In academic level math courses, provided they are unencumbered by postmodern thought, you are generally given credit even when you don’t arrive at the right answer, but you showed your work to demonstrate a correct logical thought process for most of the way.

You would have earned partial credit because the answer was logically consistent up to a point where perhaps one minor error skewed the final result.

In the same manner, especially when a question asks you to prove a theorem, if you *don’t* show your work, you would receive **no** credit. If you showed work that was logically inconsistent and somehow arrived at the right answer, you would not receive full credit as well.

Simply put, you can’t go on to proving a theorem by making imaginative leaps where first principles were conveniently ignored.

Not showing your work and immediately arriving at an answer is the equivalent of saying, “X is true because Y said so”, where Y is usually some teacher or postmodern textbook that applied the same illogic. Logical proofs don’t work that way.

This is what the Ontario government is doing now and has been doing for quite sometime. And the latest example, very shortly after their speech restrictions and minimum wage hikes, is their new proposal for “pay transparency” that aims to close the “gender gap”, an unproven theorem stated as fact. The gender gap theorem never is backed by proof from first principles, because the gender gap assertion fails spectacularly when first principles are applied.

From the Canadian Press article:

Ontario plans to introduce legislation Tuesday that aims to close the wage gap between women and men in the province.

Wage gap? Ontario government, **please ****show your work**.

The government says it will spend up to $50 million over the next three years on the initiative.

Great, already on track to siphon more money, either by taxes or deficit, endlessly growing the government and their pernicious ideology.

“We know that too many women still face systemic barriers to economic advancement,” Wynne said in a statement. “It’s time for change.”

According to the province, the gender wage gap has remained stagnant over the past 10 years, with women earning approximately 30 per cent less than men.

**SHOW YOUR WORK.** The government shouldn’t be making these broad, sweeping assertions without proof and then proposing more expensive legislation and oversight to solve these manufactured problems.

Since their go-to proof is “because social science studies say so”, it would be necessary to follow the work presented by postmodern humanities texts. And if this work was graded in an academic math or science class, it would fail.

Most people with a mathematical and scientific mindset already have done the proof to contradict the pay gap theorem.

The wage gap theorem is based on faulty statistics. It is based on univariate analysis, where even the conclusion drawn does not accurately reflect the analysis.

By simply taking the average wage of men versus the average wage of women, there is a 30% difference. You can say there is a 30% difference in average income, but you cannot conclude that it is due to systemic discrimination.

A multivariate analysis shows that when you isolate for type of job and numbers of hours worked, there is no gap. It’s apples to apples in a multivariate analysis, versus apples to oranges in the univariate analysis. The system is relatively fair and blind to the gender variable when two individuals share many of the other variables in the multivariate analysis. Any semblance of a gap usually hinges on other variables, such as salary negotiation, which further hinges on more variables, such as the assertiveness personality trait.

Simply put, there is **no conclusive evidence of ****systemic discrimination** **when proper statistics is done**. The theorem has been so widely debunked that a simple search shows hundreds of similar criticisms of the theorem. The wage gap theorem that the Ontario government is pushing as fact fails to recognize more than one variable in its analysis and conveniently ignores all counterarguments that apply multivariate analysis.

This is why it is important to ask for proof when the government provides their “answer”. They are jumping to conclusions and merely stating “because gender studies textbooks said so”.

Just as that sort of answer wouldn’t garner any credit in academic math courses, it doesn’t deserve partial credit either because both the conclusion and their means at arriving at that conclusion are deeply flawed.

Well, they’re flawed in a rational sense, but perhaps that is intentional as it may be on the mark from a postmodern, ideological perspective — particularly if their end goal is to attain unearned power and moral authority over the citizenry through subversion. They are hoping the public never asks the government to show their work (and you can thank modern academia and media for helping out), and blindly accept their answers as being correct.

* * *

If you enjoyed this article, be sure to share, leave a comment and subscribe to the RSS feed.