I'm leaning towards the latter.

We had a discussion today regarding feminism, and I gave my two cents saying that it had a legitimate purpose when first introduced, but as of today, the morals and the orginial intent have faded.

A girl in my class later said what would be the title of this topic, and I immediately stated that I disagreed with the statistic. I rationalized by saying that when the mean of female salaries are compared to the mean of male salaries, it APPEARS that women are making less. It was not surprising to say I was jumped on by a few people in the class, one even asking me where I got my research. She did not, however, refute the claim the other girl had stated. We then moved on to something else.

Was I wrong in my proclamation. I've been looking at some research with articles that say women make either 77 or 80 cents to a man's dollar, really biting into this "bias" pill. They don't even support this statement with information; they simply state it as if it's a gosh darn fact. I'm not looking for drama, so I request that responses be civil and such. Help me out here, people.

What business do you know that given the choice of employing women who have an equal level of skill as men at a rate of 1/4 less, would hire men at all? Companies are all about profit, so it makes no sense to do such a thing.

But man, don't talk about that sh*t in public. Women will say it's wrong without the burden of proof and most men will side with them, hoping to get a piece of ass.

Let them wallow in their own ignorance. After they spend their 20-year party spreading lies and disinformation while they're attractive, the rest of their lives will be appropriately hard for them.

The only... ONLY... way that would be unfair is if there was a man in one field/possition, and a woman in the same field/possition that was paid less... assuming they did the same quality in said job.

Outside of that, they really need to just sit down and shut up.

experience, qualifications, past company experience, and some other factors are what make up the pay scale. to say woman make less because of sexuality is like saying black people earn less because of skin color. im sorry to say but things are more equal today then they ever where, even equal to an absurd amount. if woman are making less its because they lack a quality that someone else has, or their attitude is not where it should be (woman seem to like to gossip, ive never seen men congregate in a group and talk).

feminism has no place in our society, its an old outdated movement that for filled its purpose and now threatens to upset the balance in total favor of woman, including wanting ludicrous things like name change (changing the man- in words to people <is>)

ix has it right, there would be no incentive to higher anyone other then woman if the difference was that much. if two people have the same qualifications but one is a cheaper price, im clearly going to take the cheaper associate.

i wish all that garbage stopped. its ruining our country just as that politically correct idiots destroyed our christmas. if we went to their country and told them to call their ramadon something else they would just kill us on the spot. f*ck them, this is our country and everyone else can go to hell if they dont like what we call things.

Male whores make more than women.

^ thats totally just supply and demand

... whatever research you guys are looking at.. is it like... what lantis said in a specific same role or is it and 'on average' thing like women all happen to have lower paying jobs and on average earn less than men who monopolise higher paying jobs or something?

http://walmartwatch.com/blog/archives/w ... n_trouble/

[quote]Wal-Mart’s Women Trouble

July 22, 2006

The biggest private employer in the U.S. may be about to face the world’s largest employment discrimination case.

On July 25, a San Francisco federal court judge will schedule arguments on whether to certify a class of 1.5 million current and former Wal-Mart (nyse: WMT - news - people ) employees in a massive sex discrimination suit. Plaintiffs claim the Bentonville, Ark., discount store chain showed a pattern of discrimination against women, preventing them from getting promotions and paying them less money than men in the same jobs.

Wal-Mart denies the allegations. But if the plaintiffs are successful, the sheer size of the class could force the company into settlement. The alternative: a trial that could put Wal-Mart on the hook for billions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages.

The complaint names seven current and former employees of Wal-Mart and its Sam’s Club stores in California, including Betty Dukes, an African-American woman hired as part-time cashier in 1994 at the Pittsburg, Calif., Wal-Mart. She was promoted twice and received at least two raises over the next three years. But in 1997, she claims, she suddenly began to receive “harsh and discriminatory treatmentâ€