> > assume that a woman won't push back as hard or because they just feel uncomfortable with a woman earning that much (or more than her colleagues).
> Exactly. They are seen as less valuable in the marketplace
I'm really confused as to how you think what you wrote follows from I wrote.
They're not seen as "less valuable", they're seen as more exploitable for chauvinistic reasons.
At no point did I say that the gender gap doesn't exist, how do you even come to that conclusion? My point is that "women should just demand less money" is a really bad takeaway from the gender pay gap. Maybe women should demand more money and/or unionise, and maybe men should help expose biases whenever they see them and demand transparent reviews. Just as an example, that's something works councils usually do where I live.
They have to be, if you believe there is a gender pay gap. That is literally what a gender pay gap is.
> they're seen as more exploitable for chauvinistic reasons.
Which, again, is just another way to say "less valuable". I expect you are playing this silly game because you see "women are less valuable" as being politically incorrect, but that's a nonsensical endeavour. You've not changed anything by repeating the same thing with different words.
> At no point did I say that the gender gap doesn't exist, how do you even come to that conclusion?
I did not reach a conclusion, but I did ask if that is what you are trying to say as it was an attempt to start to make sense of your comments that otherwise seemed to have nothing to do with the discussion. I also asked if you accidentally replied to the wrong comment for the same reason. If the answer is no on either account, you can simply say "no".
Perhaps the problem all along was simply that you don't know how to read? This response is strongly suggesting that.
> My point is that "women should just demand less money" is a really bad takeaway
I'm not sure where you got that takeaway. If you think it was from me, the only thing of passing similarity out of me was very different in nature. But, regardless, what is the point of that point? The discussion is about what is, not what "should" be. What purpose would the latter discussion even serve? All you can possibly get out of it is arbitrary opinion. That would be a complete waste of time.
> Exactly. They are seen as less valuable in the marketplace
I'm really confused as to how you think what you wrote follows from I wrote.
They're not seen as "less valuable", they're seen as more exploitable for chauvinistic reasons.
At no point did I say that the gender gap doesn't exist, how do you even come to that conclusion? My point is that "women should just demand less money" is a really bad takeaway from the gender pay gap. Maybe women should demand more money and/or unionise, and maybe men should help expose biases whenever they see them and demand transparent reviews. Just as an example, that's something works councils usually do where I live.