1. Women are more likely to stay out of the work force to raise children.
Even if they do not have children, employeers believe women of childbearing age, especially those that are married, are about to pop out a dozen babies and stay home on the company dime (though parental leave is rare in America).
First of all, parental leave is not
"rare in America." It is in fact extremely common.
Secondly, women are not offered lower pay owing to a preemptive assumption that they are going to abandon their jobs for a year and raise a child. They are compensated fairly according to their skillset. If they take a year off and spend it raising a child rather than building their skillset (as their childless coworkers are doing), then or course, they are going to fall behind their work-dedicated co-workers. What's the alternative? Hold the childless go-getters back, to keep them on par with their child-bearing cohorts? Let's be fair here.
They're going to miss out on some raises that their co-workers - who didn't
take a year off and were instead working hard and building their skillset and advancing their careers - will get. That is simply something they willingly forfeit in choosing children over their career. It is a choice
Women are, by culture, viewed as having characteristics that make them bad employees.
This is pretty absurd, in my opinion, and is not worth further consideration.
Divorce negatively affects women more.
Surely you're joking.
Say you've got a couple where the man works 60 hours a week, bringing home $100k/year. The woman stays home, tending the household, buying groceries, and keeping the family running. A few years later, she realizes the marriage isn't working out, and she files for divorce.
She gets half his money, and he gets ... the other half.
Tell me how that is more devastating to the woman than the man?
Family courts are extremely heavily biased in favour of the woman
, not the man. Not only will the man lose half (or more) of everything he's earned while married to her, he will no doubt have to continue providing support to the poor, helpless woman for several years, even after
the divorce. Because, of course, the assumption is that a woman is utterly incapable of providing for herself on her own, so it's only fair that a former spouse continue providing for her for several years after
their union is terminated, right?
Women do more housework across the board
This is nonsense. Again, not worth any further attention. I'd invite you to spend a week living with my wife and I.
when did you last see JD talk about the high cost of transitioning to a different gender?
This situation is completely irrelevant to the vast, vast majority of GRS readers. Thus, why would J.D. devote time to an issue that is completely irrelevant to 99% of his readers?