Modern Feminism - What's the deal?

[Eroginous]

At consequence of ones action/choice can either be a punishment or reward so I am not getting your point.

You bring up and interresting point about it not being a gender issue but it is. It speaks directly to the gender role of the mother being the main caregiver for the children in a relationship. It is being used the much the same way as gender roles in child custody cases are used. In the matter things are more in favor of the father then the mother in a "job" setting.

Women don't have to become mothers. Women who become mothers don't have to stay home and raise their children instead of working. Everything you and these other feminists keep saying is built upon the assumption that women are required to do things they simply are not required to do. Everything a woman does is the direct result of the personal choices that woman makes. There are consequences for each one of those choices, and it has nothing to do with sexism or gender roles. A company does not have to pay any two people who perform the same job, the same amount of money. It doesn't matter if one is a man and the other is a woman.

A companies only obligation is to acquire people to fill positions and pay those people what they are willing to pay them.

[Endus]

Women don't have to become mothers. Women who become mothers don't have to stay home and raise their children instead of working. Everything you and these other feminists keep saying is built upon the assumption that women are required to do things they simply are not required to do. Everything a woman does is the direct result of the personal choices that woman makes. There are consequences for each one of those choices, and it has nothing to do with sexism or gender roles. A company does not have to pay any two people who perform the same job, the same amount of money. It doesn't matter if one is a man and the other is a woman.

A companies only obligation is to acquire people to fill positions and pay those people what they are willing to pay them.

Exactly.

If a woman makes the same choices as a man does, with regards to career and family, she should end up in the same spot. If she makes different choices, then she can't compare the place she ends up with his, since she took an entirely different path. That doesn't make it a worse path, just a different one, with different priorities.

That's the difference between equality of opportunity and equality in practice. Equality of opportunity says that you should have an equal chance to succeed, if you make the same decisions that lead to that success. Equality in practice is the idea that regardless of your choices, you should get paid the same, which is an idea that is patently ridiculous; it essentially argues that a homemaker who has a part-time job making decorative pots they sell at the flea market should be making the same income as the best neurosurgeon in the country. That's a far more extreme example than they ever use to defend it, but that's why I'm making it; it's no different except in extremity than arguing that a woman who's taken a year and a half out of her career path to bear and raise three children, and who works the expected hours per week but no more, should be making the same as a man who's been dedicated to his career since graduation and who always works 10-20 hours of overtime every week. The first example was deliberately gender-neutral, since the issue here is not actually gender-based; I only insert gender for the second because I'm paraphrasing the examples used by those who champion "equality in practice".

If your argument doesn't still work when you extend it to the extremes, then it's logically flawed. That's how a reductio ad absurdum criticism works.

[Wafffles]

Women don't have to become mothers. Women who become mothers don't have to stay home and raise their children instead of working. Everything you and these other feminists keep saying is built upon the assumption that women are required to do things they simply are not required to do. Everything a woman does is the direct result of the personal choices that woman makes. There are consequences for each one of those choices, and it has nothing to do with sexism or gender roles. A company does not have to pay any two people who perform the same job, the same amount of money. It doesn't matter if one is a man and the other is a woman.

A companies only obligation is to acquire people to fill positions and pay those people what they are willing to pay them.

If a man doesn't have a child, he advances his career. If a woman doesn't have a child, she advances her career.

Fine.

If a man has a child with his wife, he goes to work every day same as always and advances his career. If a woman has a child with her husband, she will inherently have to miss some time and her career will suffer.

Not so cool.

It's swell to say a woman chooses to have a child, but so do fathers that go to work through the pregnancy. Is a pregnant woman expected to have her kid at her desk, or to drop the kid after hours and be back at work the next morning? Sounds like a creepy society.

Now, I agree it's not the company's fault that women have babies. That doesn't mean you can say women should suck it up cuz it was their choice, because the same does not apply to the male contributor to the child.

[Endus]

If a man has a child with his wife, he goes to work every day same as always and advances his career. If a woman has a child with her husband, she will inherently have to miss some time and her career will suffer.

Not so cool.

Not true. Most women can recover from birthing and return to work in a couple of weeks. That's normal medical leave kind of stuff, nothing that would hurt your career. If you're referring to the first few months of raising a newborn, that's a choice.

[DisposableHero]

Not true. Most women can recover from birthing and return to work in a couple of weeks. That's normal medical leave kind of stuff, nothing that would hurt your career. If you're referring to the first few months of raising a newborn, that's a choice.

Not to mention it would be perfect valid for a new father to take time off from work to raise his newborn child, his career would suffer, but I don't see why a man automatically goes to work every day in this situation. He makes a choice too.

[starlord]

I don't really care if you take me seriously. You've done nothing but make some of the most ridiculous arguments using common logical fallacies. I pointed out that you refused to address any actual arguments.... because that's what you're doing. I typed out 5 paragraphs of stuff, and you quoted and responded to ONE sentence. You only responded at all because I put something ridiculous in my post.

That doesn't change the fact that most everything I said was legitimate and factual. Yes, it really does seem like women care more about marching around topless than resolving actual issues. I'd love for you to show me how I am wrong without resorting to your obviously fallacious tactics.

fallacious tactics indeed. my my.

please provide your evidence for "its a fair criticism of feminism as a whole to say that [they] care more about being topless than addressing issues women face in society".

[Eroginous]

If a man has a child with his wife, he goes to work every day same as always and advances his career. If a woman has a child with her husband, she will inherently have to miss some time and her career will suffer.

Not so cool.

But there you go offering a false dichotomy again. When a man and a woman have a baby, they have more than just the one choice:

1. Hire a nanny or a babysitter to care for the child while the parents work.

2. The mother stays home and cares for the child instead of working.

3. The father stays home and cares for the child instead of working.

The choice any two parents make in this situation completely depend on what's best for those parents. There is no rule where a mother is forced to stay home and care for the children because 'that's what mom's do.' If a mother chooses to stay home and give up her career, that's her choice. It could end up being that the father decides to stay at home and care for the children (that's becoming more common), allowing the woman to continue her career.

Please stop with the logical fallacies now...

[Deleted]

this forum is so wonderfully full of zionists, of course that women are intellectually inferior etc etc etc. but like pederasty and many other things it has been covered. endus is just a good example of either total idiot or persistent left winger who has profits from it. just remember boys, that this forum just like curse belongs to french freemasonery ( totally left winged political organisation ). now I want my ban, I need to take a break.

Feminism is a left wing ideology. Nice try though.

[Deleted]

Modern Feminism - What's the deal?

It is something to do, like a hobby, for bored and usually unattractive women (just an observation, I believe men can be unattractive as well I promise) that feel the inadequacy in their lives is down to society and not themselves.

The ones that usually get the most media attention are always focusing on first world problems in the west (such as this video game characters skirt is too short, why is this video game character so much prettier than me or 'we should walk around town in provocative clothing so rapists change their mind about rape').

The way I look at, if feminism never existed previously and society was just magically how it is today, would feminism be something that would occur naturally from 2013 onwards? In my opinion it wouldn't.

[DisposableHero]

please provide your evidence for "its a fair criticism of feminism as a whole to say that [they] care more about being topless than addressing issues women face in society".

This is pretty easy. Go to FEMEN.org, translate the page from Russian to English (if you know Russian feel free to skip this step). Count how many times you can find phrases like "nude protest", "topless warrior", "extreme sexual action", and the like, and contrast that to how many times they explain the issues they hope to solve through these protests. If any Russian speaking readers can chime in to explain how this is something lost in translation, I'm perfectly willing to accept that, but as it stands, it seems to me they quite obviously care more about the fact they are nude than about what they are fighting for.

Obviously FEMEN is not the whole of feminism, but they are pretty clear that they consider themselves part of it, and this is where that perception comes from, because they look very much like they emphasize the nude in nude protest way more than the protest part.

[Ebildays]

Now you're just straw manning. What you're describing is illegal. At least in Canada, there's a minimum employment period, but if you've been working there that long, you both qualify for maternity/parental leave, and your job is safe. The minimum exists to prevent someone being hired and pretty much immediately going on leave; the employer is free to just hire someone else instead. Employers can't factor this in to hiring.

Have you ever been part of the job hiring process? It does happen quite often and as long as no comes right out and tells a person they were not hired because of that reason there is nothing a person can do. I don't live in Canada so their rules don't apply to people in the US. Oh they can factor that into hiring, they just can't say they did legally. The concept of equality of opportunity is an illusion because we are still being hired, evaluated, and fired by human beings. Human being that bring their own personal biases and judgements to the table. We try to have a system of checks and balances to create some type of equality of opportunity but those checks and balances can be easily side stepped. The only time we find out about when that happens is when someone blows the whisle on them or they are so balant in their practices. This does not just go for biases against women but men, people of different races/ backgrounds or that gir/guy that looks just like the person that used to bully me in 7th grade.

Women don't have to become mothers. Women who become mothers don't have to stay home and raise their children instead of working. Everything you and these other feminists keep saying is built upon the assumption that women are required to do things they simply are not required to do. Everything a woman does is the direct result of the personal choices that woman makes. There are consequences for each one of those choices, and it has nothing to do with sexism or gender roles. A company does not have to pay any two people who perform the same job, the same amount of money. It doesn't matter if one is a man and the other is a woman.

A companies only obligation is to acquire people to fill positions and pay those people what they are willing to pay them.

Where did I say women had to become mothers? Where did I say they have to stay home and raise their children? Don't try and call people out on assumptions when you, yourself, start off a post full of assumptions the biggest of which being calling me a feminist. If a couple wants to have children there is no "choice" in who is going to have them? There is no choice in having to take time off or leave early for medical appointments or any other time off that may happen in the course of pregnancy and giving birth. Now the man does have a choice if when wants to take time off to go with the woman to appointments or other things but there is no choice for the woman.

Exactly.

If a woman makes the same choices as a man does, with regards to career and family, she should end up in the same spot. If she makes different choices, then she can't compare the place she ends up with his, since she took an entirely different path. That doesn't make it a worse path, just a different one, with different priorities.

That's the difference between equality of opportunity and equality in practice. Equality of opportunity says that you should have an equal chance to succeed, if you make the same decisions that lead to that success. Equality in practice is the idea that regardless of your choices, you should get paid the same, which is an idea that is patently ridiculous; it essentially argues that a homemaker who has a part-time job making decorative pots they sell at the flea market should be making the same income as the best neurosurgeon in the country. That's a far more extreme example than they ever use to defend it, but that's why I'm making it; it's no different except in extremity than arguing that a woman who's taken a year and a half out of her career path to bear and raise three children, and who works the expected hours per week but no more, should be making the same as a man who's been dedicated to his career since graduation and who always works 10-20 hours of overtime every week. The first example was deliberately gender-neutral, since the issue here is not actually gender-based; I only insert gender for the second because I'm paraphrasing the examples used by those who champion "equality in practice".

If your argument doesn't still work when you extend it to the extremes, then it's logically flawed. That's how a reductio ad absurdum criticism works.

Why do you insisted on putting words in my mouth? Never once did I say that women who has taken off a year and half to raise children should be paid the same as someone who has not. No one is a champion for "equality in practice", you just have to used it to your argument work. When given an example that is not lacking in common sense the only answer to that is they negotiated a better for themselves which still is based on the assumption that the man did in fact negotiate a better pay or that the woman did not try to negotiate a better. Or the third option of that they both did but one of them was still offered more than the other. The issue is not a simple black or white issue like you or others would like to make.

You are confusing how I am using the word gender. You are going by sex form of gender (male, female), while I am using gender roles ( a set of social and behavioral norms ). Women have traditionally been seen as the primary caregiver for children, meaning they were expected to either stay home with the children or put the needs of family before the needs of work. Men on the other hand traditionally have been seen as the primary provider for the family, working long hours to provider for the family. Now that most women work men are no longer the sole or primary provider but women are still seen as the primary caregiver of children. Men have been slow or reluctant to take on that role, which means women still lose work days to having to stay home and take care of a sick child. Or that women may not be able to work 20 hours of overtime and still care for children and child care is not cheap. Which is why when courts look at who to give a child to in a case it goes to the women who is seen and mostly is the primary caregiver to the child. Now you can bring some "ideal" situations up where the man is the primary caregiver but that is not the "reality" of most women or men for that matter.

[Endus]

Have you ever been part of the job hiring process? It does happen quite often and as long as no comes right out and tells a person they were not hired because of that reason there is nothing a person can do.

So you're talking about a theoretical for which you have zero evidence, and you're using that lack of evidence as a claim that it exists and is endemic? I don't think I need to go any further into why that's unjustifiable.

Where did I say women had to become mothers? Where did I say they have to stay home and raise their children? Don't try and call people out on assumptions when you, yourself, start off a post full of assumptions the biggest of which being calling me a feminist. If a couple wants to have children there is no "choice" in who is going to have them? There is no choice in having to take time off or leave early for medical appointments or any other time off that may happen in the course of pregnancy and giving birth. Now the man does have a choice if when wants to take time off to go with the woman to appointments or other things but there is no choice for the woman.

The issue is that giving birth has no career implications for women. It's staying at home to raise the baby that does. You're talking exclusively of the pregnancy and birth, and ignoring the actual issue. It's a straw man.

Both genders can stay home with the baby. And the medical leave associated with giving birth has never been an issue.

Why do you insisted on putting words in my mouth? Never once did I say that women who has taken off a year and half to raise children should be paid the same as someone who has not. No one is a champion for "equality in practice", you just have to used it to your argument work. When given an example that is not lacking in common sense the only answer to that is they negotiated a better for themselves which still is based on the assumption that the man did in fact negotiate a better pay or that the woman did not try to negotiate a better. Or the third option of that they both did but one of them was still offered more than the other. The issue is not a simple black or white issue like you or others would like to make.

If one were offered more than the other on the basis of gender, they'd get sued. That's sort of how the law works in this regard. You've given no reason to believe that women are consistently being offered less money solely on that basis. You have, in fact, used the absence of evidence of such as evidence in and of itself, which is kind of like saying "of COURSE you can't see the unicorns, unicorns are invisible, silly."

You are confusing how I am using the word gender. You are going by sex form of gender (male, female), while I am using gender roles ( a set of social and behavioral norms ).

Then you aren't talking about sexism. Sexism is making discriminatory decisions based on biological sex. If a stay-at-home-dad suffers the same consequences as a stay-at-home-mom, then there's no sexism in play.

[Raiju]

which is kind of like saying "of COURSE you can't see the unicorns, unicorns are invisible, silly."

thanks for the sig

[Eroginous]

Where did I say women had to become mothers? Where did I say they have to stay home and raise their children? Don't try and call people out on assumptions when you, yourself, start off a post full of assumptions the biggest of which being calling me a feminist.

It's the assumption being made across the board when you guys bring up the idea that women make less than men because 'they have children, so their careers suffer.' Also, I am not assuming you're a feminist for any other reason than you're defending feminism and citing the same arguments as the other people in this thread who are actually self proclaimed feminists. My apologies if you are not actually a feminist.

If a couple wants to have children there is no "choice" in who is going to have them? There is no choice in having to take time off or leave early for medical appointments or any other time off that may happen in the course of pregnancy and giving birth. Now the man does have a choice if when wants to take time off to go with the woman to appointments or other things but there is no choice for the woman.

The choice is being made as part of deciding to get pregnant and have a child. Are you seriously going to claim that women make that choice without fully understanding the implications? Most companies have policies which allow for women to take the time necessary to do those things, up to and including time off to care for the child right after birth. In most cases, having a child isn't going to hinder a woman's career until she decides that she's going to stay at home exclusively to raise the child.

However, under no circumstances is a woman obligated to do that. You seem to forget there are couples out there who are lesbians, where either person can decide to become a mother. There's also these things called surrogate mothers, in the event that a woman is unwilling or unable to go through pregnancy herself. I don't think women are being paid less than men because of pregnancy except in extenuating circumstances.

[Deleted]

So you're talking about a theoretical for which you have zero evidence, and you're using that lack of evidence as a claim that it exists and is endemic? I don't think I need to go any further into why that's unjustifiable.

Even though they've tried to use various means in Finland to prevent employers from rejecting woman applicants due to the possibility of maternal leave, it still happens. Especially smaller firms who simply can't afford to have a person take maternal leave (and in general doesn't have a standardised hiring process) are prone to disqualifying women who might take maternal leave soon.

[Ebildays]

So you're talking about a theoretical for which you have zero evidence, and you're using that lack of evidence as a claim that it exists and is endemic? I don't think I need to go any further into why that's unjustifiable.

No, I am not talking about a theoretical because I have been part of the hiring process. The amount of time that a person may have to take off from work gets talked about. It not so much about punishing women for being women but about lost productivity, training temps, or having to push extra work load off on people. Which if the workers are hourly means overtime, which means the company pays out extra money. If you want to live in a fantasy world where people don't take that into account that is on you.

The issue is that giving birth has no career implications for women. It's staying at home to raise the baby that does. You're talking exclusively of the pregnancy and birth, and ignoring the actual issue. It's a straw man.

Both genders can stay home with the baby. And the medical leave associated with giving birth has never been an issue.

Yes, it does because giving birth is not just a one step process. There is and depending on the pregnancy a lot of missed hours and downtime that comes with the whole process. And my point has always been about pregnancy and birth so I don't know what issue I am ignoring. If a woman takes time off to have children and raise them it is only common sense that she will make less than a person who has not done that. There are missed raises, bonuses and training that directly ties into a person pay wage that will be missed. I am not crazy or stupid enough to think that person that has left the workforce should make the same as a person that never left it.

Yes, medical leave was a problem with women that give birth, at least here in the US it was.

If one were offered more than the other on the basis of gender, they'd get sued. That's sort of how the law works in this regard. You've given no reason to believe that women are consistently being offered less money solely on that basis. You have, in fact, used the absence of evidence of such as evidence in and of itself, which is kind of like saying "of COURSE you can't see the unicorns, unicorns are invisible, silly."

I don't know where you are getting that from but a job would have to say they gave it based on gender. And before that a person would first have to know that the other person was offered more money. In most jobs in the US you cannot disscuss your pay with that of the other employees, doing so could be grounds for termination. What you want is for people to believe that most companies are good and fair, acting completely with in the frame of the law at all times. That is the difference between you and me. I hold no such beliefs, I a company can pay a person less, saving a dime, they will do it. If they feel that only certain types of people fit their company image they will mainly hire them. Everything is legal in this world until you get caught.

Then you aren't talking about sexism. Sexism is making discriminatory decisions based on biological sex. If a stay-at-home-dad suffers the same consequences as a stay-at-home-mom, then there's no sexism in play.

Gender Roles and sexism go hand in hand. Gender roles tend to be rooted in the sex of the people involved so sexism can play a part in it. But that is the big question does a stay-a-home-dad suffer the same consequences. Is the rate of pay different from men re-entering the workforce from women doing so?

It's the assumption being made across the board when you guys bring up the idea that women make less than men because 'they have children, so their careers suffer.' Also, I am not assuming you're a feminist for any other reason than you're defending feminism and citing the same arguments as the other people in this thread who are actually self proclaimed feminists. My apologies if you are not actually a feminist.

I am not defending feminism but only issues that are important to me.

The choice is being made as part of deciding to get pregnant and have a child. Are you seriously going to claim that women make that choice without fully understanding the implications? Most companies have policies which allow for women to take the time necessary to do those things, up to and including time off to care for the child right after birth. In most cases, having a child isn't going to hinder a woman's career until she decides that she's going to stay at home exclusively to raise the child.

That may not be true because that time loss is still a loss to the company so it could effect them getting hired or raises.

However, under no circumstances is a woman obligated to do that. You seem to forget there are couples out there who are lesbians, where either person can decide to become a mother. There's also these things called surrogate mothers, in the event that a woman is unwilling or unable to go through pregnancy herself. I don't think women are being paid less than men because of pregnancy except in extenuating circumstances.

Those are a small percent of pregnanies and the time loss is the main factor in that which is unavoidable time loss for the woman.

[Endus]

I don't think women are being paid less than men because of pregnancy except in extenuating circumstances.

It depends on how you phrase it. The issue is that most of these studies look at income per year and average that out. When you look at income per hour, and control for the amount of actual experience the employee has, the numbers tend to line up much more closely.

If a woman and a man start out at the same time, with the same credentials and potential, and he works straight through while she takes maternal leave twice in the first decade, at the end of that decade he's got 10 years of actual experience in the position, she has 9. This isn't a "punishment"; she chose to take time off for something more important to her. There's no reason to expect she should be considered to have been working for that period, though.

As a result, she'll end up making less money in that decade (since she only worked 9 years out of the 10), and her total salary at the end will quite possibly be less (since, again, she only has 9 years of experience, to his 10), but she's directly comparable to anyone who's got 9 years in. It isn't fair for her to compare herself to the guy who hasn't taken multiple leaves of absence.

Even though they've tried to use various means in Finland to prevent employers from rejecting woman applicants due to the possibility of maternal leave, it still happens. Especially smaller firms who simply can't afford to have a person take maternal leave (and in general doesn't have a standardised hiring process) are prone to disqualifying women who might take maternal leave soon.

Well, define "soon". In Ontario, at least, if you're going to give birth less than 13 weeks after you're hired, you don't qualify for maternity leave; if you leave employment, you can be legally fired for it (and just shouldn't have been taking the job in the first place). If you're not even pregnant, then no, that's discrimination, and it's illegal in most Western nations.

And really, unless she was told "we're not hiring you because women get pregnant and go on maternity", you can't really argue that that was for certain the case. It's often easier for people's self-confidence for them to tell themselves they didn't get the job because the employer was a sexist/racist/asshat/etc, than to accept that maybe they weren't a good fit for some other reason.

And again; I'm not saying it NEVER happens, because the point of these kinds of laws (or any law) isn't to stop something. It's to make it unacceptable and reduce how much it happens. No matter how harshly you punish murder, people will still murder people. The punishment is there because we don't want to make it easy or negligible to murder. Not to try and stop murder from ever happening. That isn't the goal or purpose of law.

[Deleted]

If you're not even pregnant, then no, that's discrimination, and it's illegal in most Western nations.

I'm talking about women who are not pregnant (or atleast not visibly so). Sure it's illegal, but so what? Two equally qualified candidates but one has the risk of taking a long maternity leave within the next couple years (because she's at a "risky" age) - easy choice. And it's a choice that makes sense as it's not irrational discrimination.

And it won't go away until the amount of men that take parternity leave are about the same as the amount of women, as it isn't about giving birth itself but about maternity leave (as you said).

[Endus]

No, I am not talking about a theoretical because I have been part of the hiring process. The amount of time that a person may have to take off from work gets talked about. It not so much about punishing women for being women but about lost productivity, training temps, or having to push extra work load off on people. Which if the workers are hourly means overtime, which means the company pays out extra money. If you want to live in a fantasy world where people don't take that into account that is on you.

You're still not providing evidence. Sorry, I don't accept "I totally work in that area and everyone's committing criminal civil rights offenses in hiring every day" as evidence.

Yes, it does because giving birth is not just a one step process. There is and depending on the pregnancy a lot of missed hours and downtime that comes with the whole process. And my point has always been about pregnancy and birth so I don't know what issue I am ignoring.

Yes, medical leave was a problem with women that give birth, at least here in the US it was.

You're exaggerating the amount of medical leave required. Women usually recover enough to return to work within a few days, unless there were complications of some kind. And medical leaves happen to everyone.

I don't know where you are getting that from but a job would have to say they gave it based on gender. And before that a person would first have to know that the other person was offered more money. In most jobs in the US you cannot disscuss your pay with that of the other employees, doing so could be grounds for termination. What you want is for people to believe that most companies are good and fair, acting completely with in the frame of the law at all times. That is the difference between you and me. I hold no such beliefs, I a company can pay a person less, saving a dime, they will do it. If they feel that only certain types of people fit their company image they will mainly hire them. Everything is legal in this world until you get caught.

Pessimism and theories aren't evidence either.

I could just as easily argue that if a company's goal is to pay employees as little as possible, the best way for a company to go would be to hire all women and pay them less, if they could. Why hire a man at $44,000/year if a woman will do the same job for $40,000? That saves the company $4,000/year just by hiring a woman instead of a man.

If the business world actually worked like this, not only would you see women being paid less, but they'd be preferentially hired for everything. For that exact same reason. Which is why I dispute that it's happening anywhere close to as much as you claim, particularly as wage gap statistics are already adequately explained by other known factors.

[Ebildays]

You're still not providing evidence. Sorry, I don't accept "I totally work in that area and everyone's committing criminal civil rights offenses in hiring every day" as evidence.

Did I say everyone? If there was clear evidence there would be no "debate" on the pay wage issue.

As for accepting about me working in that area only a fool would do that. I am just explaining my views on the issue, take it or leave it. I could be the Pope for all you know typing this up on my iPhone while riding the Popemobile.

You're exaggerating the amount of medical leave required. Women usually recover enough to return to work within a few days, unless there were complications of some kind. And medical leaves happen to everyone.

No, I am not exaggerating or are you saying women should start back to work a few days after giving birth is they truly care about their jobs? If they don't it is okay for that to expect their careers to suffer for it because it is their choice?

Pessimism and theories aren't evidence either.

I could just as easily argue that if a company's goal is to pay employees as little as possible, the best way for a company to go would be to hire all women and pay them less, if they could. Why hire a man at $44,000/year if a woman will do the same job for $40,000? That saves the company $4,000/year just by hiring a woman instead of a man.

And I could as easily argue that it would save even more money by firing people who have been with them for 20+ years and hiring someone with less experience that would work for half of that person's pay. By the way hiring all women would be a red flag for hiring discrimination against men, just look at Hooters.

If the business world actually worked like this, not only would you see women being paid less, but they'd be preferentially hired for everything. For that exact same reason. Which is why I dispute that it's happening anywhere close to as much as you claim, particularly as wage gap statistics are already adequately explained by other known factors.

Yet again you don't know how preferential hiring is working in this case. Men are seen as more valuable because they can work longer hours and don't need to take as much time off. If you have a salaried man who works 50+ hours a week, with little "downtime but you still can pay him like he is only working 40 hours a week, you are coming out ahead of a woman that only works 40 hours a week and has to take the odd day off to handle family issues.

Now if you had two applicants one is the man that you feel would be willing to work 50+ hours a week vs a woman who you feel due to having a family may only work 40 hours a week and who may be taking time off to have a child in the future, would you offer them the same amount of pay? If you chose the woman you may pay her less because her value is seen as less because she is working less. The money you saved would off set the cost of paying the male more. Most jobs have a budget for employee wage so they would not go over that set budget and still come out on top because the man would be working more than he is being paid to do. That is just one type of example but nothing is set in stone, the male could be on the other end of being treated unfairly as well being on an individual level paid less because the person hiring may identify more strongly with the working mother. Or you could be lucky and get a person that is only going by qualifications/ experience and the expectation that you both people are going to only put their 40 hours in and may have some downtime every once an awhile.