[b]@Jorick:[/b] Something to take into account when looking at the wage gap is pregnancy and maternity leave. That will put a woman months behind a man in terms of career opportunities and factors into the reason why women have that average 20%-ish lower median income. (Men have a greater chance at promotion than women in those months of maternity leave, pay raises, etc.) This isn't sexism, this is biology.

There have been some solutions suggested, I tend to dislike most of them proposed by feminists because "lolpaywomenmore" is not a healthy solution for the economy by any measurable stretch of the imagination. (If that chart is anything to go by, even increasing median income by one dollar per week would cost $44,712,000 per week.)

The best solution I can think of is while a woman is on maternity leave due to pregnancy, their income should increase at least at the rate of inflation, so they don't return to work with a devalued paycheck. Beyond that, I can't think of anything that couldn't be easily jerryrigged to treat women as an inherently lesser entity that requires assistance to perform at the same level as a man, which has all levels of awful implications associated with that.

[b]@Topic:[/b] Modern Feminism, overall, in the first world, is a movement that has based its roots in irrelevancy. The reason why feminism worked before and doesn't work now is because the issues were very clearly black and white, were simple to repair, and left women in a state of empowerment not above that of men but equal to them. Examples include but are not limited to right to work, right to vote, etc. Overall the movement was very aggressive and attacked issues, and it was successful because they were black and white and simple to repair.

Now? Nope. Issues are as grey as they get with severity far less than that of the issues tackled by the first wave feminists (and to a certain extent second wave), so the old approach of [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0vDQWMJNbE]dakka dakka dakka dakka dakka dakka dakka[/url]~ doesn't work here. Diplomatic solutions work here. Compromise works here.

It [i]really[/i] doesn't help that feminism also tends to demonize what is considered normal and harmless behaviour without any sort of logical, coherent thinking as to why such things are bad. Often times modern feminists are also the type of people to scream patriarchy, cis-scum, and other such terminology without any idea what these things actually mean... Or if they're even relevant to female empowerment. Men often get talked down to, and issues (especially sex-related) are often, almost exclusively, placed upon men as the cause of the problem, which further goes to actually alienate the movement from its roots. I, to this day, haven't heard a theory from modern feminism that involves empowering women without using men either as a scapegoat or even as an outright villain akin to Disney-level lunacy.

Essentially speaking: Modern feminism in the first world is the byproduct of a victimization complex poisoning what was once originally a very healthy and necessary instrument towards female empowerment.

And it really shows when modern feminists in the first world care more about what kind of curse words people use, over, say... [url=http://www.thestar.com.my/Lifestyle/Women/2014/03/11/Law-Disorder-9yr-old-Iraqi-girls-fit-for-marriage-wives-cant-deny-husbands-sex/]A law in Iraq that legitimizes rape and child molestation[/url]... [i]That may actually pass[/i]. Why? Because this would be a real fight, that would involve real consequences, and hold potential harm to the feminists that try to fight against this.

It's safer and easier to fight smaller battles in the first world rather than tackle actual serious issues involving female empowerment. Ergo why I just can't take the movement seriously. When real fights do appear they... Never... Mobilize to fight it. They are content with attacking small time problems, and some of the biggest names in modern feminism, like Anita Sarkeesian, are so far gone in the pool of lunacy that the biggest gender-related problems they can think of... [i]Are in fucking video games[/i].

That's just pathetic. I'm sorry, but it is.

Now, I do take the time as recently illuminated to me by Hellis to separate feminists into categories. The modern feminist fits the above like a glove. Then you have actual feminists, who fight actual problems, whose voice is usually drowned out by the seas and waves of their more extremist, cowardly counterparts, like... Hellis. Hellis is cool, and a feminist. Anita Sarkeesian is a nutjob, and a feminist.

That's about all really. Sorry if this post offended your better sensibilities reading, but, well... Yeah. There you go.