Here's some official government sources to go along with this discussion.

Women earn the majority of bachelors, masters and doctorates:

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=72

Women live longer than men:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf

More women in the workforce have degrees than men:

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/education/c...

And some non government research papers:

Women choose safer jobs than men (which may explain some income gap differences):

http://www.nber.org/papers/w8574

And a study that suggests that men and women are paid the same:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/payscale-study-wome...

>Women earn the majority of bachelors, masters and doctorates

Wonderful. Its good that the efforts that were made to help women in education have borne so much fruit that we're starting (or were starting in the 90s) to worry about boys falling behind. That's a sign that the supports might eventually be alright to take away.

>Women live longer than men:

Since the stone age. Is this a discussion of jealousy, or sexism?

>Women choose safer jobs than men (which may explain some income gap differences):

>And a study that suggests that men and women are paid the same:

For the same jobs. Probably. I believe these studies and hate the X cents on a dollar deceptive statistic. The fact is, women don't have the same jobs as men, they have lower level ones due to prejudice and childbearing. I'd also argue that there are many high-skill jobs that are traditionally dominated by women, and due to that domination are less respected and paid less. Even within female-dominated professions, management still somehow ends up dominated by men due to the "glass elevator."

Here's another source, it appears there is no gender gap in pay:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/05/the-bigg...

It also appears the later differences in pay may have more to do with life choices. Such as raising a family, which believe it or not some women consider a higher priority than their careers. Blasphemy, I know, clearly a byproduct of the patriarchy.

"Comparing men and women job-by-job conceals the fact that men still dominate many of the highest-paying jobs. PayScale studied more than 120 occupation categories, from "machinist" to "dietician." Nine of the ten lowest-paying jobs (e.g.: child-care worker, library assistant) were disproportionately female. Nine of the ten highest-paying jobs (e.g.: software architect, psychiatrist) were majority male. Nurse anesthetist was the best-paid position held mostly by women; but an estimated 69 percent of better-paid anesthesiologists were male."

Blasphemy, I know, but it was your link.

edit: This is exactly the case I made, and it is the conclusion to the reference. I don't know what kind of dissonance it takes to downvote me for pointing it out.

I think you're missing the point of the study. The so called gap doesn't exist when you compare apples and apples. Claiming its a gender gap when a librarian isn't paid as much As a physician is disengeous. The claim is women are paid less, which isn't the truth, they we paid the sAme as men performing the same job. The gender pay gap is a myth.

Then stop calling it a wage gap, and start talking about why men are not becoming child care workers and library assistants. When you set the tone of the discussion around income and the n cents on the dollar crap you invite this sort of criticism.

Stop bringing rational and critical thinking to this debate, you obviously haven't checked your privilege or heard of the patriarchy.

This is amusing in /r/TumblrInAction, but HN is best when the discussion is slightly above the level of watching monkeys fling poo at each other.

While I agree with you I was trying in a humors way to point out that these studies contradict a lot of what this debate is about and therefore will be ignored. Which looking at all the discussion around these studies seems likely.

LOL. I needed a laugh, thanks. :)

1. I can just as easily claim that most of those companies are owned by old people. Does this mean we, as a society, discriminate against young people? I'm not arguing that sexism used to be a big issue back when most of the companies you're using as an example were created. I'm saying that nowadays, it is an issue that I doubt is as legitimate as women groups and similar make it out to be.

2. Same reasoning as above. This used to be true, and is not anymore. Yes, not giving women the right to vote was bad. But now, they have the right to vote. The problem was solved.

3. Not sure what the merit of it is.

>1. I can just as easily claim that most of those companies are owned by old people.

Yes, you can. I would argue that being older means that you have had the time to accumulate skills, experience, and connections. What does being a man give you? Upper body strength?

>2. Same reasoning as above.

I missed that reasoning. Most companies are owned by old people (something that I'm not even sure is true), therefore there's no sexism?

The point I was trying to make is that in the times many of those companies were created, sexism WAS a legitimate issue, which means that most of these companies are run by men. Nowadays, it is not nearly as big an issue as it is made out to be, but that does not magically infuse the old companies with 50% women. This is why using this statistic is inherently flawed, as the companies were simply created in a different time (if you don't believe me, check http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/. Very few of those companies are what you would call nouveau riche).

I would argue that the age of the company isn't what's important, but the age of the CEO. If a 150 year-old company has a 45 year old CEO, what does the age of the company have to do with it - unless you are arguing for long lasting traditions of discrimination that are invariant for a company.

Large companies tend to have a fair amount of nepotism in the top ranking positions. You would have to control for this as well.

Women would benefit from nepotism.

would? You mean they do? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Rinehart

1. Men run everything.

Gross generalization. Clearly not true.

2. Men often don't think of women as human.

Another gross generalization, and your support for this is that a long time ago women couldn't vote, therefore often men don't think of women as human? By that twisted logic the statement Germany wants to invade France would still be true.

3. Women are under attack by men.

Laughably histrionic. Is that like the war on Christmas?

Sorry, it won't let me reply any deeper. I'm glad you agree you are generalizing, even though you don't seem to want to acknowledge you're making gross generalizations. Either way, you do realize generalizing does not make your point valid. If anything, it's generally considered a fallacy and for good reason. And since you haven't refuted any of the facts I've posted, I'm glad that I've been able to help you learn the world isn't nearly as bad as you seem to have been lead to believe. Contrary to what you seem to think, men do not often think of women as less than human, men do not run everything (that's that generalization again), women do make the same money as men, more women get degrees than men, women live longer than men, and your generalization that men, not some men, but men are attacking women is also not true. Clearly all men are not attacking women. There is no war on women.

And do I think women are under attack by women? That's an interesting question, women do seem to be fairly angry and judgmental towards each other, anecdotally speaking. I dunno, that's a good question. Are women attacking women?

And clearly I think your uterus is unmoored. You nailed it in one. Bravo.

Fine, then I won't even accept that it is a generalization. Men actually run everything, and when there's a woman running something, there's ultimately a man running that woman.

>And since you haven't refuted any of the facts I've posted

None of the facts that you posted speak to your point that "the world isn't nearly as bad as you seem to have been lead to believe." You haven't shown me anything that I didn't know, but I enjoy the condescension.

>men do not often think of women as less than human,

saying it again doesn't make it true.

>women do make the same money as men,

No, they don't. Read your own references. Women make the same money in the same jobs as men, early in their careers.

>more women get degrees than men,

True.

>women live longer than men,

Again, what does that have to do with sexism?

>and your generalization that men are attacking women is also not true.

Bullshit.

>Gross generalization. Clearly not true.

Not a gross generalization, just a generalization. How many women have you had as a boss?

>2. Men often don't think of women as human.

Note the word "often" which means that this is not a generalization, but an uncontroversial observation.

>your support for this is that a long time ago women couldn't vote, therefore often men don't think of women as human?

No, that's just a reminder that this was the mainstream point of view probably within the lifetime of a women you know. I'm not going to make an argument that men often don't think of women as human like themselves. I would if I were asserting this to a Martian, but not anyone who has lived in any modern society.

>Laughably histrionic. Is that like the war on Christmas?

Are you telling me that I think that women are constantly under attack by men because my uterus has become unmoored?

I saw your earlier interventions. Some of your arguments may be sound, but this one actually makes it harder to take you seriously and does a disservice to your cause. You might do better by arguing from a position that is grounded closer to reality (as in 2014 reality).

What argument? I'm not trying to make an argument - somebody called out three different things that I said, and I attempted to defend them.

I have absolutely no cause other than a factual basis for policy and actions.

keep in mind the common man hasnt been able to vote much longer than that either, before that it was just the aristocracy in power.

Much longer than since 1920? That's just not true.

Here is a history lesson, this one is the UK.

In 1800, the right to vote was based on wealth and gender (male). Less that 3 adults out of every 100 could vote. Since then, there have been some significant changes to the voting regulations:

1832 Reform Act. Extended the right to vote to certain leaseholders and householders. 5 adults out of every 100 could vote.

1867 Second Reform Act. Further extension of the voting regulations in counties and boroughs. 13 adults out of every 100 could vote, but still based on wealth.

1872 Secret Ballot Act. Introduced voting by secret ballot.

1884 Representation of the People Act. Any male occupying land or property with an annual rateable value of £10 could vote. 24 adults out of every 100 could vote.

1918 Representation of the People Act. All males over the age of 21 were given the vote. Women over 30 got the vote. Women could sit in the House of Commons as MPs. 75 adults out of every 100 could vote.

1928 Representation of the People Act. Uniform voting rights were extended to all men and women over the age of 21. 99 adults out of every 100 could vote.

1969 Representation of the People Act. The voting age was reduced to all men and women over the age of 18.

1985 Representation of the People Act. Voters who, at the time of an election, are abroad, either working or on holiday, may apply for a postal vote.

2000 Representation of the People Act. Introduced changes to electoral registration and extended postal vote provisions.

In terms of the US you will probably find something similar that for the most part it was land owners only who could vote.

Except in the US, it was 1870 when everybody but women got the vote.

And in 1920 women got the right as well, given the vast amount of history the human race has are you really upset over 50 years? I imagine the fifteenth amendment took a lot of political too and for to get passed. For 50 years women were denied the right to vote over common man, I fully support their right to vote but you are really blowing things out of proportion.

You're relying on absolutes and binaries, which has always been a very flawed method of determining any situation, as it ignores all forms of context, nuances and culture. The world isn't as simple as "Men prosper, women suffer." Not at all.

1. A group of men run most things.

2. A group of men often don't think of women as completely human.

3. I don't even know how to fix this.

>1. A group of men run most things.

I don't believe this. I don't know that there's a group of men that run things. What I'm saying is that as you move higher in the chain of management, you stop seeing women.

>2. A group of men often don't think of women as completely human.

I am not saying this. I am saying that often men don't think of women as fully human like themselves. I am not saying that there is a group of sexists that is causing all of the problems. I believe there are people who are very and openly sexist, and people that are less sexist and less open about it, and the bulk of us that just sometimes suffer from lazy thinking or ideological blinders.

>3. I don't even know how to fix this.

Support programs that help and encourage women.