It has been demonstrated that women work fewer hours per week and have less experience than men at a similar age because they tend to take on a greater share of the work raising children and taking care of the home. Women also tend to favor educational paths with less clear career paths and/or choose a career that emphasizes helping people over earning money (education, child-care, nursing, social work, etc.). On top of this women tend to work for the same company for longer (people tend to get raises when they switch companies) and are less likely to ask for a raise or a promotion. Finally, women tend to prioritize job-security over earning potential when choosing the companies they work for more-so than men do.

There are other factors as well, and some researchers claim that when all factors that can be proven are accounted for women earn 92% of what men do and much of the remaining gap might be the result of more difficult to prove factors (women being less likely to promote themselves). 

Whether these choices are driven by pressure from society or not doesn't matter, if the lower pay is a consequence of their choices you can't argue that the lower pay is in itself discriminatory.

no, but i also dont think it should be getting preferential treatment, like in our schools. the first amendment has in our society become freedom FROM religion, in everything, especially Christianity. it goes both way, and it the past 40 or so years, there has been a movement to remove all religion, which is not the intent of the 1st amendment

perhaps you should read up on our founding documents. religion is an entegril part of it. and they specifically say our rights are God given. not by government, becasue gevernment is made up of men, and if the rights are given by man, they can be taken away.

ps: separation of church and state isnt in our constitution, no where.

the first amendment was made to protect religion from government. also did you know it is lawful for states to have a state religion. also its not freedom from religion (which you would very much like to have, well really only christianity). its freedom of religion. 

Actually you'd be surprised.  Evolutionary Biology and Psychology largely back up conservative agendas.  Though ironically the teachers are just about top of the class when it comes to being liberals.

They tend to fall into the "Humans are horrible beings therefore we need heavy laws to control their actions" camp.  Ignoring the fact that polticians are in fact... human beings.  Meaning all you are doing is ensuring one group of horrible beings is in control over everyone, rather then having multiple competing horrible beings fighting vs each other, creating the most freedom and protection for all.

Outside which, you've really done nothing to argue your point.

Rather then make excuses for why the point is true...

which is largely irrelevent.

i suggest you watch these videos. whhat happens in Universities is undeniable, to say other wise is, well... anti-intellectuall. to use your own words

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU7_Ju5QTyY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=az7VZvLGvcs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezH1WTb_x6s&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezH1WTb_x6s&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtEXflYl_Lc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ehumseq10Eo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjPyLE6YmmI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RHTFoa7YDc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=braJUii9eOI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RegLAI1Bhz8&feature=related

i couldnt agree more.

and about the fox news thing. i never said (or at least didnt mean to) say FOX was non biased. its just they actually provides points of views with people having biases across the politcial spectrum. so it tends to balance out. they have people with conservative bias, liberatarian bias, statist/progressive bias, liberal bias, so on.

and your other points or spot on. they call for people like glenn beck be kicked off the air. when a conservative speeker goes to a university they need securuty, sometime they get cancled because of protests and riots, the students throw things at the speeker. and you better have an armored detail security force if you are a black man speaking out against affirmative action.

also so called womens rights groups or feminists groups, arent not at all that. they clearly are just progresive democrats that dont give a rats ass about conservative women being descriminated against. its because they dont support their liberal idealogy.

liberals speek of themselves as being open minded, but God forbid you disagree with them. they will want you shut down censored, put in jail act. they are only "open minded" to people with like views

What's to argue regarding my point? My point was this:

I have a problem with that article. It was only a quantitative research on what the political belief and affiliations of university proffesors are. It was not a qualitative research that studied how these proffesors structure their classes, and whether their political beliefs influence what they teach.

There's really not much more to say.

You shouldn't take "god given" literally. Which god? The Christian god? Isn't that endorsing a religion? Such an argument would also be terribly weak, as it depends on the acception of the religion where the god who gives rights exists in.

Rights are abstract concepts created by humans. The Government is the instance in charge of giving people rights and protecting such rights. Without a Government you have no rights.

You also seem to have a problem with the concept of "freedom of religion". It means that you have the freedom to practice any religion you want, while simoltaneously being free FROM practicing religions you don't want to follow (in other words, freedom of religion implies freedom FROM the religions you don't want to follow). You cannot have freedom of religion when laws are made based on the doctrine of a particular religion, because that would include forcing people to practice a religion they may not want to follow, thus disrespecting their freedom of religion.

All educational systems practice indoctrination. And it's not only limited to educational systems.  Through culture every human being is indoctrinated with certain aspects that he is told are "natural", "normal" etc. This happens in the household, schools, TV, cartoons etc. Religions also indoctrinate people, on a level much worse than anythign else, and I don't see that many people outraged about that.

As for that documentary, it's a film created by a right winger, who carefully selects his cases, and uses editing techniques to fulfill his agenda. He takes a small fraction of reality, which is really an isolated situation, and presents it as if it reflects what generally happens. Even actual serious studies have said that only a small number of proffesors would sanction their students for holding certain beliefs. Another problem with this films is the issues it's dealign with: race, gender, sexual orientation etc. Appearently he's part of the "I want you to tolerate my lack of tolerence" club.

From my experience, generally in universities any opinion is accepted as long as it's strongly argumented, however people on the conservative side dislike this because some of their opinions simply are not supported by strong rational arguments (racism, misogynism, homophobia). Also, ther are issuses which accept a variety of opinions (for example the interpretation of a poem) and those which do not  (you can't simoltaneously accept the view that all races are equal and the view that same races are more developed than others, for example).

Which you followed up by directly saying that some fields of study were directly related liberal to political belief.