Foxy:"You only see things through
a very narrow lens"

LOL. Pot, meet kettle, you'll note she's rather burnt...

As I said, I look at things form all sorts of angles. I like "what if..."

Furthermore, because I'm not trying to please a woman (the old power of the pussy and all that), it allows me to explore what-ifs that exclude the standard set of female expectations - a man to take care of them and lots of authority with absolutely minimal personal accountability.

Foxy:"You were not interested."

Au contraire, I pointed out why the data you were referring to was not relevant,being based on population means, rather than medians and being several years out of date. Your response was to simply regurtgitate the same references, without making any effort to repudiate my reasoning. You then went on to accuse me of somehow being "narrow".

In other words I was interested, but rejected your data as meaningless in the context. See the difference?

It doesn't matter how often you claim I'm somehow skewing the data, the data remain and if you don't have the skill set to understand it, as you clearly don't, then may I suggest you do your best to acquire it, instead of trying to derail the discussion, as usual?

Foxy:"ou're not interested
in having a discussion. "

Once again,au contraire. I'd dearly love to have a genuine discussion instead of the nibbling by rabbits that is about all the "feminist" view seems able to come up with.

Foxy:"to me,
and and the people I know, - gender has never been
a restriction - "

In fact,it's been a positive benefit. How else to explain the people here with "professional" jobs and no brains?

Foxy, that was a great, accurate post. That sort of thing needs to be said, otherwise the bullies of the world win. As we both know, he doesn't get it and never will; he possesses scant personal insight. So be it!

LOL,cue rabbit no 2...

Foxy, keep up the good work. You're a credit to the forum; mature, intelligent with insight and humanity. What you write here carries weight.

You've gone down in my estimation Foxy. Here I was thinking you were winding him up with your dead-brained repetition of 17% pay gap.

Simple questions you haven't been brave enough to answer...

'The fact is that you have not even tried to address my point in relation to education or in relation to the statistical problems caused by using simple mean figures, or of the "invisible" wealth transfer between the genders,preferring to try to pretend it's all just a product of my "perspective". '

Agreed.

'In this thread I tried to refer you
to various websites, so that you would obtain
the accurate information. You were not interested.'

As you were not interested in addressing these 3 simple points...

1. More women than men ARE going to university. It's fact.

2. Taking the mean without looking at the distribution of data is misleading. 1 man could earn 20 billion and skew the results.

3. The wealth transfer between men and women makes the issue of any pay inequity a small part of the story. When more women than men, by choice, choose to earn nothing, or work part time, and are supported by their partners wage there will never be equality in average pay rates.

Simple points that you refuse to address, then blame antiseptic for not looking at your vague link, where you didn't indicate anything specific or particular in said link that was adding to the debate.

Arrogance personified.

You quote your 17% pay gap like Tony Abbott yells Stop The Boats.

PS: Your link is stale and doesn't work anyway.

TZ52HS,

'Foxy, that was a great, accurate post. That sort of thing needs to be said, otherwise the bullies of the world win. As we both know, he doesn't get it and never will; he possesses scant personal insight. So be it!'

Fair enough, you think antiseptics manner is that of a bully, but I think if you think that's all that's going on here you're missing a trick.

All Foxy has done is change the subject because she cant refute the simple arguments antiseptic has put forward.

Rather than address these points, she's gone off on a tangent and twisted the argument to be all about antiseptics rudeness and alleged hatred of women. Pretty soft.

If Foxy had bothered to address his points, he would be more likely to be civil, and she well knows this. Foxy has decided how antiseptic must communicate with her, and it's all on her terms. If she genuinely wanted to debate the issue she would, but she knows she can just antagonise him and use the tone of his response to avoid the fact she cant refute his logical arguments.

It's a smokescreen.