Women's clothes?

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Ah, my bad, I should've posted sources. Here you go, just one among many others:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-p...lete-myth/

That's an article from 2011, which doesn't suffice as evidence.

Just so I know we're on the same page - you said that it doesn't suffice as evidence. Evidence against what? exactly, just so we're on the same page here.

[Heat]

That's an article from 2011, which doesn't suffice as evidence.

Just so I know we're on the same page - you said that it doesn't suffice as evidence. Evidence against what? exactly, just so we're on the same page here.

You cited an outdated article as evidence against a present-date gender wage gap.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Just so I know we're on the same page - you said that it doesn't suffice as evidence. Evidence against what? exactly, just so we're on the same page here.

You cited an outdated article as evidence against a present-date gender wage gap.

Pahahaha, if you'd actually have read the article you'd have know that the issue is quite the contrary, the article does admit:

there's still a big pay gap between men and women in America. The report found that women earn 75 cents for every dollar men make.

Perhaps actually read something before you form your opinions eh? Not an advice, just a suggestion you might want to employ in the future so that you aren't looked at as a, to put things gently, as an irrational person.

[Heat]

You cited an outdated article as evidence against a present-date gender wage gap.

Pahahaha, if you'd actually have read the article you'd have know that the issue is quite the contrary, the article does admit:

there's still a big pay gap between men and women in America. The report found that women earn 75 cents for every dollar men make.

Perhaps actually read something before you form your opinions eh? Not an advice, just a suggestion you might want to employ in the future so that you aren't looked at as a, to put things gently, as an irrational person.

The article was last updated in April 2011 you fucking moron.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Pahahaha, if you'd actually have read the article you'd have know that the issue is quite the contrary, the article does admit:

Perhaps actually read something before you form your opinions eh? Not an advice, just a suggestion you might want to employ in the future so that you aren't looked at as a, to put things gently, as an irrational person.

The article was last updated in April 2011 you fucking moron.

You lack the basic common sense to engage with in a discussion. Bring up something relevant or forever be ignored my good friend. If you were actually following this thread you'd have known the purpose of me posting the article was not to prove a statistical data, but to widen the perspective of my fellow friends.
You're like that guy that sleeps through an entire meeting and then wakes up at the end of the meeting to suggest an "ingenious" idea, one which you later realize was bought up while you were sleeping, discussed and finalized. Stop embarrassing yourself mate.

[Heat]

The article was last updated in April 2011 you fucking moron.

You lack the basic common sense to engage with in a discussion. Bring up something relevant or forever be ignored my good friend. If you were actually following this thread you'd have known the purpose of me posting the article was not to prove a statistical data, but to widen the perspective of my fellow friends.
You're like that guy that sleeps through an entire meeting and then wakes up at the end of the meeting to suggest an "ingenious" idea, one which you later realize was bought up while you were sleeping, discussed and finalized. Stop embarrassing yourself mate.

You're definitely widening everyone's perspectives with outdated articles, I'm sure we all appreciate that.

Using big words and irrelevant comparisons doesn't make you seem any smarter.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

You lack the basic common sense to engage with in a discussion. Bring up something relevant or forever be ignored my good friend. If you were actually following this thread you'd have known the purpose of me posting the article was not to prove a statistical data, but to widen the perspective of my fellow friends.
You're like that guy that sleeps through an entire meeting and then wakes up at the end of the meeting to suggest an "ingenious" idea, one which you later realize was bought up while you were sleeping, discussed and finalized. Stop embarrassing yourself mate.

You're definitely widening everyone's perspectives with outdated articles, I'm sure we all appreciate that.

Using big words and irrelevant comparisons doesn't make you seem any smarter.

By definition all articles are outdated, genius.

Edit;
Why don't you actually read what I posed before you start complaining about it? Your posts have no content and in no way is a constructive way to further the discussion so if you have nothing much to add, why don't you refrain from making chow statements kid.

Edit;
Gonna point something out just for my own satisfaction:

An information gets outdated when the claims made in the information is contradicted by a newer information.
If you have newer information that can outdate what I posted(the article), then please, by all means, share it.
Also, when I said

By definition all articles are outdated, genius.

I implied

By your definition all articles are outdated, genius.

[GrandizerII]

Pahahaha, if you'd actually have read the article you'd have know that the issue is quite the contrary, the article does admit:

Perhaps actually read something before you form your opinions eh? Not an advice, just a suggestion you might want to employ in the future so that you aren't looked at as a, to put things gently, as an irrational person.

The article was last updated in April 2011 you fucking moron.

The issue isn't in the year. 2011 is not too long ago. The issue is that silly pool does not realize the high quantity of confirmation bias he has subjected himself to. He links to an opinion piece, not a peer-reviewed journal article, yet thinks this how scientific research works ...

I get the feeling pool is a big fan of the anti-feminist MRAs and PUAs who can't get a steady girlfriend who can respect them as people (because they themselves don't know how to respect others and themselves).

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

The article was last updated in April 2011 you fucking moron.

The issue isn't in the year. 2011 is not too long ago. The issue is that silly pool does not realize the high quantity of confirmation bias he has subjected himself to. He links to an opinion piece, not a peer-reviewed journal article, yet thinks this how scientific research works ...

I get the feeling pool is a big fan of the anti-feminist MRAs and PUAs who can't get a steady girlfriend who can respect them as people (because they themselves don't know how to respect others and themselves).

What you don't seem to realize is
Saying it's discriminating against women because the collective money men make is less than the collective money women make is like saying it's discrimination against low IQ students because the collective amount of low IQ students in high profile schools are lesser than the collective amount of high IQ students in high profile schools.
It has nothing to do with gender no matter how much you want it to.

Yeah, and the opinion piece you refer to - it is not filled with opinions but rather facts extracted from actual factual statistical analysis's. It is an article that puts things in perspective, it does admit that the collective money men make are more than women which it wouldn't if it really were an opinionated piece, then it talks about how it has nothing to do with gender.
You want more real life examples? We have lots of women here with a job, why don't you ask them if they are a victim of inequal pay? Women get equal pay for equal work. Period. Factual evidence supports this. It's really a myth because all the women I've met or encountered with believe that women are paid less for equal work yet none of them have ever experienced this, which would make sense, since it is not even legal for a corporation to do this.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

The article was last updated in April 2011 you fucking moron.

The issue isn't in the year. 2011 is not too long ago. The issue is that silly pool does not realize the high quantity of confirmation bias he has subjected himself to. He links to an opinion piece, not a peer-reviewed journal article, yet thinks this how scientific research works ...

I get the feeling pool is a big fan of the anti-feminist MRAs and PUAs who can't get a steady girlfriend who can respect them as people (because they themselves don't know how to respect others and themselves).

Unlike how many women would like to believe a man's life doesn't revolve with getting a steady girlfriend. Yeah.