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

Combined with what I said earlier, that's all the comments I have on the revision 4 changes. Unfortunately, those comments affect most of the changes 😦

I think trying to write angry about these issues is really hard, because the discrimination is a bunch of small things that often have plausible deniability, which isn't normal for an MRM issue.

Possibility after a bit of back and forth, I ask that you try another revision. And remember, you're the head honcho here, everything in that article is for you to do what you want with!

Thanks a lot for the feedback. I think I really should leave the education article to you as you seem to really understand it.

Well I understand it, that doesn't mean I'm really that good at...humanizing it

At very least, even if you do leave it to me you should go over it and do a more minor edit, looking for strange gramar or stilted tone

Is there something you want from the article that isn't there?

Unfortunately I can't really do a style "a little less acedemic" on my own.

Tell you what - if you can correct the facts on what I gave you, I'll deal with the flow. How does that sound? This time I won't add anything - I'll just edit it up a little. Sound good?

Hrm. I think I have to disagree with that. Because of my earlier feedback, I disagree with the structure of your additions and not just the facts. I don't think it remains coherent after corrected. Sorry.

I think what I have to ask of you is that if you're going to make those sorts of additions, those additions have to be removed and replaced, not merely rewritten. I'm not objecting to making those sorts of additions at all, but I do think that those particular additions, both the overall argument of them and the individual facts, don't reflect truth.

Once that happens then I can totally just correct the facts of them and you can do the final touches and we can be done

But we aren't at that point now, I think.

"To succeed in school, you must appear to be incredibly passive and pliant. Sit up straight! Do your sums! Listen, take notes - and keep your mouth shut, unless the teacher asks you a question! You know the drill, and you know it well - you may even be having flashbacks to your own school days.
Parents, teachers, everyone, telling you to conform and sit still.
But most boys are incredibly energetic throughout their entire school life. Sitting down and being quiet is the opposite of what the average boy is – contrary what you may have been told. Even worse, boys mature at a slightly different rate to girls – and in a rather different way. Boys are full of energy, and highjinks, and the need to run about. Boys will literally leap out of their seats and go zooming about the class like rockets – if given half a chance."

That is kinda the meat of the intro, and as I noted in my recent objection in context it wrongly condemns schools. When removed or altered to handle that objection I feel it is substantially off-topic.

Similarly, the second addition after school bias I don't think remains part of the paper after the objectionable parts are changed/removed: "This means that boys don’t come close to catching up with girls " and "Feminists especially are keen to see girls not only succeed, but utterly dominate." in particular.

Personally, I think schools play a big role in this

Okay, lets remove the "This means that boys don’t come close to catching up with girls "

Though we could cite the rate at which boys pass their GCSEs, which is much lower than girls.

"This means that boys don’t come close to catching up with girls " and "Feminists especially are keen to see girls not only succeed, but utterly dominate." could well be cited by the Teligraph article. If they don't want to help boys, their motive seems clear to me

"Though we could cite the rate at which boys pass their GCSEs" This is indeed great to mention, that's almost 10 percentage points.