If "women rarely ever push for high salaries or bonuses," and they have the same opportunities as men, why aren't they bushing for the salaries and bonuses? If you're not asking for something because you think you're less likely to receive it than someone else who deserves it just as much as you, don't you have an unequal opportunity.

Your evidence is really good here, it shows that there is still gaps in pay between genders. Many other statistics on gaps in pay I'm seeing used by other people contradict each other, are unreliable, or less relevant and/or sensible.

Definitely. While men and women have different strengths and weaknesses, both genders should use their strengths to help the other's weaknesses. Discriminating against their weaknesses is just flat-out bad for both genders.

I like your argument and evidence. However, how does the fact that "the 15 states that didn't ratify the 19th amendment granting women the right to vote still haven't ratified it today either" relate to your claim? Just because those states didn't ratify that amendment doesn't show anything, unless you can prove that they would ratify it today (in which case you're showing how far women have come) or that the wouldn't ratify it today (which proves that there is still glaring inequality).

I agree with you. However, what I mean by "If every person genuinely believed in equality, equality would exist" is just that in this hypothetical (perfect-world) situation, equality isn't an issue because everyone practices it. Even though we don't need 100% of the population to believe in equality in order for it to exist, we still need laws to criminalize inequality because there are still people practicing it.

Title IX was passed in 1972. At that time, there were 170,384 male athletes participating in intercollegiate sports. The number of female athletes participating in intercollegiate sports did not reach the 170,000 mark until 2005-06. It took 33-34 years for the number to catch up to a figure from the 1970's.

The good news is, the numbers are actually close to equal now. In 2008, women made up 43% of college athletes (182,503 of them). This is up from fewer than 32,000 in 1972. It seem that in the last two decades or so, there is more belief in equality, but that belief is not universal. Those who believe in the equality legislation are actually using it as guidelines rather than just meeting it by passing some vague requirement.

The way the legislation is, though, you don't have to have proportionate male and female athletic programs as long as you meet the vague condition of "fully and effectively accommodating the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex."

I see you're also mentioning Title IX. Sports is definitely an area where you can tell there is inequality towards women.

If every person genuinely believed in equality, equality would exist, and there would be no need for legislation to enforce it. However, equality legislation exists. Since we wouldn't need it if there weren't people who didn't believe in equality, the laws should be designed with people trying to get around them in mind, but unfortunately, that's not how the laws are made. We need have needed to create legislation to create equality between the sexes, the legislation is flawed, and people are getting around it. Therefore, women and men are not equal in today's United States.

For an example of this, look at the well-known Title IX from the 1972 "Education Amendments:" laws to create equality among the sexes in educational and other government-sponsored environments. The only language about gender equality in the entire lengthy law is as follows: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program." The rest of the law is exceptions to that rule, and there's nothing else to clarify or elaborate on it. What about private, non-government schools? They can still discriminate however they like; they can be all-boys schools, and that still holds true today.

Title IX provides a very flimsy basis for gender equality in education, now look at it in a place many of us know of: college athletics. In athletics, men already receive much more attention than women, putting female college athletes in a situation where they can easily be discriminated against. In 2003, the Office for Civil Rights made a clarification in which it is more or less stated that an institution in in compliance with Title IX if it meets any of the following three conditions:

(1) the percent of male and female athletes is substantially proportionate to the percent of male and female students enrolled at the school; or

(2) the school has a history and continuing practice of expanding participation opportunities for the underrepresented sex; or

(3) the school is fully and effectively accommodating the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.

So as long as you "fully and effectively accommodate the underrepresented sex," you're not in the wrong for having way more male than female athletes. This is just passive legislation being added to passive legislation, and anyone who does not believe in equality will be able to prevent equality without breaking the law. This brings me back to my point, that we wouldn't need to make these laws, which are common sense for anyone who wants to promote equality, if we didn't have people who don't want to promote equality. As long as the legislation is so weak, we're not criminalizing anti-equality, and men and women will continue to be unequal, whether people are trying to make them that way or not. Of course, the issue of equality complicated, and we've come quite a long way, but we still have some obvious gender inequality, all you have to see it is read our laws.