People here might be more willing to respond to your question if you didn't refer to a highly researched Washington Post article as a conspiracy theory.
> People here might be more willing to respond to your question if you didn't refer to a highly researched Washington Post article as a conspiracy theory.
People don't have to respond, trying to dodge the question with an appeal to authority proves my point just fine.
Your "highly researched" article doesn't deal with responsibility and seniority(mainly because there is no data for that) and makes funny claims such as "two very similar occupations, janitors (mostly men) and housekeepers (mostly women).", that's the equivalent of me saying "Worpdress development is similar to Enterprise Java Development" and for some reason one pays an order of magnitude more.
You don't understand what a conspiracy theory is. It's when a covert organization covers up a malicious act. You're just using inflated language to describe what's ultimately just a mistaken argument.
If my argument is "mistaken", why are you focusing on the language that I used instead of just disproving my argument?
I would also be interested that if the gender wage gap is real and it is as believers describe it, how would you explain it without going into conspiracy land.
Because your arguments are probably correct. I never claimed otherwise. I took issue with your language. You're contributing to the polarization by using unnecessary, inflammatory, and inaccurate language. That's the problem.
Claiming that across the US women get paid 20% less than men, for doing exactly the same work with exactly the same qualifications with everything aside from genitals being equal is not a conspiracy theory in your opinion? Claiming that society is sexist in that way is not a conspiracy theory?
Even if I grant you that I used harsh language, I take issue with your priorities, I would priorities truth over political correctness.
People don't have to respond, trying to dodge the question with an appeal to authority proves my point just fine.
Your "highly researched" article doesn't deal with responsibility and seniority(mainly because there is no data for that) and makes funny claims such as "two very similar occupations, janitors (mostly men) and housekeepers (mostly women).", that's the equivalent of me saying "Worpdress development is similar to Enterprise Java Development" and for some reason one pays an order of magnitude more.