args

Feminism is inherently bigoted.

This will be divided into two parts, one part to challenge the pay-gap theory and one to argue it's irrelevant. I dislike how you use data. Just because women are in majority in campuses today, does that mean they should make more money? If anything, the opposite. More of them obviously work low-paying, part time jobs between semesters and on the weekends. What is relevant is how the work force looks. In order to get a high paying job, you typically need experience and and a good education. Just for the sake of argument, let's say 20 years of experience. If college is four years, that means we have to look at enrollment levels from 1991 and earlier, not today in order to find out who is likely to make a lot of money. Here (1) you have enrollment levels, and as you can see all through the seventies and somewhat in the eighties, more men enrolled in college. A majority of the well educated, experienced workers in America should therefore be men. This probably increases, since men are much more stable in the workforce, this (2) isn't brand new but as late as 2010 women worked around 21 hours per week compared to men's 37 hours. The reasons for this is irrelevant for this discussion. It's also relevant what you study at higher levels. Guess who dominates the liberal arts and women's studies programs, compared to engineering and mathematics. Demanding equality of opportunity is fair, demanding equality of outcome is not. Another perspective would be the legal aspects. If anyone who reads this know of any employer that does discriminate, I'm sure that happens from time to time, there are authorities who should be contacted. Also, if a company could save a quarter of their salary budget by simply hiring women instead of men their shareholders would be able to sue any board who hires a man for anything. That would be a completely irresponsible way to treat the shareholders investment. Once you start asking some questions around this theory it begins to look like paranoia. Why would anyone hire a man if this was true? The same can be said about senate, strange bit of cherry-picking to single out the congress by the way. The majority of voters in America are women, more women are born and the sentencing disparity makes more men ineligible to vote. It would seem they do not vote based on genitalia, but rather policy or affiliation. Since there are 18% female members, there is obviously nothing structural that hinders them from applying or from winning. They simply seem less interested as a whole. The real question still has to be "who cares?". A few more of a couple of hundred privileged people are men. How is that relevant to the other 300 million citizens? How does it benefit men as a whole? Regardless of if there is wage discrimination or not, you proved my initial point. Feminists do not care about men. It's about self interest rather than equality, like it's always been. I guess that's ok though, since there is freedom of speech and you can always arrange your own meeting if you want to battle suicide rates. Oh wait (3). 1: http://www.census.gov... form 226 2: http://www.pewresearch.org...