That's not true, because child rearing is just one of many things that reduces an employee's productivity, and lesbians aren't a randomly selected sample of all women. It's possible that lesbians are stupider, less agreeable, or crazier than women on average. It's also possible that the effect doesn't exist a all and is merely measurement uncertainty, as
other studies show the opposite trend, again with small effect size.
You really showed your hand here. I'll only reply to what was worth replying to here: in order for your wild grasping to have any merit, you'd have to reasonably propose something that explains why women are less productive than men to the extent that it warrants lower pay to the extent experienced and is known to employers. I'm eager to hear.And try not to post anything (else) that will embarrass you in the future.No, it isn't. It's a reality that some groups earn less money than others, at others are underrepresented in politics, but ascribing this to social conspiracies is not only not justified, it contradicts positive evidence of real differences between these groups.
Again, history is not a social conspiracy.
But if you're willing to make explicit your implicit that 'some groups' - blacks, women, etc have 'real differences' (biological traits?) that explain why they earn less than 'other groups' .. I'm all ears.
i.e. a wealth of claims in soft fields, that do not require scientific method, which assert these things. I wouldn't include economics in that description, but economics also doesn't support the conclusions of the other fields.
'
Soft fields.' By soft I assume you mean not employing the scientifc method? There are reasons why these fields don't employ the SM - it's because the Sm isn't omnipotent. Not to mention that a few of the key pillars of a classical education, which produced Western society, included philosophy and letters - hardly soft (pun intended).Nor is science value free and completely objective. That's a discussion for another thread. See a text in feminist epistemology on that topic.But as you conceded, economics is not 'soft.' Look up feminist economists -you'll see plenty of researchers and theorists with the quantitative degrees you so covet.Neither of these people have any scientific education, they are just ideologues.
Because none can be supported by the evidence. Nonetheless, we would expect such a pay gap to exist if the left's model of reality is correct. Occam's razor suggests that the left's model of reality is not correct.