this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2024
432 points (97.4% liked)
Microblog Memes
5878 readers
3683 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Great work. With strong arguments like that you're sure to discredit fascism and advance feminism! You are as asset to the conservative PsyOps machine, comrade!
"the arrival of children has a large and persistent impact on the gender earnings gap, reducing female earnings by 55 per cent, on average, in the 5 years following parenthood. We further show, using personal income tax data collected by the Australian Tax Office (ATO), that this gap improves only slightly but remains high in the 10 years following the arrival of children."
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2022/05/reduce-motherhood-penalty-gender-pay-gap/
https://theconversation.com/the-motherhood-pay-gap-why-womens-earnings-decline-after-having-children-220207
Your entire argument is specious. Nobody but you made any reference to lifetime earnings. Also, you have admitted, quite directly, to being a fascist.
So blow it out your ass, idiot. Since everything coming from you is shit, anyways.
So in addition to poor reasoning skills, you also have poor literacy skills and reading comprehension... I am unsurprised.
Could you help me understand where his argument is specious?
His primary argument was all about lifetime earning potential. That is not what salary refers to. So, his argument doesn't actually apply to the allegation. Therefore, it is specious.
I can't see where his argument was about lifetime earning potential. Seems to be just simply women with children make less money, which seems reasonable.
I also don't see anywhere he even implied that salary and lifetime earning potential were the same thing. And salary would be reflected in lifetime earning potential.
What is your position? I'm not even certain what the point of your disagreement is.
I have come to the conclusion that their position is mental illness, because everything they've typed so far is non-sensical.
I don't see the point of your rambling.
Salary does not equal lifetime earning.
It's a blatant bait and switch.
However, I don't give a fuck what you, or he, thinks....