be women.

    Other countries, including France, the Netherlands and Spain, have followed with similar requirements.

    Even if you aren't capable, feminists will help you achieve your dream. Be it executive positions or firefighters.

    http://nypost.com/2015/05/03/woman-to-become-ny-firefighter-despite-failing-crucial-fitness-test/

    [–]Darkwoodz 62 points63 points  (20 children)

    One of my best friends just became a firefighter. He told me how there were 2 women in his class and they didn't meet any of the requirements and they still passed. He tells me he is legitimately concerned for the safety of himself and other firefighters. In his words "they are going to get someone killed"

    [–]1independentmale 33 points34 points  (2 children)

    I work with a guy who does firefighting on the weekends. He has bitched for years about the same thing. His team has a 110lb woman on it who failed all of the physical tests yet still passed. He's treated like a misogynist asshole because he stood up and said hell no he wouldn't go into a burning building with her ever, period.

    "What happens if I get hurt? One of the requirements to pass certification is you have to be able to drag your partner out if he gets hurt or loses consciousness. I'm 220lbs of muscle, she can't drag me an inch. She failed that portion of the test yet they let her in anyway. Fuck that I ain't dying so this bitch can play fireman."

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

      [–]TRP VanguardHumanSockPuppet 10 points11 points  (7 children)

      It's almost like a faulty light at a cross street. Everyone knows it poses a danger. Everyone knows that it's going to get someone hurt or killed. But UNTIL someone gets hurt or killed (and the incident can be undeniably linked to the faulty traffic light), no one will lift a finger.

      [–]USmellFunny 24 points25 points  (6 children)

      Not even when someone will get hurt. There was a video on the frontpage of reddit a few days ago, a police shooting. A male and a female police officer start questioning a suspect, the suspect pulls out a gun. The female officer starts screaming "gun gun gun" and panics, the male officers immediately takes action and shoots the suspect. When I pointed that out, people made a great job at finding every possible excuse for her lack of reaction and her panicking instead of reacting.

      So no, when someone will die because of a woman doing a man's job, it won't be acknowledged as such.

      [–]rpscrote 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      So no, when someone will die because of a woman doing a man's job, it won't be acknowledged as such.

      Too true. Just more empty rationalization follows

      [–]TRP VanguardHumanSockPuppet 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      Well, there was a second stoplight at that intersection.

      The accountability of males over females is never in question.

      [–]ghosttrainhobo 0 points1 point  (2 children)

      Shouting "gun, gun, gun" when someone pulls a gun is exactly what a police officer is supposed to do.

      [–]QQ_L2P 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      Yes, which should immediately be followed by pulling your own firearm and shooting the threat, not panicking and essentially leaving your partner high and dry if he decides to switch targets while you're kissing dirt.

      [–]ghosttrainhobo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I watched that video. She didn't hit the dirt. She shot him after calling out the gun. It happened real fast. Too fast some would say - it was a fake gun - suicide by cop.

      [–][deleted]  (8 children)

      [deleted]

        [–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (1 child)

        Firefighting is one of those jobs that is 99% boredom and 1% terror. You spend most of your day doing maintenance and testing on the equipment, and occasionally head out to a false alarm or as a precaution to all sorts of accidents and 911 calls.

        This is for your average department anyways, obviously FDNY or any other major city will have more serious rescues and fires than your typical small city or suburb.

        [–]Darkwoodz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        He is FDNY, and asked to get assigned to one of the busiest areas. I guess they put the women in less dangerous places.

        [–]1Mikesapien 10 points11 points  (0 children)

        It is true that the vast majority of the job will not involve carrying people out of a burning building over your shoulders. However, every Firefighter in every Fire Department should be able to do so at all times. That's why we have fire departments!

        Hiring Firefighters who can't actually do the job is like keeping a box of condoms knowing that one is already broken - yes, it probably won't make a difference, but that one time it does make a difference, you're totally fucked.

        [–]laughkisskill 4 points5 points  (0 children)

        Same it's always been. 92 out of 100 work death coffins hold men. Equality exists when it's 50/50, or at least equal to the gender percentage of the population.

        No one in their right mind wants absolute equality. Equal Opportunity is already here. I wish they'd just go away.

        [–]Darkwoodz 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        He told me they couldn't do the hose correctly either b/c the weren't strong enough to hold it in place

        [–]_orion 7 points8 points  (0 children)

        Yea but have U ever let a female drive you? Just imagine I. A firetruck. No thank you sir.

        [–]hithisismark 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        But don't forget, they would want to be paid the same. Hmm.

        [–]fittitthroway 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        You want a woman driving a massive, fast firetruck?

        [–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 25 points26 points  (8 children)

        This is happening in the UK too - big push for women to have 25% of the board of big companies.

        No push to make women talented or responsible enough to be there of their own accord.

        Responsibility is pushed onto companies/men and taken right off women, so they can get success without having to compete or take risks for it.

        [–][deleted] 22 points23 points  (1 child)

        No the push is to get women into male dominated fields because they're already super talented special snowflakes, it's just silly men making them uncomfortable by physical and mental groping.

        [–]2Sepean 37 points38 points  (2 children)

        On the board quotas in Norway, what has happened is that instead of the regular setup with CEOs having board positions on the side, the top female executives in the country dropped their management positions and become full time board members at exorbitant wages. All the female board positions are spread out on a small number of women doing nothing but board work. They're nicknamed "the gold skirts".

        That had practically no effect on the economy.

        If you implement an equal representation and equal pay law across the entire work force, that's a different story. You're tanking the national economy's competitiveness completely. That is never going to happen. The politicians do have smart economic advisors and they will describe exactly what will happen - at which point even the most feminist politician will get scared to get exposed on exactly how much BS the feminist agenda really is and instead dream up some symbolic feel-good legislation.

        [–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn 41 points42 points  (1 child)

        That had practically no effect on the economy.

        Actually, it did. The private companies (which were exempt from the law) outperformed the public companies (beholden to the law) by a significant margin.

        A study released in 2009 demonstrated this.

        So what does that mean? It means the countries which have passed similar laws since 2009 are trading short term gains (reelections and votes) for long term losses (their country's economic futures).

        How? Because women's suffrage is the death of a nation.

        [–]rpscrote 6 points7 points  (0 children)

        Wow, and there it is in black and white. Affirmative Action directly causes decreased company health and competitiveness. Maybe now the logical but still BP can be convinced since theres data which proves the obvious.

        [–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 4 points5 points  (5 children)

        No they've already been pushing for gender quotas and for 'pussy' to be a protected class so they get preferential treatment in hiring decisions.

        Honestly though if they made it so companies had to pay women 20% more... Companies would just hire men.

        [–]Endorsed Contributorbicepsblastingstud 14 points15 points  (4 children)

        Honestly though if they made it so companies had to pay women 20% more... Companies would just hire men.

        What frightens me is that the natural next step is to mandate a certain percentage of women in the workforce, à la Norway.

        [–]1aguy01 8 points9 points  (2 children)

        I hope they do this. Force women into coal mines and onto roofs. I'm all for this equality.

        Jokes aside, only the glamorous positions like CEO will see this bullshit. At least people are waking up to the BLATANT corruption.

        [–]drallcom3 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        I can already hear the Chinese laughing.

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

        Wouldn't be surprised... I mean I'm guessing something like 75% of all low paying jobs are given to women... unless they involve a lot of heavy lifting or brainpower.

        [–]thefisherman1961 22 points23 points  (2 children)

        Exactly. You fuck with the free market, the free market fucks you back. Left-wing feminists think that they can override both the free market and male biological drives with government violence and shaming tactics, because they are control freaks. It doesn't work, it never has, and never will.

        [–]1Mikesapien 8 points9 points  (0 children)

        That's the statist mentality - "Something is wrong! Let's enact a law!"

        It doesn't matter what the perceived problem is - income disparity, "under-representation," you name it, the go-to fix is government.

        I believe there's an old adage that applies, something about, "If the only tool you have is a hammer..."

        [–]interestedplayer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Atlas shrugged has never been more relevant. if they push too far, their system will collapse around them.

        [–]trumpi 10 points11 points  (1 child)

        This is so true. I've worked for two employers who have admitted that they won't hire women because there are costs involved for the business that simply do not exist if a man was hired. One example explicitly mentioned is maternity leave.

        [–]2Sepean 6 points7 points  (0 children)

        I did the hiring in my business some years back. Women who were aged 27-40 and with less than two kids, I'd add 20% to their asking salary for comparing them with an equally skilled man or woman who wasn't likely to get pregnant. Pregnancy, maternity leave, sick kids, etc., of course that's a huge cost for the company that relies on her work; and there's only person to bear that cost, and that's her. I'm not going to make obviously bad hiring decisions by pretending women don't get pregnant.

        It was unfair to those who didn't want or couldn't get kids, and in an ideal world it would be legal to deal with the cost of pregnancy in the job contract. But the politicians don't like that, so the childless women are made to bear the cost too.

        [–][deleted]  (1 child)

        [deleted]

          [–]Heizenbrg 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          this reads straight from my labor Economics course. just like minimum wage, imposing such a government policy that does not favor the firm will have negative effects on employment.

          [–]NakedAndBehindYou 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          All experience show that when you make a group of people more expensive to hire than what they're worth, companies will stop hiring them. Whilst this is true, the government will also simply force the companies to hire more women.

          This will lead to exactly what happens in the US already: companies hire women to perform worthless tasks just to fill up their gender quota, whilst they hire men to do the actual work.

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

          Milton Friedman busted this up years ago:

          If you're a firm paying a higher wage for average output (feminism) - you're going to go out of business. Outside of coercion, the wage you pay will settle on the market value.

          If you're a firm paying lower wage for average output (sexism) - no average worker will work for you. Unless you're in a cartel situation, the wage you pay will settle on market value.

          All libertarian philosophy tends to be more of a guiding theory than a nuts-and-bolts practicality, as it often doesn't have to endure too many real life tests. But - Milton's point was that if you engaged in racist hiring practices (choosing not to hire someone less qualified, because they're white), the free market would put you under.

          [–][deleted] 62 points63 points  (13 children)

          My favorite was where this woman ran a tv production business and hired only women. Went broke in record time due to the infighting among the women.

          [–]sirjuicybooty 18 points19 points  (3 children)

          How is that not workplace discrimination?

          [–][deleted] 25 points26 points  (0 children)

          Cause women are doing it, therefore it can't be sexist, the same way blacks can't be racist against whites.

          [–]jcrpta 4 points5 points  (0 children)

          Can you honestly see a man jumping to the conclusion that his application's been rejected because he's a man and suing them? Or a female recruitment agent refusing to take on the assignment to find only women?

          [–]goddafindbettername 13 points14 points  (5 children)

          [–]randomuserwot 2 points3 points  (1 child)

          That's what my comment was about, didn't see yours. Really funny stuff, that one.

          [–]DaphneDK 23 points24 points  (2 children)

          In the UK, women under 35 earn more than men under 35

          btw. I found this gem of a Guardian headline : Young women are now earning more than men – that's not sexist, just fair. Not going to read the article, just found the headline fun.

          [–]newls 14 points15 points  (0 children)

          That Grauniad article basically boils down to "Many young girls earn more than young guys but that's OK because a lot of other men earn more than some women."

          And people wonder why the Grauniad has such a poor reputation as a windy Marxist rag.

          [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

          I'm fairly sure this is now the case in most western countries. I also believe it's a primary factor in the existence of this sub or at least the mentality of many people who would subscribe to the concepts discussed here.

          What happens when you have a significant amount of women making more money than men is their natural tendency to date up pretty much resigns them to the 35+ age demographic. Of course, this same demographic is rarely seeking a career women for a partner or is already in a committed relationship. Men that age who don't already have children probably prefer to have them ASAP, and that's not something most career oriented young women can afford to provide.

          If those happiness surveys are to be believed I think this is a significant factor in why women have supposedly become less happy over the last thirty years while men have stayed more or less the same.

          Female solipsism causes young career women to assume that having a solid career makes them more attractive (as it's something they would find attractive in men) when in reality it's neutral at best, and perhaps seen as a negative to a fair amount of men. Just as women seek to marry up, it appears many men prefer to provide, or would at least be uncomfortable with dating someone who made significantly more than them.

          I'm no sociologist but I always thought the infamous dating situation in Japan had as much to do with the growth of 'salarywoman' as it did with permavirgin male shut ins.

          [–]Rathadin 22 points23 points  (0 children)

          This right here is a pretty impressive comment... the tide is truly turning against feminism.

          My 15 year old daughter recently had various high flying women at her school to encourage the girls to think ambitiously. She was disgusted to learn that the thing they most enjoyed about their jobs was "getting to boss the men around for a change" My daughter said that this was a very out-dated faux feminist view and any woman with this view was "sexist" She'll go far.

          [–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 39 points40 points  (8 children)

          If you take 5 years out to work on a personal project (eg children) then your average pay will be lower.

          If you can't negotiate or take risks, your pay will be lower (this applies to all humans, but women are generally also in the pussy category)

          If your gender has a slightly lower IQ and a lower variance, you will be less likely to be in the higher end jobs (and less likely to be in prison).

          "Average gender wage" hides a lot of truths.

          [–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 21 points22 points  (7 children)

          Lets be honest... women aren't in jail less because they're closer to 'average'... they tend to not end up in jail because of the 'women are wonderful' effect.. aka the pussy pass.

          That and crimes which tend to get high prosecution rates like murder, assault, rape, etc... tend to require physical strength (or at least the willpower to follow through with your threat when you pull a pistol on someone to rob them)

          [–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 11 points12 points  (5 children)

          Yup, there are no laws against spermjacking, for instance

          [–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 6 points7 points  (3 children)

          Honestly if I was dealing with a spermjacking case... I'd approach it from a 'proceeds of crime' legislation and point out said sperm was fraudulently obtained or used for purposes it was not consented to be used for since you know sex and the law is so focused on consent.

          [–]rpscrote 8 points9 points  (1 child)

          the state of the law here is absolutely pathetic. I read a case where a lady gave a dude a bj then spit it in her crotch and had a kid, and she admitted this under oath and the judge said "Doesn't matter, best interests of the child lololololol" because fuck men. They shouldnt get BJs if they arent ok with having kids.

          [–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          Yeah that's fucked up and the lady and the dude were both doctors.

          We need more men (and this is where MRA's are actually useful) to take a stand against shit like spermjacking.

          Busting a nut in someone's mouth or leaving a used condom in the garbage bin shouldn't be a free meal ticket for some slut who's got baby on the brain.

          [–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 3 points4 points  (0 children)

          And "forgetting" to take birth control? It's a comparable crime, but hard to prove. No law against it. Marrying a guy for money? No law against it. Marrying a guy and pretending that you're really into him but just after a kid and a divorce settlement? No law against it.

          Female crimes are totally legal and fine and even encouraged. Male crimes are not. Burden of proof? Well if you're a guy, you gotta prove she screamed "yes I want your dick". If you're a girl, you never have to prove anything.

          [–]gestalts -1 points0 points  (0 children)

          The number of people who could be prosecuted for spermjacking would be absurly small compared to total crime and would have little to no effect on incarceration rates.

          [–]gestalts 7 points8 points  (0 children)

          Calling bullshit on this one. Women don't end up in jail as much because they are less likely to take risks. Men naturally are risk takers, either of the legal kind or other (e.g. career wise). Most of people in prison are there for non-violent drug related/dealing offenses. (A good way to look at this is an extremely risky and profitable business venture). Men account for a significant majority of all crimes. Especially unmarried men.

          To say that physical aggressiveness is the source of high male incarceration rates is to deny that most of people in prison are non-violent.

          When women do commit the same crimes as men they typically get lighter sentences however.

          [–][deleted] 37 points38 points  (0 children)

          Pay gap my ass. In my experience as a hiring partner, any "gap" is due to the following non-sexist reasons: 1. Women do not negotiate for salary, they take what they are offered. 2. Women generally are not as eager to take positions that require long hours, little flex time, and 24/7 "on call" status--i.e. the positions that pay the most. 3. Those women who chose to have and raise children take more time off and do not get as much experience as a a man or woman who starts at the same time and does not have children. 4. Women, in general, self-select into less stressful jobs in a particular career field.

          In contrast, I know plenty of female attorneys who have opted for the "partnership track," who work 24/7, have no kids, and earn the same as their male colleagues. They are also equally miserable.

          The "wage gap" is a myth that only exists if one is comparing apples to oranges. Women who negotiate like men, take and excel at high stress positions like men, and forego taking a lot of time off earn the same as their male colleagues.

          The real "problem" is that women want to work less stressful jobs, have more time off and more flex time, and yet earn the same amount of male colleagues in the high stress, life-consuming positions.

          [–]∞ Mod | RP Vanguardbsutansalt 11 points12 points  (1 child)

          I suspect this will manifest as just paying better for jobs women mostly hold. For example, office assistant. If that happens and guys were smart, they'd welcome this and then only work those soft cushy jobs women mostly do that have until now paid very little.

          As competition for those jobs skyrockets, if women want to work they will have to get jobs in other fields, perhaps in more labor intensive and dangerous jobs finding out just how good they really had it.

          Bring on the unintended consequences.

          [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

          Just on its face, "boost women's wages" sounds sickeningly unfair. You're telling me that all my coworkers are going to get a raise just because they have vaginae?

          [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

          I'll also add that this law won't pass. It's a political stunt to make women angry at opponents of so-called wage fairness.

          It's like how the Republicans make token challenges against abortion (and now Obamacare). They know they can't do a thing about it and in the case of Cameron, his law is bullshit because there is no wage gap, but they do it to make women angry so they'll vote for them.

          It would actually be terrible for Cameron if he got a law passed. When you put these things before an independent tribunal then they have to back up their political dogma.

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

          Down here in NC they said "Tom Thillis voted against abortion and equal pay act! He hates women!" He still won you ornery bitches

          [–]Mouthpiece 4 points5 points  (1 child)

          Dear loyal employees:

          In response to the government's actions today regarding the gender wage gap, every male employee of the company shall henceforth receive 77% of his current compensation levels.

          If you have any questions, please see a female employee of the company.

          Sincerely, Your employers.

          [–]kinklianekoff 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          Thought experiment: if you proposed this solution to a feminist complaining about the 77% statistic, do you think they could imagine the outcome? Mathematically, men and women would earn the same on average, so this would be a valid solution if it was a valid complaint. I doubt they could pause the solipsism long enough to even imagine what the outcome would be for average joe in his cubicle in relation to his female coworkers.

          [–]LoL-Guru 6 points7 points  (0 children)

          This will have the reverse effect as employers would not want to hire a worker they have to pay more for the same job, costing women millions of jobs.

          Hilarious.

          [–]redpilltaste 4 points5 points  (3 children)

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Bu4CRiw9mg

          This is a takedown of the theory on a sky news interview. The angry female anchor take the side of the whining feminist despite...facts

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

          I wish you'd have posted this sooner so it would be up voted higher. That guy smacks every argument out of the park with aplomb. I especially love how he succinctly introduces the victimhood women are encouraged to buy into, only for the blonde woman to bat his arguments away with "but but but its so unfair!".

          We also see the inability of feminists to see when they've got a good deal. He repeatedly stated that women under 35 make more than men. Her response? "we want more! What about the older women!"

          [–]redpilltaste 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          Thanks mate. I tried to post it half an hour ago as a new post but it did not come up in the new topics. I will try again in the morning as its late here. Milo is all over the feminists. He called one darling on a debate. .. oh god the look on their faces !! He is gay and so the bbc and other media dont know to deal with him :-)

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

          The guys a genius. You see the video "why men are better than chess?". He states facts with sources, she retorts with "its nonsense because we're all different".

          He palms her away with "its easy to talk wishy waffly". I love it.

          [–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan 18 points19 points  (24 children)

          Cameron's proposal could potentially turn the tide well in favour of women in the workforce by essentially forcing companies to pay women more for them doing the same job or forcing companies to pay a lesser performing woman the same as a man who works his backside off.

          And I can see how this backfires. All of a sudden men are getting more jobs than women because it's actually cheaper to employ them. Because the pay gap myth has become reality by actually legislating and thereby enforcing "economic equality." Such is the flaw of the socialism.

          Then they'll be saying companies are sexist, because, you know, it's good for a business' bottom line to hire the labour that costs less. Which under the proposed legislation, would be male labour. So then they'd have to not only force higher wages for women, but they'd also have to force companies to employ an x% of women, otherwise companies would simply stop employing/minimally employ women to save themselves labour costs.

          And so by going on and on about something that didn't exist, ironically, perversely, fucking hilariously - they legislate it into existence.

          Bravo, fucking bravo.

          As someone with a heart for business, and a big respect for entrepreneurs, the government should keep its fucking nose out of how we do business. Big government is bad for business because of bullshit like this, not to mention all the bureaucracy that strangles the little guys from the hangman's noose, preventing them from even getting off the ground to begin with. I digress, but big government is bad news.

          And you wanna know who is always voting for more government?

          Women. The government loves women. It needs them and their voting inclinations to be big and powerful. The big governments you see today would not be possible without the female vote and feminism. Feminism has been fucking great for statism.

          In light of that, should women have the vote? I don't think so. They enable and promote government to become more and more socialist, which translates into less laissez-faire economics and more statist interventional government bullshit. We have been culturally socialist and economically capitalist for a long time, but when the cultural marxism starts trying to fuck with our economics, that's when people will actually get pissed.

          [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (23 children)

          For me your post was good up until suggesting women shouldn't have the vote. That's a huge leap for me.

          I do think there is potentially a female victim mentality that perseveres that politicians exploit for their own ends though.

          [–]1aguy01 3 points4 points  (2 children)

          Democracy is a shit form of government anyways. Poor people votes themselves welfare, women vote themselves welfare, and the minority of successful men that get shit done are drowned out by the idiocracy.

          [–]1sardinemanR 3 points4 points  (1 child)

          It's not like we have a democracy anyway. We have a republic, and elected officials have shown time and time again they don't feel any duty to the public that votes them in.

          [–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          We had a republic. We lost it to universal suffrage.

          [–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan 1 point2 points  (19 children)

          For me your post was good up until suggesting women shouldn't have the vote. That's a huge leap for me.

          I suspected this would be the case (not just for you, but many.) Mainly because it sounds oppressive and hurts feelings, essentially it's a contemporarily radical idea on the overton window. Doesn't really change my opinion as it has been stipulated, however, due to the logic of my argument withstanding.

          I am being brutally honest with my logic here, not dressing things up in bullshit. Using logic to deduce "women should have the vote" is a futile process. Believe me, I've tried. I can't see the pluses. But I am really interested in hearing the pluses of female voting if anybody else can think of them. It's always good to hear the other side of an opinion (assuming that it's logically argued and not just political mud-slinging.)

          I do think there is potentially a female victim mentality that perseveres that politicians exploit for their own ends though.

          True to an extent. But it's actually a co-dependent relationship. Women get to raise Chad's babies on your tax dollar (or sterling) and government gets to expand itself creating more services to deal with all the women dependent on it. We call this phenomenon "big daddy government" because government basically replaced men in fulfilling women's basic needs. In the old days women HAD to be attached to a man to survive.

          Now if a woman can't get a top-tier wealthy alpha male to take care of her she'll just use the strong arm of the law to forcibly take taxes from betas. Who unlike their predecessors, don't get any sex in return for their toil. They're just work drones taxed to death to pay for women they don't even know. Instead of being husbands who directly provide for a family. This is why MGTOW/men dropping out of society is becoming a thing, but that's another digression entirely.

          Government can use its influence with women to more effectively legislate for things like increased CCTV, in the US, anti-gun laws, and whatever. Because women always vote for more safety and less freedom. This helps government become tyrannical. This is why governments love women. Governments give women free shit, and women give government diplomatic legitimacy to collectively fuck us up the butt with Orwellian policies. Government has a relationship with women it doesn't have with men. It gives women free shit and enables poor decision making, and in turn, women will vote for whatever government wants them to vote for.

          The handouts are why women tend to vote left. It's also why women tend to vote more than men, as women can see their vote gaining them freebies, whereas many men don't see their vote serving them. And if everyone actually voted, with women voting left and men voting right, because men die younger and there is a higher infant morality rate for men, the electorate would be majority (51%) female anyway.

          Wanna know who's gonna vote for a microchip to be put in your babies brain to protect it from terrorists or whatever other supposed boogeymen are out there? The baby's mother. Once she's convinced it's the safest option for her darling child, so she (as well as big daddy government) can track her kid from her iPhone 25 or whatever it'll be then.

          I'm really not convinced on the benefits of women having the vote, and as you can see, I have outlined why I think it's bad.

          If anyone can present to me the benefits of women having the vote, I'd be open to hearing them. I am sceptical to say the least.

          [–]Endorsed Contributorbalalasaurus 1 point2 points  (2 children)

          Which begs the question of whether universal suffrage was all part of the plan to begin with.

          [–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan 4 points5 points  (1 child)

          Definitely not beyond the realm of possibility that there's a conspiracy afoot, but I guess that's a truth we'll never really know for certain.

          [–]gestalts 2 points3 points  (6 children)

          In light of that, should women have the vote? I don't think so. They enable and promote government to become more and more socialist, which translates into less laissez-faire economics and more statist interventional government bullshit.

          Just because there is disagreement, however wide, doesn't mean you should take away someone's right to have a say. Yes much of the feminist movement is rooted in tyrannical ideas, but I'd say that people as a whole are tyrannical. The second you remove healthy pushback and give power to the fewer, on either side, the more tyrannical that group will become.

          All throughout history when women had little to no power the world was run by tyrannical men. Not pushing an agenda just speaking truth. Women arnt always at fault and men arnt all paragons. They just have two sexual strategies that must remain in balance for shit not to hit the fan either way. Having universal suffrage is a way to keep that in balance.

          [–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan -2 points-1 points  (5 children)

          Your post fails to address my points, but simply stipulates a platitude that not all men are good and not all women are evil. Funny, because I never even mentioned the words good or evil. I gave concise reasons for how female voting negatively affects society, none of which you have managed to address.

          You have interpreted and dismissed something I have not even stated. You have not actually attacked my points, you have conflated my ideas with your own and then dismissed them.

          I would stipulate again exactly what I said to bring things back on track, but it's already written above, and you have missed the point so grandly I believe it would be a waste of time.

          Likewise, I do not believe inclusiveness and democracy is good for society (like you do.) It's nice in theory, I like the idea, but it's kind of like socialism, it fails in practice. People aren't intelligent, well-informed and reasonable enough to handle democracy. There are too many stupid people. In democracy, stupid wins by merit of numbers.

          As for your point about the balancing of sexual strategies being necessary, I believe that is the one thing we do both agree on. But I do not agree that big government and feminism have achieved that balance. I believe it has favoured the feminine strategy at the expense of the civilisation/family unit, and that at present there is no balance. I would hardly call the high divorce rate and dissolution of family a desirable balance of strategies. That is exactly "shit hitting the fan."

          If you believe big government/feminism has balanced the sexual strategies I'd love to hear whatever reasoning it is you have for believing that. If you lack any reason, but simply believe it because you do, well, that says all it needs to say.

          [–]gestalts -1 points0 points  (4 children)

          Ill parse this out as to hit every point.

          I gave concise reasons for how female voting negatively affects society, none of which you have managed to address.

          Yes. And I replied with a counterargument saying that even if some voting negatively affects society as a whole. Preventing that voting would have an even greater negative effect. Lesser of two evils.

          I also do not believe inclusiveness and democracy is good for society. It's nice in theory, kind of like socialism, but fails in practice.

          And I would say 'Democracy is the worst form of government except all the rest.' Tyranny of the masses yes. But if you are looking for Aristotle's philosopher king who will always make the correct decision benefiting everyone without self-interest good luck. That kind of thinking of trusting someone to go against their own self-interest is the exact opposite of the redpill mentality. Power corrupts and there needs to be checks on that. Also saying that if I advocate universal suffrage it is like socialism is a false dichotomy.

          As for your point about the balancing of sexual strategies being necessary, I believe that is the one thing we do both agree on. But I do not agree that big government and feminism have achieved that balance. I believe it has favoured the feminine strategy at the expense of the civilisation/family unit, and that at present there is no balance. I would hardly call the high divorce rate and dissolution of family a desirable balance.

          Yes I agree. But though a different approach within the political framework rather than removing voting rights. I think our points on these issues as a community are correct and if people consider them without reacting to the messenger it will hit a chord and change people's minds. It already is.

          If you believe big government/feminism has balanced the sexual strategies, you are in a minority view in this sub, and I'd love to hear whatever reasoning it is you have for believing that. If you lack any reason, but simply believe it because you do, well, that says all it needs to say.

          No I do not, but I'd say advocating for more balanced gender laws is entirely different from advocating for removal of universal suffrage.

          [–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan -1 points0 points  (0 children)

          Yes. And I replied with a counterargument saying that even if some voting negatively affects society as a whole. Preventing that voting would have an even greater negative effect. Lesser of two evils.

          Do you have any examples of this? I provided examples to demonstrate my reasoning. In a balanced argument, the other side would too. Otherwise, this is merely an assertion. If you give examples of how women voting helps society it will give your argument some weight and give me a new respect for your point even if I continue to disagree with it. As it stands, this merely looks like an opinion without basis. Examples form the basis. Please provide examples so I can better consider your point.

          I would say 'Democracy is the worst form of government except all the rest.' Tyranny of the masses yes. But if you are looking for Aristotle's philosopher king who will always make the correct decision benefiting everyone without self-interest good luck.

          Agreed. It's a sad reality, but agreed.

          Also saying that if I advocate universal suffrage it is like socialism is a false dichotomy.

          I was making the comparison that I believe democracy to be in the same class as socialism, great on paper, but bad in practice. Great ideas, but utterly undesirable by nature of the damage their anti-pragmatism causes. I did not say your advocation of universal suffrage was akin to socialism. You have misinterpreted, as such, you have characterised your strawman as my false dichotomy. If you re-evaluate my statement, you will notice your error.

          Yes I agree. But though a different approach within the political framework rather than removing voting rights. I think our points on these issues as a community are correct and if people consider them without reacting to the messenger it will hit a chord and change people's minds. It already is.

          What alternative do you have? Remember it was my contention that the voting rights should not exist to begin with, rather than that they need be removed. Of course, none of us have a time machine. I wasn't talking about changing policy, I was talking about why the policy we have doesn't work.

          No I do not, but I'd say advocating for more balanced gender laws is entirely different from advocating for removal of universal suffrage.

          Egalitarianism is based on the flawed premise that men and women are equal. We are not. Feminism's interpretation of equity under the law has made men second class citizens in the family court. What philosophy do you consider to be equity under the law? It seems whenever equality is legislated, all we get is more inequality. Or to re-phrase, what does your idea of "balanced gender laws" consist of?

          [–]vicblaga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          if you are looking for Aristotle's philosopher king who will always make the correct decision benefiting everyone without self-interest good luck.

          A king, philosopher or not, can still be an excellent ruler, acting solely out of self interest. Self interest is a powerful force, and it can be put to very productive uses, as capitalism shows. I believe the only reason why capitalism works is because of greed. People want to get rich, people want to make a name for themselves, maybe they just want to get laid, I don't know, so they work and work and work and try to build something and in the process, create value both for themselves and for the rest of society.

          The same can be applied to a king. He can very well take care of the country, while acting out of pure self interest. Eternal glory, name in the history books, loved by all his subjects, everlasting family name, etc, etc, the trick is to align his self interest with that of the people he rules.

          Yes, things can go wrong, especially if you have a mad king, but the problem with democracy is that in a democracy the incentives are always misaligned. The self interest of the ruler is to get enough votes to keep him in office for the next 2 mandates (10 years). And for that, it is enough for a potential candidate to cater to popular fads, or promise people more money that he can provide by borrowing from the future, because in 10 years, he's gonna be out of office, and the debts he incurred are no longer his problem.

          [–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn -1 points0 points  (1 child)

          Yes. And I replied with a counterargument saying that even if some voting negatively affects society as a whole. Preventing that voting would have an even greater negative effect.

          Strange... in the years from the beginning of civilization up until women's suffrage, we didn't seem to have that negative effect that you must be worried about.

          [–]aptway 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Simple- create a test which demonstrates one's knowledge of the underlying theory of democracy- why the founding fathers (for the US, Cromwell/Parliament for the UK) believed rule should not be in the hands of one man.

          A test that, when passed, sufficiently determines basic civil understanding, which everyone would have reasonable access to, should determine whether or not someone is eligible to vote, not the fact that they are of a certain age and have a pulse.

          [–]TheFriendWithin 2 points3 points  (1 child)

          Democracy is unfair.

          People that are expanding the borders of human knowledge and experience have as much political power as the pregnant woman smoking a fag outside the job center.

          Steven Hawkings vote for a hypothetical political party interested in bringing about nuclear fusion energy is countered by the bimbos vote for one of the jersey shore cast to be president.

          People that actually possess some form of mental capacity and awareness should have more power than those who do not.

          That's not 'equal' but its fair, even though most wont see it that way.

          I don't even think all men should have the vote, but how would we decide how one aquires the vote? That's another conversation entirely.

          [–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          I don't even think all men should have the vote, but how would we decide how one aquires the vote? That's another conversation entirely.

          I'm right there with you on this one. Perhaps if we had a better metric for intelligence than IQ, we could use that.

          [–]BallisticTherapy -1 points0 points  (0 children)

          government basically replaced men in fulfilling women's basic needs. In the old days women HAD to be attached to a man to survive.

          www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjwywuvENs4&t=55

          [–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

          You hit the nail on the head. Should have never given them the right to vote.

          A fun thought experiment is to consider what would happen if men decided to take that one back.

          Government is force. Men provide that force. If men decide they wont fight for women any longer, does anyone actually think women will go to war with men?

          [–]Endorsed Contributorbalalasaurus 4 points5 points  (0 children)

          First off men will always fight for women. We're hardwired to do so and the majority of the population are not conscious enough to override that programming.

          Second, because of the above, men could never take that one back. The machinery of the left have made it so that is impossible.

          [–]1aguy01 -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

          Anyone that receives any form of welfare should be disqualified from voting.

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

          Seems harsh to remove the vote from those who are made involuntarily redundant and pensioners who haven't yet lost their marbles.

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

          It's also possible that companies will simply hire fewer females and more males.

          After all, if you can hire a male and pay him less then obviously the thing to do is to hire more males.

          When the company gets hauled into court they can show that the government forces them to pay women more and therefore male employees offer an economic advantage to the company. Therefore, it's not sexism but price which is the determiner.

          [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

          Having a pussy is the biggest privilege anybody could have. And with all these women get, I still cant get why they're so fucked up and unhappy. They get favoritism from other women - even though women supposedly hate each other. They get favoritism from men - even when it goes against the interests of MEN. And they get favoritism from the government - at the expense of men and children.

          [–]Air4ce1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          People start listening when you start to mess with their: money, time, sleep, and food.

          [–]flatox 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          haha this is fuckin' glorious comedy gold.

          Can you imagine paying someone who barely even is effective, more than those who get shit done?

          They will feel the after effect like whips on their backs. Nobody will want to give them jobs.

          [–]workdavework 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          [deleted]

          What is this?

          [–]kanji_sasahara 3 points4 points  (0 children)

          US Department of Labor Statistics. All of it boils down to the type of industry that are primarily male vs. female dominated and the average rate of pay in each.

          [–]Redpillc0re 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          If the US is going to export its man-hate, at least put a price to it.

          [–]jackedbodrailbroads 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          It is hysterical how women constantly complain about a gender based pay gap when they feel entitled to the income that a man has earned. I work with primarily women. It is hilarious how many times I hear, "he is giving me money to buy a car, buy this, buy that." Then you hear the same woman go on about how she keeps her finances private from her husband because it is "her money". TRP manifests itself in everyday life and women are too dumb to realize that they brought it upon themselves.

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

          I was in the infantry training in canada where feminazis have completely ruined the whole system. And there were fat short unfit girls being passed as infantry and medic soldiers because of lowered standards and gender equality. It was fucked. The usmc is on this shit too, we should send all female units to fight isis just like the peshmerga who are just getting gang banged and foced to kill themselves.

          [–]mate96 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          Source? On Australian media they presented Kurdish female fighters as fearless and ISIS as being terrified of them because if they get killed by a woman they won't go to heaven, lol.

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

          I have peshmerga fighters on my facebook constantly posting rip pics of girls that killed them selves before capture. Its fucked but in their case there is shortage of man power but in the free world men are turned away do that a certain ratio of women can have jobs in mens roles.

          [–]a_chill_bro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          The economy is my shepherd, I shall not want.

          [–]mescalinejasp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Whilst I agree that the commenters in general are seeing the wage gap as total BS - I regrettably don't believe that people are conflating this with the ongoing background feminist agenda.

          I wish they did, as the tides would begin to turn.

          [–]redpillersinparis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Sometimes you really have to wonder what these politicians are actually trying to achieve... hmm.. I really don't think they are genuinely interested in benefiting the country, and I mean that they actually aren't trying to help the country, their goal must be something else.

          What are their real goals? become more popular?

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

          Even the right wing parties in England are going a long with the gender wage gap myth... SJW's have far too much power

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

          Because it's free votes. Imagine if a party (rightly) said the pay gap didn't exist. They'd lose over half their voter base (most women and male sympathisers).

          A lot of women have a victim mentality and politicians play on it.

          [–]eatpraymantis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          I read this earlier. The big thing for me, more then the public comments, are the editors picks - every one is slamming the idea of the gender pay gap. Unusual, but not unwelcomed.

          [–]Transmigratory 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Rather than a gender thing, I'm sure that David Cameron's just doing this so his party doesn't look like the party that only supports men due to traditional values.

          In short: politicians doing what they can to grab supporters. There's a reason this Conservative party is considered to be on the centre ground, what they needed to stand against New Labour, really. You can't be in the centre w/o talking about "trigger" topics like this.

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

          You can't force economics. If anything supply and demand is just going to make males more desirable, provided the institution already has its female quota.

          [–]dragonthingy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Hopefully by "tackle gender pay gap" he means "launch a comprehensive study into it to see what truth there is behind it"

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

          Let's not forget that a white person makes 88 cents to every dollar an Asian person makes. When will white people have their wages increased as enforced by the government?

          so opression. much victimizayshun. /s

          [–]beastofthefield -1 points0 points  (8 children)

          It's time for people who want to live free of feminazis to make a new country somewhere.

          [–][deleted]  (7 children)

          [deleted]

            [–]beastofthefield -2 points-1 points  (6 children)

            Perhaps make it into a startup like Uber and find investors (or crowdfund it?) who would pay for it, then pay some cash strapped country somewhere to carve out a piece of their land and exempt it from all their laws, kind of like Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

            All I'd want from a country is a 100% free economy with absolute freedom to start any businesses with no bureaucratic hurdles and freedom from feminazis.

            [–]RP15 2 points3 points  (3 children)

            This was more or less the initial idea behind the United States of America.

            [–][deleted]  (2 children)

            [deleted]

              [–]RP15 1 point2 points  (1 child)

              This is a separate conversation but the bigger, centralized Federal government that the Federalists advocated for is part of why society is in such a shitty situation today.

              Had we effectively limited the vote to landowners (let's say the modern version is people that pay taxes and register for the draft), the government would never have expanded and fucked up civil society the way it has.

              [–][deleted]  (1 child)

              [deleted]

                load more comments (3 replies)