> but plainly sexist. I don't see how it's sexist at all, but your insinuations are cheap rhetorical tricks used to advance and indefensible position, unless y

> but plainly sexist. I don't see how it's sexist at all, but your insinuations are cheap rhetorical tricks used to advance and indefensible position, unless you mean sexist in a way that's morally neutral. For instance, men on aggregate have more upper body strength than women. Is that sexist? > It's pretty clear by now you believe that women in aggregate contribute less to society (paid + unpaid work) Do not put words into my mouth. I believe that women, due to a combination of factors, such as cultural and biological factors, go into professions that don't get paid as well and don't advance quite as far into those professions. They may contribute to society equally, but society doesn't write paychecks. Companies do. If you're not contributing to the company, they don't pay you.