I disagreed with the statement 'Wage disparity is caused by gender roles, not by discrimination'.
It's clear from history, as my example of Lilly Ledbetter, that Wage disparity is also caused by discrimination.
I don't see the need for "counter-examples and the counter-explanation" when documents like http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-28-11a.cfm ("Gender-Based Wage Gap Persists, Experts Agree at EEOC Forum" (2011)) say things like:
> Gender-based wage discrimination remains a problem today and a percentage of the wage discrepancy cannot be explained by non-discriminatory factors, said government and private experts ...
Two possible objections are that 2011 isn't modern enough, and that the EEOC cannot be believed. Without knowing what is considered valid evidence, I don't see the need to dig up examples when they can be dismissed with a one line response.
It's clear from history, as my example of Lilly Ledbetter, that Wage disparity is also caused by discrimination.
I don't see the need for "counter-examples and the counter-explanation" when documents like http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-28-11a.cfm ("Gender-Based Wage Gap Persists, Experts Agree at EEOC Forum" (2011)) say things like:
> Gender-based wage discrimination remains a problem today and a percentage of the wage discrepancy cannot be explained by non-discriminatory factors, said government and private experts ...
Two possible objections are that 2011 isn't modern enough, and that the EEOC cannot be believed. Without knowing what is considered valid evidence, I don't see the need to dig up examples when they can be dismissed with a one line response.