It is true that jobs traditionally thought of (and still tyically filled by) women are paid less than male analogs. that’s sexist, unfair, and bad. But in addition to that, within the SAME EXACT JOB the average for women is lower than for men, almost all the time. The degree to which that is true is reduced, but not zero, and there is no reason for that to be the case.

Now, in regards to the skull bashing of my only auntie on my moms side: it was a man with an attitude towards women–a man just like you with your attitude towards men–that did her in. The guy actually read up on the brain, and the skulls weak spots, and he left a mess upstairs for my dad to clean up. So, it wasn’t my hormones, or my genes that were messed up: it was my mothers intra-uterine gestational bellyjuices gone haywire.

Now, from what my dad tells me,about my aunt ” that bitch had a mouth that could have made anyone want to bash her head in”, so I take it as it is–she must have been a becca…

So apparently, you and your mouthy-enough-to-get-her- f#ckin’-face-smashed-in by my sidekick [My baseball bat that is] possibly makes you and me::yuk::relatives/
grossly reflective Lacanian snark.

AND i am glad you are so, sooooo gay that you likely won’t breed either…/mildly serious snark, intended with the same “cartoon-level-absurdity so as to diffuse any threat” that you employed ;-P

The problem is definitional–womens violence directed at children is tolerated in most cases; womens violence directed at men is overlooked unless it has deadly consequences, and then it is minimized away as a problem due to the myth of patriarchy.

For proof, note becca @ “Female-initiated violence is obviously not taken seriously enough. But I’d be happy to bash your skull open with a hammer”

becca: I too would be happy to do all the same to you, but only with your consent–unlike the children that are victimized and traumatized by this sort of female verbal violence or the young males who are eventually victims of vio9lence at the hands of women–but thanks for acknowledging and claiming your own piece of the female violence puzzle. And for that, I will allow you only the first and second free shots at my jaw–but you are on your own after that, and will likely have to cry wolf so some silver back comes to save you from your own violent actions.

And all the above of course must be cast in terms of kin selection.

Unless I’m misunderstanding I don’t think that would be an example of group selection. Individual A does an action that helps the group, therefore it’s in the interest of individual B to reward A since B, being a member of the smallish group, benefits from the action. Since both parties have a selfish motive and the net result is a status gain for individual A Group selection is not required.

You can argue whether A’s gesture is consciously genuine or not but it still benefits the group and results in a status increase.

On the original point with earning money it’s a little different scenario as in the free market A’s claimed motive is no longer selfless but explicitly selfish, as is B’s payment of A. However, I would argue that the actions of A and B have consistently helped their respective societies. Of course I don’t really know if you can claim and naturalistic model for free markets.