papsosouid

That makes no sense. People say that so that everyone will see they are bigots and ignore the rest of what they have to say? If people want to be ignored wouldn't they just not bother posting to begin with? The point of the phrase is to belittle people who dare to suggest that men are not some special privileged class of people who spend their time oppressing women.

That's exactly what he just said.

>That's pretty much what is common understanding of the wage gap

No it isn't. If that were the common understanding, then people would not say they are fighting for "equal pay for equal work". The very existence of the phrase "equal pay for equal work" demonstrates that people do believe (incorrectly) that women are paid less than men for the same work.

I am saying you need to account for hours worked and years experience.

Why are you asking me to make your argument for you? If you want to take a position on job choices and availability go right ahead, you don't need me to do it for you.

The answer is still "account for hours work and years experience" no matter how many times you ask.

>Those things should make you question why women not men are expected to take time out of their career to raise children, why women on average end up in lower paying jobs.

No, those things should make the feminists spouting this nonsense ask those questions. Instead, the continue to spew deliberately misleading nonsense, knowing that people are sympathetic to "women get paid less for the same work", but are much less sympathetic to "women choose to work fewer hours".

>Almost every analysis I've ever read about the wage gap went beyond the pay difference

I find those to be in the minority myself. And those are of course never presented by feminist proponents of the wage gap myth, as those demonstrate that it is a myth.

>Wouldn't addressing the lie include an acknowledgement of wage disparity

It isn't wage disparity, that is the point. It is job disparity. If you want to make a case that women aren't able to get the jobs they want due to sexism, feel free to do so. But don't expect me to do it for you simply because you made a totally unrelated claim.

Are you seriously asking me to copy+paste my last reply back to you? How many times do you hope to repeat the same comments, and what is the purpose of that?

>You're suggesting that women actively seek out lower-paid, lower-status work.

All available evidence supports that notion. Women are more likely to value other things more than they value financial motives. I am also not suggesting that is the sole cause. Women work fewer hours on average, they avoid dangerous jobs, jobs with long and/or odd hours, and they are more likely to take time off which leads to them having on average less experience.

>If you're a woman that runs into this discrimination, your only choices are to lower your standards for a job, and accept one that is lower paying, or to not work at all.

Or to do the same thing the author did and put "Ms." on your resume if your name is ambiguous.

>because it's far from clear that women have the same opportunity to get the same job in the first place.

Hiring rates don't support your hypothesis.

>Did I miss something?

Yes. The image doesn't show the opposite information as the text. As the text explains, the average of all men's wages increases more than the average of all women's wages. The average of all men and all women's wages is not how you show there is a wage gap. The average of all women work fewer hours than the average of all men, and have less experience.

Why would you respond to someone saying "you need to account for things like hours worked, experience, position, etc" with "if you don't account for things like hours worked and experience, we can mislead people into thinking there is a gap"?