This is an extremely early draft of my article intended to provide a complete rebuttal of the incessant chatter that woman have been performing and can perform shoulder to shoulder to men, and the lack of equal pay phenomenon is rooted in patriarchy and male dominated workplace cultures. I have reams upon reams of data to show that female workers have been getting outcompeted in almost every department of life (they have to go almost nude to completely nude to win somewhere); however, owing to some problems caused by external parties, I am having trouble completing this article. I will try to add more data to it later.
Absolute Inability To Compete On Equal Footings And Unreasonable Demands
As politicians’ core business revolves around ever greater approval ratings, hence, quite often, people captivated or obsessed with the scietific purity on those matter find such narratives or bold statemens, put politely, amuzing at the very least.
When it comes to Lilly Ledbetter’s case, the former president, who signed the bill into law, had to say this on her demise:
“There are no second-class citizens in our workplaces”.
The former president paid tribute on Twitter/X, saying Ms Ledbetter “Never set out to be a trailblazer or a household name. She just wanted to be paid the same as a man for her hard work”.
The very first statement made by a person in a business entirely dependent on popularity ratings raises the question that does getting paid lower or working in a lower capacity make a person a second class citizen? The whole of the statement reeks of the stench to appeal to the senses of people interested in hearing such statements and utterly bereft of logic and common sense. Do software engineering graduates and managers working at Microsoft become second class or third class citizens because they almost always have people like Bill Gates and now Satya Nadella around?
When it comes to people occupying the same roles, the results from various branches of sciences when studied together would prove comprehensively that majority of the male workers perform better, if not much better, than their female counterparts in their respective roles. It’s a scientifically proven fact that men tend to have a metabolic rate and excude much more energy than their female counter parts. Secondly, men’s larger on stage and in person personas and their more domineering voices that resonate with their listerners’s senses prove much more effective when it comes to communicating a message across without being overbearing or downright uncultivated.
It’s a scientifically proven fact that women experience far more mood swings than men, and not jsut that, cultured, highly educated men are more discreet and guarded at concealing their disappointments or mood swings. Even if a person of an opposite gender has reached that stature, then should all of these, and most definitery some more, be ignored when calculating their wages when compared with their counterparts in similar roles who are not exhibiting these issues?
The level of energy exuded by a person, which, in all likelihood, is tied to that gender’s metabolic rate, the impressiveness or persuasiveness of a gender’s tone, and the effect of the overall persona aside, the wider female gender’s performances in the technical subjects when compared with their male counterparts is no hidden secret. Even those girls who show almost negligible signs of struggling with STEM subjects start to struggle with comprehending technically dense subjects when they reach puberty. The results of the IVY leaugue universities that are probably openly available for data analysis would comprehensively prove this point that women start to struggle with comprehension of dense subjects when they reach they become pubescent and they continue to struggle with problems caused by monhtly or quarterly female anatomy related problems.
Should a person suffering from at least a few issues which can hamper that person’s performance be paid the same when compared to a person who has been showing no such problems? From a purely scientific and technical point of view and by throwing popularity contests out of the window, I find it unfathomable that why should a better performer be penalized in one such circumstance!
Comments
Post a Comment