> And that's Lobbying to protect labor intensive work, which happens to be women's underwear. Not lobbying to tax women more cause they're women. But of cours

> And that's Lobbying to protect labor intensive work, which happens to be women's underwear. Not lobbying to tax women more cause they're women. But of course if the headline and first paragraphs let the reader inaccurately assume it's the latter, you generate more outrage and more clicks. Honestly, for outrage-bait topics like this, the journalist isn't doing his job if he doesn't discover and explain the actual reason for the fact their reporting "'The patterns seem to date back to lobbying from earlier eras,' Rampell writes," doesn't cut it.