https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-86/first-reading

There's the act

Thanks a lot

(search for Pay Equity Act)

I'd never have found that

And there is lots of news sources about this that are more...readable

That isn't a drop-in citation yet

I'm looking for that

Okay, good

@asparkofpyrokravte do you know of any occasions of the 1987 act being enforced? This new one is basically a rehash of that on a federal level right? I looked for an example of it being enforced but couldn't find any

@InsaneCaterpilla That's a very good idea. Since it's on a national level now, I'm asuming it will be

Hrm....

This is the Ontario act text: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p07

Okeydoke

So for those interested

Search the https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-86/first-reading for "Comparison of Compensation" and the Ontario act for "Basis of comparison" and "Comparison of job classes"

Okeydoke

So the important sections to read are the ones I mentioned for those interested

Additionally, for the new act, you can look at the rules for composition of the equal pay committee (or whatever they call it) being at least 50% women (but not at least 50% men)

However

Due to artful legaleze the new act does not say that it only applies to women

Rather it says "an increase in compensation associated with the predominantly female job classes is to be made in such a way that, after the increase, the female regression line coincides with the male regression line."

and "(b) the compensation associated with a predominantly female job class is to be increased only if..."

So it assumes female

but the courts possible maybe, IANAL, could apply this gender neutrally. Or at least as gender neutrally as VAWA

..

So the beginning of the article needs to be rewritten somewhat

I recommend immeidately editing the first paragraph to say:

"Justin Trudeau passed the Pay Equity Act of 2018 earlier this year based on an Ontario act of the same name. The Ontario act was presented as being a measure that guarantees equal pay, but when the language of the bill is examined, there’s a caveat- men are actually not protected, and it is not illegal to pay men less. Take a look (move the link here):"

And then something can be figured out later

At the end of the second paragraph one could append "The new act (link to parl.ca), though less obviously sexist, is also not written in a gender-neutral fashion."

..

@Men Are Human

@InsaneCaterpilla Turns out that while the new act is basically a rehash of the old one, it is less explicitly sexist

I am not aware of its penalties being enforced

but both acts establish reporting requirements

So it isn't like the laws have no effect

@blueorange22. Turns out the two pay equity acts are slightly different from each other, but enough that it makes a difference for the article

..

@Men Are Human With regard to revision 4 of the education article, "boys don't come close" is not evidenced by the telegraph article at all. Rather the telegraph article points out that that the gender gap is (well, in reality it seems more like *was*) widening and had the potential to quickly overtake **economic status** as the largest demographic determiner of school performance. Now, as I point out in revision 3 and also 4, there seems to be some evidence that the gender gap stopped widening in the 2015 data.

I interpreted the telegraph article as taking issue with boy's ability to perform in school. As in "school isn't doing enough to help boys". But if that is the point, then doing handwringing about boys being energetic and being fundamentally worse in an acedemic setting is off-topic. It is one thing to mention that, but that is something that should be mentioned with **empathy towards the school system** and not that sort of handwrining because that is a difficulty the school system itself faces unless you want to say that boys shouldn't actually have the same learning requirements as girls. In at least one massive respect, the school system not being designed for boys only because the school system has a fundamental responsibility to teach things like math and literacy that are acedemic in nature. As such, I feel pretty strongly that a recognition of that should avoid any hint of an injured tone or ideas of injustice.

Other than that, you've brought up two new issues with boys' schooling. School discipline and ADHD medicating. School discipline is a bit of a cesspool that I don't have good data on atm, and is really tough to dig into because boys do seriously need more official school discipline than girls. Is that something that needs to be pursued in the article? If so it is going to be 2 paragraphs at least. ADHD overmedication is something I'd like to just hint and and move on "or at least, being dianosed with them" is a decent addition because that is something that is much more commonly known and isn't one of those "taboo" things the telegraph article is mentioning that feminists are hiding. That said, I'd welcome paragraphs on those things but if you're going to really emote about those in the article, especially in the introduction, they need at least a paragraph each