The gender wage gap is a myth. When you control for all the extraneous variables, men and women are paid the same. The reality is that men are paid more because they are willing to take uglier, riskier jobs, move longer distances for them, work longer hours, have more experience and qualifications in occupations with stronger demand, are willing to demand higher salaries, and are less likely to leave their career tracks for family obligations. Sorry to burst your politically correct bubble.

http://www.amazon.ca/Why-Earn-More-Warren-Farrell/dp/0814472109/

The wage-gap argument doesn't even make sense. Just imagine if a company could get the same productivity out of women and pay them 30% less. It would have an enormous competitive advantage over every other company in its industry and all the companies would quickly be forced to either hire all women themselves or go out of business, not because of any misguided government interference, but purely because of overwhelming free-market forces. The same argument applies for women in the boardroom. If they gave a company a distinct competitive advantage, every company would already be forced by the market to have lots of them.

except if you want to hire someone for a position where you need negotiation skills.

So that's every job everywhere, right?

All of these estimates are based on elaborate math models

Math models so sophisticated, in fact, that they entirely failed to predict the current global warming hiatus.

If you want to stop CO2 increase then you have to tax fossil fuels.

Merely taxing CO2 emissions doesn't accomplish anything other than increasing tax revenues. In order to actually limit emissions, you need to tax it so heavily that your administration will be thrown out in the next election.

The Bechdel test makes some (although not much) sense for a movie

The widespread failure of the test confirms that movies about women are boring box-office losers. You might think that the 51% of the population that is women might be interested in paying to see such movies, but apparently not.

The Bechdel test makes some (although not much) sense for a movie

It confirms that movies about women are boring box-office losers. You'd think that the 51% of the population that is women might be interested in paying for such movies, but apparently not.

Reminds me of the following passage in the Commodore-64 Wikipedia page:

In January 1983, Commodore offered a $100 rebate in the United States on the purchase of a C64 to anyone trading in another video game console or computer.[27] To take advantage of this rebate, some mail-order dealers and retailers offered a Timex Sinclair 1000 for as little as $10 with purchase of a C64, so the consumer could send the TS1000 to Commodore, collect the rebate, and pocket the difference; Timex Corporation departed the computer market within a year.