[peterwwillis]

I think this kind of misses the point. Even if there's only an 8% gap, the question isn't just "what causes the gap". Assume you can rationalize it. Is rationalized inequity OK? Why or why not?

Women aren't the only group this applies to, of course. There's lots of inequity in our society. But I don't think anyone in modern-day times would agree that this is "the way it's supposed to be", as if women are supposed to make less. In the past, philosophers have justified slavery because it seemed to make sense, but now we realize it's immoral. Couldn't the same be true of all kinds of equity gaps in our society?

To reframe it a bit, men are the minority population, yet this pay gap still exists in their favor. If men were the ones making 8% less, I bet there'd be a lot more work to reach pay parity.

[Digory]

You can't get rid of "inequity" if inequity reflects different desires and choices by human beings.

Beauty, strength, intelligence, youth and health are wanted by most men and women. But they are not distributed or desired equally. That unequal distribution of desires and characteristics among people will lead to some kinds of inequality.

[peterwwillis]

Sure we can - we did it with slavery! The inequity of slavery reflected the desires and choices of human beings. But over time (nearly 200 years) we changed our ethics so that these desires and choices were no longer acceptable, and eventually outright abolished the practice.

Lots of people said it couldn't be done. Not only because it was "natural" to own slaves, but because our nation's economy was deeply tied to the practice. We changed it anyway, purely out of deference to our moral philosophy.

Inequality is inherent in nature, sure, but our moral philosophy can be used to change our desires and choices to create greater equity. So before we settle on "people just do what they do", let's ask ourselves: should we be doing something different?

[sushid]

Really? Your response to we have a distribution of people with different levels of intelligence, attractiveness, etc. is we got rid of slavery?

[peterwwillis]

Are you just now learning how to read and want me to confirm your eyeballs work? Or are you capable of more complex thought, and are intentionally ignoring the point I was making?

Like, I'm honestly curious, in what way did you expect me to respond to this question? You literally just asked me if I said what I said.

[daseiner1]

Wow. This impulse to compare any and every sort of economic inequality to slavery is pitiful and disgusting.

[peterwwillis]

Thanks!

[weberc2]

If the inequity is due to free people freely making different choices, then it is strictly better than coercing people to make the choices <some group> wants them to make. It is eminently desirable that _all_ people are free, even if that freedom doesn't yield some neat behavioral parity. Pressuring women to behave in a certain way is creepy.