Cutting men's pay was also mentioned recently by Jill Abramson, former NY Times Executive Editor. It would be interesting if this could be correlated with departures of staff under her tenure:

After her speech I [Kelly McBride] asked her what newsroom leaders should do who inherit pay inequalities, but lack the ability to give raises. “You bring the guys down to give a little more to the girls,” she said. “I did that at The Times. No one’s happy to get a cut, but too bad.”

http://www.poynter.org/business-news/the-biz-blog/278851/jill-abramson-startup-to-advance-writers-up-to-100k-for-longform-work/

Gender justice?

That should tell you everything you need to know about this woman and her arguments.

So you feminists want to earn what men earn? Great. See you in the coal mine for your 12hr shift. We can discuss wage equity there.

Anytime someone uses a modifer in front of the word justice, you can be 100% sure that justice is the last thing they are seeking.

This is postmodern feminism in a nutshell. It's a naked assertion of surpemacy. What Valenti really said, if you look behind her words, is "I'm always OK with privileging people like me." Trouble is, once you define it as tribal warfare, then all ethical constraints are off -- it's all about raw force, and whoever has the most and biggest guns wins. The word "justice", as Jay points out, no longer has any relevance.

So is there never an instance when you're not a fem-nazi if you feel like there is disparity in pay? Last summer Louisiana enacted the Louisiana Equal Pay for Women Act, which protects state employees from gender-based pay discrimination if the worker is doing the same or "substantially similar" work. Look, this isn't a progressive state by any stretch of the imagination. And we do seriously have some issues with men making more than women working the SAME JOB. Not a higher paying job, not a more dangerous one, but the same one.

The problem with mandating the same pay is that you can't account for individual talent, skill, work ethic, etc. Where I work, I spend my day, you know, WORKING. My coworker spends the majority of his time on his phone: texting, tweeting, facebooking, watching videos, arguing with his SO.

If my coworker were female, and I were male, then this kind of law would require that my coworker make what I do, which he does not. I make significantly more per hour than him.

The fact is that most women are the primary caregivers for children most of the time, and they are the ones who leave early, call out, and come in late because of kids' doctor appointments, ballet classes, soccer practice, birthday parties, and what have you. The trade-off for that flexibility is lower pay. It's a non-monetary benefit.
The men who stick it out hours after the women have left or before they show up, their trade-off is higher pay. They are sacrificing their free time for more money, but they don't get the flexibility. In fact, I've worked in more than one office where they were downright mean to the male employees who were active in their kids' lives.

I'm glad I'm not a man in this kind of environment. I'd have a hell of a time figuring out what people expected of me. Men seem to have to be active, involved child caretakers who make more money without spending more time at work who are manly and strong about only the things that women have decided it's okay to be masculine about while preferring to go antiquing when the game is on and encouraging their women to spend time on themselves while not having hobbies or interests outside of what the woman has deemed appropriate, a condition which can change based on her hormones, stress level, tiredness, or just plain cussedness. And he must acquiesce to all of these without appearing to be pussy-whipped, because she'll leave him, take the kids, the house, and alimony, trade up to a new man, and he'll be considered a loser by society for his trouble.

"substantially similar" work like secretary and long haul truck driver cause both sit all day?

"Equal Pay for Women Act, which protects state employees from gender-based pay discrimination if the worker is doing the same or "substantially similar" work." gooseegg

in the corporate world, EVEN IF you are in the same pay grade band, not everyone makes the same amount... because it's a BAND.

You walk on water consistently? you get a bigger raise, if you just do what's expected, you get less.

How do you attract and keep the best workers? You pay them more.

From a business's standpoint that best worker means 150%, nose to the grindstone, miracle worker... and between that person, and the one who just does what they are told, is the difference in what they are payed.

So here's your question. if 2 guys are in those 2 roles? Is there an argument that they should STILL get the same pay? Or is it self evident who will make more, and eventually be the boss?

Why should that be different JUST BECAUSE one is a woman? Wouldn't that be... sexist?

If you come back with: "but women are paying a penalty for having kids"
That would be a SOCIETAL issue, that generally happens because people don't bother to look at the family as a unit.

Feminism is all about equality, but, once again, it turns out that some pigs (the ones with lipstick) are more equal than others.

Why hasn't Jessica Valenti been hooted off the pages of the MSM?

"A commenter, "morngnstar," asks the right question:

Just a question: if in some particular workplace, the women currently make more money than the men, would you lower their pay and raise the men's?"

Yeah, like in the porn industry.

Somehow I don't believe this 'gender justice' business extends to getting drafted and riding a landing craft on to an enemy beach under an onslaught of machine gun fire and mortar barrages.

I'll stay home and do the riveting, honey, you go get your face shot off, 'kay?

Well then, you just might have made one of the best cases for turning down sex ever. Sorry honey, not tonight. I might get pregnant and then lose that raise. Here's the lotion, knock yourself out.

Some people don't make enough. Solution: pay people who do make enough less. Does. Not. Compute. In a society with a shrinking middle-class that is in a bad way and a pervasive growing income gap, their way of obtaining more justice is reducing wages? Shut The Front Door!

Let's suppose (cough) that these feminists are concerned with women having the freedom to choose the lifestyle they prefer and to be treated justly in the world.

If that is the case, then they must support a woman's decision to stay home with the kids EQUALLY with the decision to use daycare or not have kids at all.

So, if a woman has kids and chooses to stay home with those kids, and we just knock all guys' pay since they (apparently) earn "too much," we have ALSO knocked the income of those women who stay home and rely upon their husband to provide income.

I have started seeing articles indicating that men whose wives stay home with the kids earn more than men whose wives work. The thinking was that they have more support for things like school calling when Susie gets a fever, etc.

If that is true, that extra pay is basically compensation for the wife taking on a larger share of child/house duties freeing the husband up to be a more productive/focused employee. In short, that's HER contribution to that income.

But, we can't have men earning more, so we'll just negate that extra she made possible and give it to somebody else.