Men's Group

Like Don Quixote, you see yourself as a knight in shining armor riding to rescue lady fair from the dragon.

Being told that there is no dragon, and that shining armor comes in women's sizes too, is a big threat to your ego. You're welcome to call bullshit, but there is no data to back up your assertion. You're simply deluding yourself.

There is no wage gap, and IPV is mostly reciprocal. The part of IPV that is not reciprocal, is 70% unilateral violence by women.

Support for pay equality IS necessary, in fact, it's already the law. Employers who pay women less for the same work are subject to significant punishment. That is why we've reached parity.

If you believe that we need to eliminate a 25% imbalance, then you are supporting higher pay for women per hour worked, without regard to career, simply because they're women. Without forcing women to work more hours, or men to work less, there's no other way to make the math work.

You're right, that's exactly what I'm doing. The disparity doesn't exist. And if you had read the link you'd know that the dragon was slain long ago. But it is entertaining and profitable to "ladies fair" to watch you and Pancho flail at the windmills.

on edit
I see you've been locked out of this thread, but if you don't like the Consad report (or the first page written by the labor department) then check out the report by the American Association of University Women, who conclude essentially the same thing; 7%.
http://www.aauw.org/GraduatetoaPayGap/upload/AAUWGraduatingtoaPayGapReport.pdf

See page 2.
Consider a hypothetical pair of graduates—one man and one woman—from the same university who majored in the same field. One year later, both were working full time, the same number of hours each week, in the same occupation and sector. Our analysis shows that despite these similarities, the woman would earn about 7 percent less than the man would earn. Why do women still earn less than men do after we control for education and employment differences?