I hope at least you read well your own links on the other debate and learnt that there are a lot of unexplained or arbitrary factors regarding gender differences in pay, other than Male Oppressors.

Which you decided I had denied, despite I having not done so. And the sentence I linked is hardly unrelated to the topic.

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères

Since you like playing "gotcha", you could have looked to the end of the links, which expanded on the conclusions of the statistical study. Maybe you to could have learnt something, like, "The case-studies show that, when recruiting for sex-typed jobs, employers attempt to match some features of the job with the alleged characteristics of one of the sex"..."If tasks fail to provide a basis for sex typing, the social relations within which they are performed may still provide such a rationale"..."The hours of works form a third basis for sex typing"..."Other job features such as pay, status and prospects may also serve this purposes"..."In other words, job features work as segregation devices because they allow employer to mobilize gender stereotypes"...

Bun then, that book is probably full of ideology and sloppy reasoning itself, I suppose.


Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères