Always ask: What did the police do to escalate the situation?

Whenever we hear of a police encounter, whether it be between two individuals or a crowd versus an entire department or a swat team raiding the wrong house or a cop shooting a dog (as they have a fetish to do), the first question we should ask ourselves is: What did the police do to escalate the situation? This isn’t the case with all police. Those of, say, Canada or France or Norway needn’t have this question follow them. But the police of places like Russia and Iran and the U.S. and China have earned it. It’s a question for police states.

Note that in addition to bringing in military toys, the police response here also included a violation of the guy’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Nope, Benghazi still isn’t a story

Try as they might, the Republicans just can’t seem to say anything remotely true:

Prominent Republicans hit the Sunday morning talk show circuit to defend New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, comparing the possible 2016 presidential hopeful’s handling of the burgeoning bridge scandal to President Barack Obama’s response to the Benghazi terror attack and the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups.

1. Benghazi is a non-story. 2. Republicans intentionally misled everyone on the IRS “scandal” since it has since been revealed that the IRS was targeting both conservative and liberal groups for greater scrutiny.

“Chris Christie has been totally open here,” Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus said on NBC’s “Meet The Press” Sunday. “He stood there for 111 minutes in an open dialogue with the press. Now, only if Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would give us 111 seconds of that, would we find out some things we want to find out about Obamacare, Benghazi, the IRS.”

“What? What bridge issue? LOOK OVER HERE!”

There’s a lot of cynicism regarding our politicians, as there should be. But how anyone ever says the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans is beyond me.

An example of the downfall of journalism

There was once a time when journalists did their research. They fact-checked themselves or, at the absolute least, had someone else fact-check their articles. My degree isn’t in journalism so I’m not sure if they covered that tidbit in the first or second class of Journalism 101, but I have no doubt it was covered. Well. I have no doubt it was covered prior to the 90’s and early 2000’s before our current crop of ‘journalists’ came about. I suppose I’m not really sure what they’re covering now; I’d ask a journalist, but I’m not really convinced that’s a legitimate source nowadays.

At any rate, I bring up this basic of journalism because I visited a blog by an alleged journalist, Michael Hartwell. As some of you may recall, I had him on my blogroll for some time, but I had to take him off. The simple fact was he didn’t fact-check his material. I don’t know as I expected any change after such a relatively short time, but I went back to his blog at least hoping for something interesting. Instead I found a post about that bigoted, racist Duck Dynasty guy. I’ve done a decent job of avoiding even talking about that garbage, but I admit I’ve been reading about the situation. First, for those who don’t know, a guy from a reality show said this:

Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson is making anti-gay comments in the January issue of GQ.

In statements that threaten the A&E reality hit’s wildly popular and uplifting brand of faith, family and hunting, the Robertson patriarch said: “Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong… Sin becomes fine. Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.” Robertson then paraphrased Corinthians from the Bible: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

And if that wasn’t explicit enough, the “Duck Commander” added: “It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

He also said he has never seen the mistreatment of any black people, but I guess we’re all ignoring his racism for this one. At any rate, Hartwell had this to say in his ‘coverage’:

During my workday today I heard three conservative talk radio show hosts defend Phil Robertson, the 60-plus conservative Christian who was fired from the show Duck Dynasty by A&E after he explained his opposition to the gay lifestyle in a magazine interview.

In all three cases, the radio hosts started off their defense of Robertson by saying this was not a free speech issue…

The hosts in question were Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Pat and Stu, co-hosts of Glenn Beck. Beck himself had retired early for the day.

So imagine my surprise when I got home and every left winger online had written about how Robertson’s defenders, and therefor (sic) all conservatives, are all claiming A&E violated his freedom of speech.

Hartwell, upset that “every left winger” is generalizing Robertson’s defenders – he said this without intentional irony – was able to find only a few conservatives who made ridiculous statements:

Truth be told, there were some real examples of folks who said that, including Sarah Palin and apparently, Glenn Beck. There were also some nobody-guests on Fox News at some point during the day and nobodies on Twitter and Facebook pages.

Worry not, everyone. It turns out those filthy liberals are wrong again. Yessirree, deys just be makin’ them things up.

It’d be a real shame if someone did some, ya know, research. Let me pick a few choice quotes from around the Interwebs:

But I also acknowledge that this is a free country and everyone is entitled to express their views. In fact, I remember when TV networks believed in the First Amendment.

That one comes from Bobby Jindal, Republican creationist governor of Louisiana.

If you believe in free speech or religious liberty, you should be deeply dismayed over the treatment of Phil Robertson. Phil expressed his personal views and his own religious faith; for that, he was suspended from his job. In a free society, anyone is free to disagree with him–but the mainstream media should not behave as the thought police censoring the views with which they disagree.

You knew one of these quotes would have to come from Ted Cruz. Well, that’s the one.

Free speech is an endangered species. Those “intolerants” hatin’ and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us.

Give Hartwell credit for this one because it comes from Sarah Palin.

Of course, there’s more. A Facebook page, for instance, has 60,000 people who are ‘standing for free speech’. I know Hartwell attempted to dismiss these “nobodies”, but he doesn’t get to have things both ways: If he’s going to say things like this – “There’s no evidence to suggest that a majority of conservatives made that too-common error. Some people certainly did, but please don’t tell me that an entire group did it. Even Rush Limbaugh dismissed the idea; that’s not trivial.” – then he has to own up when a large swath of right wingers come out of the wood work to support a stupid idea.

But let’s continue. Another Facebook page, which has a “not trivial” 1.5 million “Likes”, has a picture bragging that they got over a million likes for free speech in just 24 hours. And in case one is so inclined to chalk that up to whoever the random admin on the group happens to be, the picture currently has over 600,000 likes and nearly 75,000 shares. “That’s not trivial.”

Have I made my point yet? Journalism is in dire straights and this is a good case study of that fact. Yes, Hartwell’s blog is just that, a blog. However, he has made it clear in the past that he uses his blog as a sort of showpiece in addition to his regular articles for his career; his blog is there, in large part, so future employers can get an idea of how he covers a story. (That’s why the sentences are simple, usually short, bunched in two or three line paragraphs, and why he very strongly attempts to portray a certain objectivity.) I’m convinced he isn’t doing so hot. His fact-checking hasn’t matured since last year, nor, indeed, has it really changed from his college days when he wrote an article urging biologists to give intelligent design a chance. To his credit he has since figured out why he was so wrong, but that largely came by due to the response from his school’s biology department. Ya know, that department just down the hall, perhaps a building or two over. Ya know. That department he apparently didn’t bother to visit.

Let me end by addressing a detail of Hartwell’s very first sentence in the post in question:

During my workday today I heard three conservative talk radio show hosts defend Phil Robertson, the 60-plus conservative Christian who was fired from the show Duck Dynasty by A&E after he explained his opposition to the gay lifestyle in a magazine interview.

Emphasis mine. Fact-checking also mine:

The network issued the following statement to [Entertainment Weekly]: “We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty. His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely.”

An A&E spokesperson confirmed this statement means exactly what it says: Robertson is off the show for an as-yet-undetermined period of time. The rest of his family will continue on the reality series.

Emphasis mine.

In other words, he wasn’t fired. He was suspended. Perhaps he’ll never come back. Perhaps he’ll be ready to go next season. Who knows? All we can say is that he was suspended, not fired.

Should polygamy be legal?

A judge in Utah recently ruled Utah’s anti-polygamy laws unconstitutional:

Advocacy groups for polygamy and individual liberties on Saturday hailed a federal judge’s ruling that key parts of Utah’s polygamy laws are unconstitutional, saying it will remove the threat of arrest for those families.

U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups said in the decision handed down Friday that a provision in Utah law forbidding cohabitation with another person violated the First Amendment right of freedom of religion.

The ruling was a victory for Kody Brown and his four wives who star in the hit TLC reality show ‘‘Sister Wives’’ and other fundamentalist Mormons who believe polygamy brings exaltation in heaven.

This ruling doesn’t legalize polygamy, but if upheld it would decriminalize it. I have no doubt that is the correct ruling, whether due to religious freedom or individual liberty. In either case, I see no reason why any government can tell people with whom they can and cannot live. (Utah didn’t even stop at that rights violation: the state went so far as to say people couldn’t claim to be married to multiple people.) However, the question of legalization is a different one.

It’s hard to see a reason why one should care about the lifestyle choice of consenting adults. I don’t. It doesn’t affect anyone else in any way whatsoever. However, that doesn’t mean the government should necessarily go about endorsing contractual agreements that bestow various rights, privileges, and tax conditions.

The fundamental question concerning the legalization of same-sex marriage is one of equality: the government can’t invent/endorse a practice that it limits on the basis of an inherent human condition like race or sexual orientation – at least not since the 14th Amendment. That’s exactly what it has been doing (and in many states is still doing) by barring same-sex couples from marrying. With polygamy, however, that is not what’s happening. The basis for barring polygamous marriages is rooted, right or wrong, entirely in a moral stance which passes judgement on the preferences, not orientation, of individuals. Polygamous marriages and same-sex marriages are apples and oranges.

None of this – to this point – is to say one way or another whether or not I’m in favor of legalizing polygamous marriages. Up until now I’ve only discussed what it is. So with that said, let me state: I don’t think it should be legal. I have two primary reasons for my position.

First, I believe one of the most important rights bestowed upon couples who get married is one of spousal privilege where a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against another spouse in a court. Aside from the fact that any right which prevents the government from gaining any evidence against a person for any reason is a fundamentally good thing for freedom, spousal privilege is necessary to fostering healthy relationships. Allowing the government to force a spouse to turn on another spouse can only serve to prevent married couples from free discussion, thus weakening their marriages. This right is to marriages as the ecclesiastical privilege is to religious freedom. Just as forcing clergy to divulge information told to them by penitents would weaken a person’s ability to freely practice his religion, forcing a spouse to divulge information gained via marriage would weaken a couple’s marital bonds. Now, the reason I bring this up is that there is absolutely no circumstance in which I believe this right should be destroyed, yet that is exactly what would be necessary if polygamy was legalized. If any number of individuals could marry, there is nothing stopping a criminal enterprise from conducting a mass marriage, thus gaining spousal privilege for any number of thugs. This would be great for their freedom, but it would be very bad for everyone else’s safety. (In a weeks-old discussion from Facebook someone made the point that if just one person wanted a divorce, it would become necessary for all the other spouses to divulge all financial information, which no crime organization would want. I was asked if I really thought such people would expose themselves that way. The answer, of course, is yes. First, it’s a risk, to say the least, to divorce one’s self from a crime organization, whether in a symbolic sense or in this fictional legal world. Second, crime organizations aren’t exactly known for their well reconciled check books.)

Second, it’s hard to fathom how the tax code would cope with this change in law. A fundamental overhaul would be necessary, which could be done I suppose, but no doubt people would take advantage of it for the sake of saving a few bucks, no matter how careful the changes were. I know I would. This isn’t an insurmountable objection to polygamy (hence why it’s my second, not my first, point), but it’s definitely a huge issue.

At any rate, criminalizing polygamy is just making up a crime. And being against polygamy on moral grounds is some pretty weak sauce. However, simply due to a single, fundamental right bestowed upon married couples, I can’t possibly support legalized polygamous marriages. I imagine there are actually a host of rights to be considered here, but I see no need to go beyond just the one given its importance. We can’t get rid of it – that weakens marriage and individual freedom – and we can’t grant it to everyone – the exploitation would be insane – and we can’t grant it to one group of married couples while denying it to another – that’s no different from what we’re seeing now with the non-legalization of same-sex marriage. The only solution is to keep legal marriage defined to two individuals.

Finally taking on the extremes

After something like 1600+ days without a budget, after the better part of the days since President Obama’s first inauguration, and after a lot of manufactured problems, there is a budget deal on the horizon:

The plan, a product of months of negotiation between Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, a Republican, and Washington Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat, lacks many priorities Republicans have fought for during the Obama era. It posits no major reforms to Social Security and Medicare, for instance, nor does it balance the budget.

But for the first time in years, many Republicans showed openness to a temporary truce.

“It’s a positive step forward,” said Oregon Republican Rep. Greg Walden, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. “It gets us past these minicrises that have caused all kinds of disruptions on our American citizens and government.”

But that’s not the real story here. The real story comes from Rep. Boehner:

This is not to say conservatives are rolling over. A number of well-funded outside groups, notably the Club for Growth, Heritage Action and FreedomWorks, have blasted the plan as insufficiently conservative and vowed to punish Republican lawmakers who support it.

Their antagonism has infuriated Republican leaders.

The frustration was on full display as Republican House Speaker John Boehner unloaded on the groups after a reporter asked about their opposition.

“Most major conservative groups have put out statements blasting this deal,” the reporter said. “Are you worried that there…”

Boehner cut the reporter off and boomed: “You mean the groups that came out and opposed it before they ever saw it?”

“Yes, those groups,” the reporter replied. “Are you worried that there are…”

Boehner interrupted again: “They’re using our members and they’re using the American people for their own goals,” he said, raising his voice. “This is ridiculous! Listen, if you’re for more deficit reduction, you’re for this agreement.”

Does this spell doom for Boehner’s political future? I hope not. It isn’t that I like or support him or anything about him. It’s that the culture of elections is fundamentally flawed. This is largely a result of gerrymandered districts that make it all but impossible for moderates to win (which is one reason the House is consistently more crazy than the Senate), but it’s also about who goes out and votes. If the U.S. had required voting like, say, Australia, would we have the problems we have today? Probably not. We’d still have problems, but I think they would be lesser; we would inevitably see a better reflection of what the American electorate wants, and so our politics would be less extreme. Not that required voting will ever happen here. But I digress. It would be preferable to see Boehner maintain the level of power he has over his party while continuing in this reasonable direction. Government shutdowns, debt ceiling debacles, and sequesters don’t help the economy. Those things don’t help the nation.

Admiration

In my JFK documentary binge-watching over the past week, no one besides the President himself has stood out to me more than Jackie Kennedy. She was the very definition of dignity throughout the entire ordeal. I’m not sure there’s ever been an American who impresses me more.

Outrage culture

I get the sense that as this century progresses, more and more we suffer from outrage culture. Did someone say something offensive? Outrageous! Was something not politically correct enough? Outrageous! Did a politician in the other party not wear a sufficiently large America flag pin? Outrageous!

Most often, though, this outrage seems to be premised in one particular group’s opportunity to be the only one at the table that gets to express how uniquely oppressed it is. For example, Jimmy Kimmel aired a bit last month where he asked children what we should do about our debt to China. One kid, no more than 6, suggested killing everyone in China. Kimmel then asked how many of the (4) kids thought that was a good idea. It wasn’t AT&T commercial cute, but it sufficed for a late night talk show bit. However, now many Chinese-Americans are outraged.

It’s not an issue that people would be mildly offended at the bit. The issue is in the calls for Kimmel to be fired and the sustained picketing outside his show and online. It’s an overreaction, a mountain from a mole hill. This is outrage culture. A group sees the opportunity to portray itself as particularly oppressed, as particularly harmed. The reason why they’re being oppressed isn’t really what’s important. What’s important is that they’re oppressed and hurt and offended and you aren’t. It doesn’t matter which race, ethnicity, or other type of group it is. It only matters that the opportunity is there to demonstrate outrage that only this group is allowed to have.

This type of culture, this outrage culture, only serves to set up artificial segregation between minority groups (of any kind, whether racial or otherwise) and everyone else. Yes, get upset over major issues. Express outrage at racial slurs. Get up in arms over discrimination. But don’t make mountains out of mole hills because you want your group to own the right to be outraged to the exclusion of everyone else. That explicitly sets up walls and barriers, and these are the very things we should want to do away with.

My flirtation with “Men’s Rights”

Right away, “men’s rights” sounds like a ridiculous notion. We think of it in comparison to women’s rights and the women’s rights movement, something absolutely necessary in the history of the United States, and still necessary today. We’ve needed women’s rights, from the early part of the century and before when women couldn’t vote, through the middle of the century when women were paid little and sexual harassment was accepted. There’s been a certain disadvantage to being a woman in society; the flip side is that there’s been a certain advantage to being a man. Only the most extreme of individuals will say these facts are firm 100% of the time – of course women have advantages in some areas, and of course men have disadvantages in some areas – but it is clear that life as a man is, on average, easier than life as a woman.

I agree with what I’ve said. That isn’t all simply a recounting of a narrative or a statement of a worldview I’m preparing to attack. I affirm that it is an advantage, on average, to be a man. Indeed, even with my gender and sex identity wiped from my memory, if I could be reincarnated and given the choice to be a man or a woman, I don’t imagine a scenario where I would choose to be a woman. That isn’t to say there is anything wrong with being a woman, though. It’s simply to affirm the advantage that comes with being a man. (Just the same, if I had a choice between being, say, 5 feet or 6 feet, I would always choose 6 feet. That doesn’t mean 5 foot tall people are bad.)

So, again, I affirm men, on average, have an advantage in life over women.

Sadly, the reason I have had to affirm my belief about the male advantage in society is that I’m also going to say something which will automatically cause a certain part of society to ignore absolutely everything I have to say on anything ever again: I sympathize with men’s rights activists (MRA’s).

Of course, I have to qualify this like crazy because the men’s rights movement (MRM) is so often vilified. For example, the Southern Poverty Law Center went idiot hunting last year. What they found was a handful of barely popular fringe websites that were antagonistic towards women, spewing a lot of misogyny and sexism. Coupled with these sites were two of the more popular outlets for men’s rights: A Voice for Men and r/mensrights, a subreddit on the popular site reddit.com. I would lump probably 80% of what A Voice for Men posts with the idiots. The r/mensrights subreddit, however, is a different story.

Since becoming a reddit addict earlier this year, I’ve taken to subscribing to a lot of different subreddits. (Think of reddit has a message board and subreddits as forums. It’s not quite like that, but the idea is basically the same.) I like to make it a point to occasionally subscribe to subreddits that don’t reflect my views. I figure I’ll either learn something or find something funny. The latter reason is why I initially subscribed to r/Christianity and r/mensrights. I soon unsubscribed to r/Christianity because it was so boring, but I stuck around r/mensrights. Men have a big advantage in life, so it was sure to be hilarious, right?

Not really.

As it turns out, there are a lot of important issues raised in r/mensrights that had never crossed my radar. For instance, it never crossed my mind to consider how much of a discount women get on their prison sentences versus men for the same crime. (It’s something like 60% overall, and only a few crimes net women harsher sentences than men.) As anyone who reads FTSOS knows, I’m no fan of the U.S. criminal justice system. I think it’s utter garbage, an institution set up to keep people locked up for petty crimes while private prisons (which should make everyone say “What in the fuck?”) make loads of money. So my reaction to women’s decreased sentences isn’t that they should be raised to those given to men, but I think it’s obvious men and women should be treated equally under the law.

And there are other issues. Go find any article about a male teacher accused of one form or another of sexual assault on a female student. The headline will never say he “had sex with” her. No, it will rightly say he assaulted/raped her. But read an article where the teacher is female and the student is male, and well, she had sex with him. He’s a guy. He must have wanted it, right?

Now, recall when I said I couldn’t imagine choosing to be a woman anymore than I would choose to be 5 feet tall. I’m assuming a clean slate, an equal chance to have my life turn out great as I have for it to turn out awful. But change the details and ask me if I’d rather be a man or a woman standing in divorce/family/criminal court? The answer is obvious: a woman all the way. Even beyond the criminal ‘justice’ system, it is never an advantage to be a man. Women are almost always given custody of children by default. Divorce settlements decidedly favor women (even when the woman is capable of making her own living based upon the skills she has obtained during marriage).

But now I have to get back to the qualifying, less I be accused of embracing everything to do with men’s rights. I greatly dislike when people in r/mensrights use intentionally sexist terms like “bitch”, “harpie”, “shriek”, and so forth. I’m all about using language freely and openly, but it’s obvious the intention by some of the people in that subreddit is to demean women. Fuck that bullshit. And fuck the commenters who genuinely do seem to hold a grudge against all women. I don’t support that.

So, let me be clear: I have a sympathy towards the men’s rights movement insofar as it points out issues where men are treated unfairly and do have a disadvantage. I think it’s wrong that our various courts are obviously (and insanely) biased against men. I think it’s wrong that the sexual assault of young boys is treated as something those boys wanted, provided to perpetrator was a woman. (Notice the lack of headlines declaring “Priest accused of having sex with altar boy.”) I’m very much a utilitarian, but I also very much see the value in egalitarianism. This isn’t always expressed by MRA’s, but it is the underlying theme I’ve seen. That is where my sympathy lies. (The utter lack of egalitarianism in 3rd wave feminism disgusts me.)

But let me be extra clear: My sympathy towards men’s rights does not mean one can possibly conclude my favor or disfavor regarding any given issue. I may think it’s wrong that a man walking with his son in the English countryside was assumed to be a pedophile (the same would not happen to a mother), but that doesn’t mean I have a significant issue with the massive funding disparity between breast cancer research and prostate cancer research – a look into the data shows that it makes sense for the most part. (I do, however, have an issue with the lack of funding lung cancer research receives as compared with breast cancer research.)

So here’s the big conclusion. The MRM raises some valid points that I think deserve far more attention than they currently get. Moreover, I am on board with the egalitarian approach of the movement (an approach, incidentally, which characterizes much of 1st and 2nd wave feminism). I also agree with the idea held by many MRA’s that sexism is not defined by a power asymmetry, but by discrimination on the basis of sex. Aside from being the dictionary definition of sexism, I reject the idea that a given group being in power translates to the individual members of that group automatically having greater power. That is, Congress being composed of mostly white men does not mean that every white man has more power than everyone else. Thus, sexism can and does occur independently of a group’s collective power. But does that mean I embrace everything espoused by anyone claiming the label of “MRA”? Of course not. I’m not a frequent poster on reddit, but most of what I’ve posted in r/mensrights has been dissent. The movement doesn’t have a cohesive philosophy, so it has some serious holes. (Feminism also doesn’t have a cohesive philosophy – forget about claiming it is a philosophy – but as a political movement (and that’s exactly what it is), it is far more coherent than the MRM.) But just as feminist writers opened my eyes to sexism I once did not see, the MRM has made me aware of unfair treatment of one of the sexes.

Ken Cuccinelli defeated

According to some reports I’m seeing come across my side of the Internets, Ken Cuccinelli has been defeated in the race for Virginia governor. I don’t really care about Virginian politics, so I’m not all that concerned about looking up the name of the Democrat who won. All that matters is that the sexually immature, bigoted, anti-science Cuccinelli lost. I hope this is the end of his political career.

The gender wage gap myth

I was once antagonistic to the idea that the gender wage gap we’re always hearing about was really a myth. I mean, I wasn’t totally against the notion; when the evidence was presented to me, I accepted it as far as I saw it go, which was from women making 72-77% of men to women making more like 92% of male earnings. But I now believe that number to be more like 95%. That’s still a problem, but not one that I think merits government intervention like it once did. It’s a problem that is borne of certain cultural conditions that are beyond what any law can change (and, indeed, some of it isn’t even a problem where it’s simply a matter of choice on the part of the individual). Moreover, boys are increasingly being left behind in grade school; their behavior is seen as quintessentially wrong and in need of correction (hence why it is boys, not girls, who are given more Ritalin prescriptions). Even moreover, enrollment in higher education is somewhere around 60% female at this point. Simply put, women are poised better now than ever to not only overcome the (real) wage gap, but to reverse the trend. (I don’t expect anyone to raise a stink when that happens, though – at the very least, the anti-egalitarian feminists won’t.)

So, inspired by a comment left here, I want to dispel the gender wage gap myth with this abridged article:

Why the Gender Pay Gap is a Complete Myth

Men are far more likely to choose careers that are more dangerous, so they naturally pay more.

Men are far more likely to work in higher-paying fields and occupations (by choice).

Men are far more likely to take work in uncomfortable, isolated, and undesirable locations that pay more. Men work longer hours than women do.

Men are more likely to take jobs that require work on weekends and evenings and therefore pay more.

Even within the same career category, men are more likely to pursue high-stress and higher-paid areas of specialization.

Despite all of the above, unmarried women who’ve never had a child actually earn more than unmarried men, according to Nemko and data compiled from the Census Bureau.

Women business owners make less than half of what male business owners make, which, since they have no boss, means it’s independent of discrimination.

Each one of the claims is backed up either with a direct citation or in reference to other cited work. Now, one may argue, for instance, that women choosing to spend more time caring for children than men do is a remnant of a patriarchal society. Then, if one is a feminist caricature, one may say the word “privilege” a half dozen times. Finally, one may conclude that traditional male and female roles are in and of themselves sexist and ought to be changed. However, one would be talking about an entirely different issue than the gender wage gap. Because, as we can all see based upon the clear and convincing evidence, the gender wage gap is almost entirely a myth.