> Only if you ignored them. If you pass out a net economic benefit there is a gap. It's not as big as some stats name, but it's very much there.

Pay gap after controlling for occupation is 2%. This is statistical margin of error territory.

https://www.payscale.com/data/gender-pay-gap

> Heck, the very study we're discussing asserts these metrics grow!

...when you give women more choices. What do you propose, stop offering free childcare etc. in the hopes that it causes more women to choose a career over having children?

> This wasn't ever really a problem to begin with.

Litigious trolls and wasting millions of dollars on unmeritorious litigation is an actual problem that actually happens.

> I'm the one saying either both phenomenon need to be examined for systemic influence factors. You can't simultaneously dismiss one problem as "choice" and the other as "a problem" and retain any integrity.

Who is claiming that? People argue that each thing could be true, but who is arguing that it's true for women and not men?

There is a valid conditional argument that goes like this. a) It's a result of choices, therefore not a problem. b) If you don't accept a) and continue to believe that it's a problem for women, then it's also a problem for men in the same way.

That is no inconsistent state there. If a) is true then it isn't a problem for either gender, if b) is true then it is a problem for both genders. At no point is it true for one gender but not the other.

Moreover, what seems to actually happen is that people say it's a problem for women and move to take steps against it without even considering that it could be a problem for men, and then no steps are taken against the problem for men. And if someone points that out, they get called inconsistent even though what they're asking for is consistency.

> The stats I was quoting do not imply this. I've not heard boy children are disciplined in school more than girls.

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-06-22/boys-bear-th...

> Personally, I don't believe you're accidentally ignoring the number of women engaged in the strenuous but uncompensated labor of homemaking who are conveniently stricken from such discussions but if considered along with male homemakers destroy the average you're distribution you're attempting to describe.

Only if you assign a value of zero to the homemaking work, which is obviously unreasonable. The homemaker's household is the "employer", but because the "employer" and "employee" share finances, the credit and the debit both go to the same account and cancel out. That isn't the same as being uncompensated. If the work was uncompensated there would be an outstanding balance at the end. It's like how a programmer who writes software for personal use is neither getting it for free nor working for nothing -- the cost is in labor and the payment is in software.

And in addition to receiving the value of the homemaking services, the household also has the benefit of not paying any of the taxes that would be owed if the same labor was performed on the books, and not pushing the household's tax return into the higher tax brackets.

So what's the market value of a 24/7/365 on-call polymath with a job description requiring them to do absolutely anything that comes up? (There's a reason families can only afford it when the other spouse makes a lot of money.)