Women Don't Want More Than Men

cawacko said:
As a point of reference what has President Obama proposed from a legislative perspective during his tenure or the Democratic Congress?
Click to expand...

So you now agree there is a pay gap?

Cawacko, what kind of equal pay legislation do you believe this congress would pass? Can you tell me? A congress full of Superfreaks? Yeah, none.

He did sign an executive order a week or two ago, mandating government contractors release wage information to ensure they are complying with the equal pay act that he also signed into law in his first year. We have a lot of work left to do that! Can I sign you up?
 
Superfreak said:
Oddly enough... they trot out this nonsense every two years, right before an election... then silence after the election. Because they, like Darla, knows that the bulk of the difference lies in hours worked, experience and job selection. When you compare a man and woman in the same company with the same experience etc... that there isn't much of a difference.

That is why her studies lump 'business' grads together (because all 'business' jobs are the same)... likewise 'engineers' are all lumped together. Admittedly you would have to have a very well funded study to look deeper, but in reality, that is not what Darla wants. Darla just wants to whine about how unfair it all is. Dems, like Obama, just want to stoke the flames of the morons on the left who buy into the nonsense.

Are there improvements that can be made... sure. But the 'gap' is nowhere close to what the propagandists on the left would have people believe.
Click to expand...


Love this sentence.

So what are these improvements that can be made? What condition would they improve?
 
Darla said:
The .77 cents on the dollar does not make those comparisons, however others do, and though the gap is less than the widely quoted .77 cents, it still exists.

Here's an article that explains and links to all of the relevant studies:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/04/08/3424043/gender-wage-gap-myth/

I really don't mind guys like you, SF and Grind continuing to hold your fingers in your ears yelling "I can't hear you I can't hear you". It all works out well in the end. For me anyway. For you guys? Well, as I told SF when he held his fingers in his ears over and yelled 'THERE IS NO WAR ON WOMEN YOU MORON" over and over...let me know how that works out for you.

Yeah, you guys lost
Click to expand...

Think Progress? Only dupes and fools go to Think Progress for information; this is nothing more than a Liberal Propaganda machine. No wonder you're such a poorly informed dunce.
 
maineman said:
the fact that somebody thanked the Koch brothers five years ago prevents those people from disagreeing with them today?

Funny... I don't recall the fact that the US gave Timothy McVeigh a bronze star somehow got him a lesser sentence!
Click to expand...

No dumber than when lefttards claim that Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in the 80's indicates our friendship with a despotic regime.
 
Darla said:
I also love how you guys gloss right over the systemic gender problems in this country. As if the .77 cents just exists and of course has nothing to do with public policy. Meanwhile what are two of the most important issues to working women? Paid family leave and affordable, safe, child care.

Keep yappin. See how far it gets you.
Click to expand...

There is no gender problem other than the manufactured one for gullible twits who find the topic a convenient distraction from REAL issues and this Administrations failures and incompetence.
 
I never thought that the handshake said anything about a - at the time of the Bush administration - current friendship. It certainly did indicate a certain "warmth" at the time of the photo, however. Saddam was a despot, no doubt, but he was OUR despot and our surrogate in our proxy bitchfest with Iran.
 
Darla said:
Love this sentence.

So what are these improvements that can be made? What condition would they improve?
Click to expand...

Just acknowledging that everything is not perfect. How to specifically address it? Not sure... but lying about the problem is not a good option.
 
Darla said:
So you now agree there is a pay gap?

Cawacko, what kind of equal pay legislation do you believe this congress would pass? Can you tell me? A congress full of Superfreaks? Yeah, none.

He did sign an executive order a week or two ago, mandating government contractors release wage information to ensure they are complying with the equal pay act that he also signed into law in his first year. We have a lot of work left to do that! Can I sign you up?
Click to expand...

So for as big of a problem as he says this is all he's done in six years is sign the Lily Ledbetter Act and this executive order? And the Democrats controlled Congress his first two years so they could have attempted to pass something if that's what they felt the problem was.
 
maineman said:
I never thought that the handshake said anything about a - at the time of the Bush administration - current friendship. It certainly did indicate a certain "warmth" at the time of the photo, however. Saddam was a despot, no doubt, but he was OUR despot and our surrogate in our proxy bitchfest with the USSR.
Click to expand...

fixed that for you...

keep in mind that prior to the overthrow of the Shah, Iran was our toy and Iraq was the USSR's. After the overthrow, we switched toys.
 
cawacko said:
So for as big of a problem as he says this is all he's done in six years is sign the Lily Ledbetter Act and this executive order? And the Democrats controlled Congress his first two years so they could have attempted to pass something if that's what they felt the problem was.
Click to expand...

They did, they passed the Fair Pay Act.

I'd love to see them do more. They won't until we have a Democratic Congress again, and then they won't do it unless they feel the grass-roots pressure from women.
 
More inconvenient truths about gender pay gap claims (written by a......WOMAN!)(emphasis mine):

The Stubborn Facts Behind The Gender Pay Gap
January 08, 2014
By Kay S. Hymowitz

The gender gap may be among the most misunderstood, not to mention politicized, of popular media topics. Raw numbers that fail to take into account for women’s lower working hours, time off for children, and different occupational choices are regularly waved around as evidence of brute discrimination. An important new paper by Harvard professor Claudia Goldin emphasizing the role of motherhood in the gender gap should mitigate the sectarian coverage, but for reasons that are partly Goldin’s doing, I’m guessing it won’t.

Headlines insisting “women earn 23% less than men for the same job” aside, researchers have known for years now that childless women earn much the same as men. As women have put off marriage into their later 20s, the gender gap has all but disappeared among young, childless men and women when you control for how many hours they work. In Goldin’s words, as “women ‘look’ more like men” in educational achievement and labor market experience, their earnings have followed suit. But if this current generation follows a similar path as previous cohorts, a gap will first open and then grow after they have children. Once women become mothers, they tend to reduce their hours of work and perhaps even “opt out” for a few years. Their earnings never fully recover.

In a more dispassionate media environment, none of this would be news. But Goldin discovers something original: the size of the gender gap varies considerably, even in per-hour pay, depending on the occupation. “Individuals in some occupations work 70 hours a week and receive far more than twice the earnings of those who work 35 hours a week,” she finds. “But in other occupations they do not.” Women with an MBA or a law degree are among the losers in the former case; they are likely to see their hourly earnings decline and then languish below those of men after they become mothers and cut their hours. Women techies and pharmacists, on the other hand, can take time off or reduce their hours but still be able to make close to the same amount per hour as their male colleagues.

Why would some occupations be more punitive to women (or men for that matter) “who want fewer hours and more flexible employment?” Making use of a young field with the ominous title “personnel economics,” Goldin concludes that the gap is especially wide in jobs where value is placed on the hours and job continuity of workers. The reasons should be pretty obvious. When client X has been working with lawyer Y on a complicated deal and needs a quick response to a sudden crisis, he may just decide to take his business elsewhere if he hears Ms. Y has taken the afternoon off for her daughter’s swim meet. Mothers in law and business are less likely to get the Fortune 500 accounts than their always-available, mostly male counterparts. They will also earn less. The more prestigious the firm, the more powerful the client, the more contact is prized—and the bigger the wage gap.

Conflicts between a demanding client and personal life are not as likely to confront the tech employee who can finish a project after the kids go to bed or the pharmacist whose colleague can easily fill in for her. Due to the impersonal nature of the work, women techies will make close to what their male colleagues do whether they work at Yahoo or in the IT department at Macy’s. Surprisingly, given the field’s macho reputation, women with tech degrees are more likely to be in the labor force than, say, women with J.D. or MBA degrees. Lady pharmacists are also a happy group: because the person filling a prescription is “substitutable”—pharmaceutical procedures and drugs have become more standardized—hours can be flexible.

Goldin’s conclusion—that the key to further “gender convergence” is more flexibility in industries where there is little—seems logical at first sight. But her own description of the reasons certain occupations require longer, continuous hours undermines optimism on that score:

If an employee is unavailable and communicating the information to another employee is costly, the value of the individual to the firm will decline. Equivalently, employees often gain from interacting with each other in meetings or through random exchanges. If an employee is not around that individual will be excluded from the information conveyed during these interactions and has lower value unless the information can be fully transferred in a low cost manner.

It’s not at all clear how a hedge fund manager or Skadden Arps partner can make these facts go away. Nor is it apparent how much employees in high-stakes fields, not to mention the self-employed, can become as “substitutable” as pharmacists are, something that the Henry Lee Professor of Economics at Harvard, with decades of uniquely targeted research, must surely know. That means men and childless women will probably continue to dominate the upper echelons of law, business, politics, and other prestigious fields.

But perhaps the major problem for the future of gender convergence is one that Goldin glides past entirely: even when hours are as flexible as Elastigirl, mothers still work fewer hours and therefore earn less money than fathers. Forty percent of pharmacists who are mothers work part-time. (Goldin doesn’t give part-time numbers for fathers, but government data suggest it’s quite a bit lower.) Among full-timers, too, male pharmacists work more hours than female. In other words, even when women earn the same hourly pay as men, they will make less according to the Labor Department’s averages publicized by the media.

Reporters have already highlighted Goldin’s promise of flex time as an answer to the gender gap. It might help, and, regardless of its impact, giving employees the flexibility to combine work and family the way they see fit—when feasible—has to be a good thing. But more flex time or no, we’ll be seeing the persistence of an official gap for as long as there are headlines.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/miarticle.htm?id=9960#.U0V439iKDcs
 
maineman said:
I never thought that the handshake said anything about a - at the time of the Bush administration - current friendship. It certainly did indicate a certain "warmth" at the time of the photo, however. Saddam was a despot, no doubt, but he was OUR despot and our surrogate in our proxy bitchfest with Iran.
Click to expand...

More revisionist history from the lying dunce; no shocker here.
 
Another great article dispelling the MYTH of a gender pay gap (exerpts and bold mine):

The Gender Pay Gap Is a Myth
By Steve Tobak/

...........

.....President Obama is putting his political clout behind the Paycheck Fairness Act, legislation intended to address the age-old income disparity between men and women that everyone assumes is a result of discrimination.

There’s only one problem. It isn’t true.

If you can get past all the populist media headlines, the politicians pandering for the female vote, and the big bucks behind all the lobbyists, feminist groups, and women’s councils and just look at the facts, you’ll learn that the wage gap is not the result of discrimination.

There’s a mountain of data, research, and studies from sources like the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. Census Bureau, even a 2011 White House report prepared by the U.S. Department of Commerce for the White House Council on Women and Girls, that all say the same thing.

The gender pay gap is not a result of discrimination, coercion, or anything like that. To put it simply, it’s a matter of women’s choices.

Many women sacrifice pay for all sorts of reasons including security, safety, flexibility, and fulfillment. Their priorities are vastly different than men’s. And when you account for that, when you compare apples to apples, when women actually make the same career choices as men, there is no gap. Men and women earn the same.

Moreover, treating women as victims, which they are not, instead of empowering them, which we should, does nothing but hold them back. It does not serve their interests one bit. And the legislation will likely do more harm than good, as is usually the case when government overreaches and overreacts to satisfy special interests.

To dispel this age-old myth once and for all, just take a quick look at the unbiased facts, objective data, and conclusions of the studies:

An in-depth, 93-page U.S. Department of Labor study came to the “unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers."

Indeed, the primary reason for the wage disparity is that men choose higher-paying fields and occupations.

According to the White House report, "In 2009, only 7 percent of female professionals were employed in the relatively high paying computer and engineering fields, compared with 38 percent of male professionals." Professional women, on the other hand, were far more likely to choose careers in lower paying fields such as education and health care.

Even within the same field or category, men are more likely than women to pursue areas of specialization with higher levels of stress. Within the medical field, for example, men are far more likely to become surgeons while women tend to choose lower stress and lower paying specialties like pediatrics and dentistry.

Another major factor is that many women have different priorities than men do. They tend to value factors like job security, workplace safety, flexible hours, and work conditions much higher than they value compensation. For example, Department of Labor surveys show that men work an average of 9% more hours than women. Demanding jobs that command higher pay naturally require longer hours.

Men are also far more likely to choose careers that involve physical labor, overnight and weekend shifts, dangerous conditions, as well as uncomfortable, isolated, outdoor, and undesirable locations. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the top 10 most dangerous jobs are all male-dominated. These occupations also pay more than less dangerous and taxing careers.

All that notwithstanding, a 2010 analysis of Census Bureau data showed that young, single women who’ve never had a child actually earned 8% more than their male counterparts in most U.S. cities. The findings seem to be driven by an ongoing trend: more and more women – now more than men, in fact – are attending college and going on to relatively high-paying professional careers.

Now, I can probably just walk away from the keyboard and call it a day, but I won’t, and here’s why. Even though the facts are clear, I’m not going to sit here and ignore the one ginormous difference between men and women that obviously affects our choices: the baby elephant in the room.

I’m pretty sure that women still have all the babies and still do most of the child rearing and housework in America. Clearly, there are biological and societal factors that contribute to their personal career choices.

Not only that, but having been an executive in corporate America, I know that, while gender discrimination is illegal and women have cracked the glass ceiling, for whatever reason, a lot of board rooms still resemble good old boys clubs.

I’m not entirely sure who needs to do the work to change that – the women climbing the corporate ladder, the men and women in charge of hiring and promoting them, or both – but one thing’s for sure. That’s not a job for Congress – or President Obama.

Steve Tobak is a Silicon Valley-based strategy consultant and former senior executive of the technology industry.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/business-leaders/2013/05/03/gender-pay-gap-is-myth/
 
maineman said:
are you saying that we did not support Iraq in its war with Iran?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war
Click to expand...

Is that what I am saying? Fascinating interpretation you have Comrade. If you think that Wikipedia entries are a credible support for your moronic talking points, you just might be an idiot.

FACT: the US supported neither the Iranian Islamist regime that declared war on America but was ignored by a feckless Democratic President, nor a despot that supported terrorists in Iraq.

The US wanted to ensure that the status quo was maintained in the ME and that NEITHER side got the advantage over the other. Our position basically was, as long as these two despotic nations were killing each other and neither was able to gain the upper hand, we were just fine with that.

Now perhaps a low information leftist dunce like you thinks that this means we were hugging Saddam in friendship; I would argue that it is a moronic view that cannot be substantiated by any facts.
 
For Truth Deflector:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articl...prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/26/w...id-to-iraq-early-in-its-war-against-iran.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-foreign-policy-and-the-iran-iraq-war/5253

For example, from the very outset of the conflict, U.S. Airborne Warning and Control Aircraft (AWACS) that had been stationed in Saudi Arabia for the alleged purpose of legitimate self-defense of that country proceeded to supply Iraq with intelligence information they had collected on Iranian military movements.34 Clearly, this activity constituted a non-neutral, hostile act directed against Iran which, under pre-U.N. Charter international law, would have been tantamount to an “act of war” in accordance with the traditional and formal definition of that term. Under the regime of the United Nations Charter, such provision of outright military assistance by the U.S. government to Iraq against Iran rendered America an accomplice to the former’s egregiously lawless aggression upon the latter.

do I need to continue or will you just admit that yet another smelly thing removed from your ass is not, in fact, chocolate?
 
maineman said:
For Truth Deflector:
Click to expand...

The ONLY one desperately trying to deflect from the truth is you.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articl...prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran

Nothing but hearsay but no one can read the link to this leftist rag unless they join; no thanks.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/26/w...id-to-iraq-early-in-its-war-against-iran.html

Here are some tidbits of facts in this OPINION based bullshit from the NY Time that has NEVER been a friend of Republican Presidents:

The American decision to lend crucial help to Baghdad so early in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war came after American intelligence agencies warned that Iraq was on the verge of being overrun by Iran

This is pure speculation and hearsay based on “interviews” with “presumed” officials close to the Administration:

But interviews over the past two months with several dozen present and former State Department, White House and intelligence officials who were directly involved in the policy

William J. Casey, then the Director of Central Intelligence, is believed by many American Middle East specialists to have traveled to Baghdad in the early 1980's for secret meetings with his Iraqi counterpart, Saddam Hussein's half-brother Barzan

Whenever you see words like “believed by” and interviews with “individuals” you can discount it as irrelevant bullshit and speculation.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-foreign-policy-and-the-iran-iraq-war/5253

Here’s the only relevant portion of this puff piece:

During Senate Intelligence Committee hearings last October on Mr. Gates's nomination as C.I.A. chief, neither Mr. Gates nor any of the other C.I.A. witnesses let on that the U.S.-Iraq intelligence-sharing thought to have begun in December 1984 had actually begun more than two years earlier. Nor did any witness reveal that the Reagan Administration had permitted Iraq's allies in the Middle East to ship American-made arms to Baghdad.

At one point during Mr. Gates's testimony, Senator Bill Bradley, the New Jersey Democrat, asked whether the intelligence-sharing with Iraq had amounted to a "covert action" that under law should have been made known to the intelligence committees.

"I believed at the time," Mr. Gates responded, "that the activities were fully consistent with the understanding" of the law then in effect, "as it related to liaison relationships."

Again; you only see what your hyper partisan blinders permit you to see and nothing you ever see relates to credible facts or the truth, but rather revisionist bullshit and AmeriKa hating lies.

maineman said:
For example, from the very outset of the conflict, U.S. Airborne Warning and Control Aircraft (AWACS) that had been stationed in Saudi Arabia for the alleged purpose of legitimate self-defense of that country proceeded to supply Iraq with intelligence information they had collected on Iranian military movements.34
Click to expand...

Thank you Commander obvious; of course we would be “monitoring” the region in conflict; AND, ensuring that NEITHER side got the advantage.

maineman said:
Clearly, this activity constituted a non-neutral, hostile act directed against Iran which, under pre-U.N. Charter international law, would have been tantamount to an “act of war” in accordance with the traditional and formal definition of that term. Under the regime of the United Nations Charter, such provision of outright military assistance by the U.S. government to Iraq against Iran rendered America an accomplice to the former’s egregiously lawless aggression upon the latter.
Click to expand...

This can only be claimed if you’re an uninformed AmeriKa hating dunce.

WTF is “pre-UN Charter International Law”? This, again, is too stupid for prime time.

How about a link shit-for-brains?

maineman said:
do I need to continue or will you just admit that yet another smelly thing removed from your ass is not, in fact, chocolate?
Click to expand...

Do you need to continue removing any doubt what a clueless dolt you are on this and many other issues? Frankly, I am not sure you know when to stop and how stupid you make yourself look with such clueless dimwitted arguments and claims.

I am quite certain that as long as anyone responds to your stupidity, you will keep erupting for many threads more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top