Wage gap debunked by feminists:

http://www.iwf.org/campus/show/18948.html

To surmise: "Scholars can debate whether it is societal pressure or innate desire that makes women elect to spend more time with their children. But so long as these decisions are a reflection of women's expressed preferences, this isn't a problem that needs to be solved."

Off-topic: You mean to say that a website that touts "All Issues Are Women's Issues" is anti-feminist? Really?

im_still_a_guy, umm..yeah.

The IWF is anti-choice and they liberally quote from legendary ERA-killer Phyllis Schafly.

They're about as pro-feminist as menarebetterthanwomen.com

It's not just men who are misogynists, some women get paid highly to (and may actually believe that) women are mostly fit for the kitchen, bedroom and fist of their husband-lord-protector once they step out of line.

im_still_a_guy: Erm...yes. Note how in the article you provide, the organization separates itself from feminists by criticizing their views and accusing them of having no facts to back up their claims. Sounds anti-feminist to me.

I love it, the IWF are feminists. That's rich.

Yes, IWF is anti-feminist, see the following headlines from their site:

Sex, Lies and Feminism
Feminism: A Health Hazard?
Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?
Terrorist Feminism
Failures of Feminism
Feminists' Hot Air
should i go on?...

So... um, yeah, they're anti-feminist. Have you read anything on their site?

Oh, yeah, and the wage gap is not a myth... and it's not due to child-rearing as most wage gap studies only study full-time year-round workers and there have even been studies which have corrected for family size and such. Anyways, check out the link Ann posted, it's pretty on target.

Bless up.

Hooray! This really is great news! And, thanks for posting the video of Rep. Barbara Lee's speech - terrific!

On a side note, I'm noticing a big shift in the tone of the comments lately... Anyone else?

Oh, yeah, back on topic... BARBARA LEE FOR PRESIDENT!

I swear, she is one of the most courageous people in Congress period... she almost kept me from registering in NY so I could keep voting for her in Oakland. The only Congressperson who voted against giving Bush unchecked war powers in the wake of 9/11. Give thanks there's one person on the hill with any heart...

WATCH this man go!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hvz_rat7o8k

"especially minority women earn a fraction of what men earn from the same job."

is this even the what the stat purports to represent? the 63 cents comes from the average income of white men versus that of minority women, not what they make for the same job. Why do some people choose to represent it that way? They are on the side of the angels but twist the stats, which themselves can be debated, but I just dont get it.

how do the wages of black women compare to those of black men, especially if we look at urban centers and people under 35? interesting stuff and I mostly agree with lee but i dont understand the 63 or 77 cents stat being used as if it was for the same exact job and not simply an average vs. an average for all jobs.

Score! I am so happy this made my Friday. Who in there right mind would call the IWF a feminist organization? Anyway cheers!

I don't want to send this too far off topic, but yes, I've noticed so many more antagonistic comments lately as opposed to respectful and passionate discussion.

Back on topic...I am also curious to learn more about how these wage-difference statistics are compared and interpreted. Does anyone have have a good resource with more info about it?

Don't let the trolls rain on the parade! Let's focus on the awesomeness that is BARBARA LEE!

By the way Pucklish, thanks for confirming for me that Barbara Lee was the sole congressperson that voted against giving Bush unchecked war powers in the wake of 9/11. I thought she had been the one. I recommend everyone go back and watch that video gem--this lone voice amongst ALL OTHERS calling for restraint and a stricter examination of our responses. Looking back at it, her prescience is startling.

Here she is, speaking the truth to power, AGAIN.

Thanks for posting this video, Ann, which I lifted and reposted on my blog. This is just another reason why I'm proud to live in and be from Oakland.

There's a great band here, The Phenomenauts, who have an intergalactic space and science theme, and they call Oakland "Earth's Capital" and I stand behind that, 100%. I love Oakland, and Barbara Lee is the shit!

Hey, that's my representative! And she's working it!

wander,
There are lots of things in the archive here to look at for the wage gap. There was a guest poster over at feministe a week or two ago named alice who did some good posts/links on the topic too. One of her links is to the actual gov't numbers behind the 77 cents thing and their thoughts as to why it exists. You can also go to glennsacks.com and find some more links on the wage gap from the other "side" if one wishes to view it that way. You can also go to feministcritics.org and see some really good posts about the wage gap, good write-ups, links, dicussions about articles posted by people like jeff fecke etc. Lots of good info out there as it is a topic that touches on so many things. Good luck and enjoy-

I am with im_still_a_guy. If you don't like the IWF, (I've never heard of them, but if they are women and call themselves feminists then I am pretty sure they are feminists. Just because someone has a different view than you doesn't make them any less for women's rights.) then how about the New York Time's article on how women executives earn ten to twenty percent than their male counterparts?

Or feminist Warren Farrell's book Why Men Earn More, where he systematically analyzed the wage gap and found out that its men and women's choices that determine pay, not some patriarchial conspiracy. I am not saying that women don't face discrimination and that they are no women who earn less compared to their male co-workers. I am just saying that there is not conspiracy to keep women oppressed and all these laws mandating that women get paid more is just going to breed resentment.

Two comments:

1. Regarding the first comment. The source is an organization that identifies itself as: "IWF builds support for a greater respect for limited government, equality under the law, property rights, free markets, strong families, and a powerful and effective national defense and foreign policy." In other words, this is a very hard-right group who opposes everything feminists stand for and undoubtedly pays some sellout women well to sound intellectual as they do it. Nuff said.

2. The bill passed the House by a 247 to 178 margin. That's on the way to an override of a veto. Keep your fingers crossed.

Cecilieaux,

great point. just to drum it in a little harder, put Cecilieaux's #1 along side my noted IWF articles and you'll see that never in a million years would the IWF classify themselves as feminists.

I appreciate that you're standing up for them, though, Nathan, as you also market Warren Farrel as a "feminist" even though he's credited with being a seminal (pun intended) masculist/ masculinist. Who knew? Apparently, he did... he hasn't considered himself a "100% feminist" since the 70s and has been quoted as saying:
In America and in most of the industrialized world, men are coming to be thought of by feminists in very much the same way that Jews were thought of by early Nazis.

Okay. Sure, I'd be willing to accept your assertion that he's a feminist on the grounds that he views men "very much in the same way that Jews were thought of by early Nazis."

Of course, he also said Throughout my life I have always been amazed that people couldn't listen to other people, that they couldn't hear their best intent, that there seemed to be an enormous need to demonize. , with which I wholeheartedly agree, but which seems to run counterpoint to the prior quote. Oh, well, I figure I just have to try harder to understand his best intent.

And, to all you beautiful people in oaktown, keep the faith in the land where the Panthers grew. You know the city and the avenue. ;)

peace and blessings

Cecilieaux,
did you just say that feminists oppose equality under the law? I get what you're saying about the group and its true but I just thought it was kind of funny you quoted "equality under the law" and said thats against what feminists stand for.

D&D,
come on, you know that's twisting C's words... "equality under the law" is one part of an entire phrase which, contextualized, reads as clear code for a strong right-wing organization. "limited government", "strong families", "property rights" and "national defense" were probably the areas which made their perspective more clear than "equality under the law". C was talking about the organization, not just four words in their mission statement. if you take a second, you could see that "equality under the law," in this context, could (read: does) mean opposition to affirmative action, title ix, the era, and so forth.

all of it is pretty bland, vague language, of course, but your interpretation is, well, i can't believe that's what you genuinely thought, let's say.

cheers!

indeed, just giving a hard time though it didnt take much twisting to get there, simply pointing out she stated feminists oppose what she had quoted without further context, forgive me i was in quite the bad mood this morning, shouldnt take that out on others.

i still have yet to find a feminist online who can explain to me why people try and pass off the 77 cents on the dollar stat as repreentative of women getting paid 77% for the same job rather than an average of one group vs another. why is this? Quite a few of my feminist friends have said to me in person that yes its twisting the numbers a little but i dont get why no one online will.

So to be a feminist I have to say that I am 100% behind mainstream feminist views? I know that many people claim that Farrell is a masculinist and that he uses the word to describe himself as well. I tend to think of him more as a equitist, someone who is trying to look out for equality on both sides of the gender divide (a divide that both he and I agree should never have occurred, both genders should have moved forward together but one side got left behind).

I called him a feminist because he does have feminist views and I figured that if I called him a masculinist you would just dismiss what I said offhand.

no, d&d, you're not just giving a hard time, you're attempting to derail the conversation on minutia and anecdotes because the truth doesn't vibe with your ideology. that's okay, though. this space isn't necessarily designed for you to justify yourself to yourself.

as far as people saying "for the same job", i cannot speak to that, as it is a simplification of the truth. however, it is not wholly inaccurate. the bureau of labor statistics has a great deal of research on these issues:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook-2007.pdf

and, according to that, you're right... it's a complete simplification of the fact to say that a full-time, year-round employed woman would get paid 77 cents on the dollar for the same job (the bls study suggests that, as of the end of 2006, it was more like 80 cents, though, which is a vast improvement). sometimes, it's spot on (female CEOs make 74.5% of the wages of male CEOs); sometimes, it's more (female computer programmers make 84% of what men make); and, sometimes, it's less (female medical scientists, as well as physicians and surgeons, make 70.9% of what similarly employed males make)...

so, um, yeah, the research nominally supports such a statement as representative lee made, although it is overbroad and doesn't properly represent the areas in which women have attained better pay equity than other areas. of course, i would assume that's par-for-the-course in politics and debate. a lot of things are generalized and simplified for the sake of expedient discussion.

is that what your "feminist friends" say? or are they more amenable to your (implied) argument that women choose different occupations than men and that's why they earn less?

bottom line: the numbers support rep. lee's statement, as well as those of your "feminist friends", though the numbers may be slightly out of date (on the BLS website, the first study to come up is the 2004 study [ http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook.pdf ], which cites a 78% number overall, so blame poor website management for the 2-3% discrepancy)...

bless up!

nathan,

no, you don't have to be "100%" behind any line. feminism is a wide field with a lot of contrasting viewpoints. however, farrell is not a feminist and he considers feminists akin to Nazis, as i pointed out earlier. yes, at one point, he did consider himself a feminist, but, now, he clearly does not. who cares what someone calls someone else? call me a bonobo for all i care, it's the actual argument that matters.

if i came on here and said "George W Bush is a feminist and he reinstated the global gag rule!," i don't think it would matter what i called him. while i would claim the moniker feminist, i don't think it's worth more than the eight letters that make it up... to quote batman begins, it's what you do that defines you.

so, basically, you chose to depict farrell as a "feminist" in order to deceive people into agree with a viewpoint with which they do not agree? i think that's both intellectually dishonest and wildly ineffective, since people here disagree with one another when they're demonstrably on the same side of a whole slew of issues.

take care and better luck next time.

Why don't the debates around this law stress the 80 cents stat as much as the other one? I think that's just as important...if not MORE important than the 77 cents. Seriously, I see it in my field all the time that women are paid less for the same exact job when sometimes they are even more qualified!!!! Plus, it removes the argument that "women don't take as dangerous or physically intense jobs as men," which really pisses me off for a number of reasons. And you know, I'm really sick of people saying that we work fewer hours or whatever because we've made a "choice" to spend more time with our families. As if we have this choice! I'll try to explain that to my daughter's daycare provider when she calls child services because I don't pick up my daughter by 6:30. I'll just let her know that I "chose" to spend more time at work.

The reason many feminists, on this website especially, don't listen to the actual numbers about equal pay for equal work is that they are dogmatic. The facts don't matter because feminists "know" that women are played far less than men.,

They'll cite all kinds of statistics that don't compare apples to apples. Once you show numbers like the AAUW report ( http://www.aauw.org/research/upload/behindPayGap.pdf ) nobody will discuss the topic anymore. Talking about facts using a word from puckalish, is "minutia".

The AAUW report states:

"In this analysis the portion of the pay gap that remains unexplained after all other factors are taken into account is 5 percent one year after graduation and 12 percent 10 years after graduation."

It goes on further to say: "These unexplained gaps are evidence of discrimination..."

So the gaps is between 0.88 to 0.95. The gap however is NOT necessarily due to discrimination. It could simply be that there are other factors not taken into account by the AAUW.

When people like puckalish quote the BLS, they either are uneducated about more accurate numbers or are intentionally misleading you.

The simple truth of the matter is that the "wage gap" is a myth. The sum total earnings of full-time working men are compared with the sum total earnings of full-time working women.

When they differ it's "declared" to be because of discrimination. But, when you peel back the layers you see it's all about choice.

Here is a CDC statistic on on-the-job deaths in 2005:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5613a1.htm
93% of workplace death casualties in the U.S. were men.

In addition to these on-the-sight deaths there are also many more men exposed to the elements and toxic chemicals (which increases your risk of getting cancer) like sewage workers and fire fighters. Firefighters have 4 times the rate of cancer compared to the general population.

Here is a reader's digest version of the two main rivals in the debate: Martha Burke and Warren Farrel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtjaBQMog0Q

When you see that 93% of on-the-job deaths are men (and additionally men are much more likely to die early from stress, exposure to chemicals, or have a serious permanent injury resulting in huge loss of quality-of-life) it becomes easier to see what the IWF author meant by "wage gap is a bargain" for women.

Men (and only men) are STUPID enough to take a $60,000 a year job vs a $30,000 a year job that severely threatens your life. It really stands as a testament to men's GREATER sex-role conditioning (much more insidious and invisible than the roles for women) that men are still ponying up to the death professions all to earn women's love.
Add to this the fact that a living widow can collect her dead husbands social security and the "wage gap" becomes an even BETTER bargain for women.

Notice in the video how often many more men are standing when Farrel asks the 20 questions that are the biggest predictors of earning (involving being exposed to the elements, relocating, commuting, having 20years uninterrupted experience, etc..)

The "wage gap" is a gimmick by which politician's are wooing the female vote and nothing more.

billdiamond,

did you bother to look at anything i wrote or are you too busy spewing fecal matter out of your fingers?

i wasn't referring to statistics as minutia. i was referring to d&d's criticism of a quote of the IWF's mission statement. learn to read first, then learn to write.

so, please, enlighten me as to how you can't even read a comment thread, but you know better than a government employment survey of 60,000-odd households. for someone who is willing to criticize me for not heeding facts, you seem to consider unqualified claims more powerful than data. please, do enlighten me as to whose magical quantifiable data is going to blow holes in the US Bureau of Labor Statistics'. i guess you can just revert back to blind assertions, since that's where your strength lies, but it's just going to make me more bored.

jabes,

i implore you, too, to review the BLS information, as you can see that danger pay does not explain away the gender wage gap. there are demonstrable pay gaps between men and women working in the same field...

not between men working on offshore drilling rigs and women working in day care, okay? the BLS study breaks down over 300 classes of occupations in their comparison. it's not sum quantities. but you wouldn't know that, as you prefer talking points to information.

but, oh my, those BLS stats aren't convenient to your argument, so ignore them in favor of unsupported claptrap like billdiamond's or in favor of youtube clips - as there is no greater proof than a good public speaker.

good night.

Hello Puckalish.

Attached is a PDF link of the AAUW's wage gap report released last year that (headlines) proclaimed LOUDLY there was only a 2% improvement on the 75% wage gap figure.

http://www.aauw.org/research/upload/behindPayGap.pdf

I would like you to please turn your attention to page 40 and 41 the box on the right margin that says "summary".

The "earnings gap" between men and women 1 year after graduation was 5%. After 10 years it was 12%. The authors said they controlled for all the variables, but who know if this is true?

My question is: will a worker know they got passed over for promotion because they took 6 months off for maternity? Since a worker CAN'T know ALL of the reasons of their pay, it's impossible for a researcher to filter all of the variables out!

Even at 5 to 12% that is a LOT LESS than the 22% the AAUW rolled with in their press release!

What was that you were saying about "choosing figures that were convenient?" because I don't remember what you said about that. Huh?

Once again when it comes to feminist leaders we bump up against this issue of "honesty".

These authors always want to get the most "shock value" for their money--the truth be damned. Like stating violence against women is the worst on Superbowl Sunday.

Quite frankly if I was a feminist posting on this board I would really be questioning what I was supporting.

Feminist wealth and lawyers rush in to support Lorenna Bobbit, almost all of their numbers have been debunked, 20 different state NOW branches signed affadavits in the La Musga decision in California imploring the judge to side with the mother. (The La Musga case involved a mother who wanted to move her children across the country from the father, the father's attorney was trying to raise the issue that the father/child bond should weigh into the matter).

A couple of years ago I read on Glenn Sacks that a superior court (in California) overturned a family court's decision to inflict a man (who proved he was not the father) with a fraudulent child support award. The superior court wrote (if I remember correctly) "If the court finds a man is incorrectly assessed with a child support award, it is the courts job to correct the matter, not profit by it!"

Feminist groups tried to get this ruling de-published as precedent setting, stating that it would harm too many children. But once again the truth is nobody's enemy, a lie is nobody's friend.

If some children lose some cash benefits due to unjust paternity suits being overturned, aren't we better off as a society to let the truth shine free, and pay more in taxes for welfare to support these children?

If today we let courts arbitrarily designate some unlucky stiff as "dad" who must pay up, all for the hysterical mantra "it's for the children!" aren't we (as a society) benefiting from injustice? Where will it eventually lead? The courts declaring a woman wasn't raped because the "alleged" assailant is a senator's son, or a war hero, or a single dad (it's for the children!)?

The truth should be the #1 issue in all things political and personal that is sacrosanct. Without the truth, we are all prisoners of lies.

And so far feminist groups leaders are in very short supply of the truth.

BTW Puckalish,

I looked at the BLS report. It's just raw census data. This is exactly the type of over-simplified report that MRA's have been railing against (when used as "proof" of discrimination).

If you can excerpt a certain part or give me a page number you're referring to then we're in business.

But looking at as much as I could, it doesn't go into (even) anywhere near as much detail as the AAUW report to iron out the variables that predict high pay like: long commutes, overtime, relocation, years of un-broken work experience, travelling for work, career, etc...

You're offering THIS as proof of discrimination? How does this report take into account the male death profession? Didn't you say this report proved it wasn't just danger behind the pay gap? It's just raw census data.

And just for the record I never said it was just danger, but also the things I just mentioned:
long commutes, overtime, relocation, years of un-broken work experience, danger, traveling for work, career, working outdoors, working in filth, etc...

pages 50-57 (that's the page numbers at the bottoms of the pages, not the PDF page numbers, which include the leading pages). oh, my lord. learn to read. it's got a table of contents.

ugh. i can't believe your argument hinges on feminists supporting lorena bobbit. i have to go to sleep so i can maximize the 18% premium i make over female designers due to the numerous risks i take when using adobe's creative suite.

by the way, the 5-12% numbers are not a range, as you present them. 5% is the average for women 1 year after graduation. the 12% number is for women 10 years after graduation. i would assume, since the average worker in america has been out of school for more than 10 years (i'm almost at 10 years out of university myself, and i plan on working for about twice as long as i already have), the numbers wold lie closer to 12% than 5%, if not higher. however, i don't fully understand the AAUW's methodology and they don't explain it clearly in their report, despite your argument that it's more detailed (which is bullshit - it's shorter and has more title pages - how could it ever be MORE detailed? perhaps it's an easier read, but it's not more detailed.)

anyways, i can't reasonably believe you're interested in intelligent debate after that long rant about how feminists support fraudulent child support claims and lorena bobbit. i'm done.

Puckalish:
by the way, the 5-12% numbers are not a range, as you present them. 5% is the average for women 1 year after graduation. the 12% number is for women 10 years after graduation.

That's still a far cry from the 22% that was in headlines when this article was released.

once again we are faced with feminist leaders will to lie/exaggerate for "shock value".

Puckalish:
by the way, the 5-12% numbers are not a range, as you present them. 5% is the average for women 1 year after graduation. the 12% number is for women 10 years after graduation.

That's still a far cry from the 22% that was in headlines when this article was released.

once again we are faced with feminist leaders will to lie/exaggerate for "shock value".

Your link to the BLS report isn't working. Will have to look at it tomorrow.
good night.

Sorry for the double-post, must have hit the back button.

look, Jabes, 22% is not a lie or an exaggeration. the two numbers can coexist peacefully. check it out (and i'll use the AAUWs numbers for the illustration so your tiny head doesn't get all confused):

there is an overall 22% wage gap between men and women across the board. some of that gap in wages is due to such things as level of education, child-rearing responsibilities (an issue to be dealt with, as women should not be penalized for having children and men should play a greater role in their children's lives), experience, and so forth.

if we remove all controllable variables (occupation choice, experience, children, etc.), 5% (at one year after graduation) and 12% (at 10 years after graduation) of that 22% gap is UNEXPLAINED.

just because up to 17% of the gap is explainable (only for the 1-year-after-graduation segment) DOES NOT MEAN IT DOES NOT EXIST. it just means it can be explained. it also means that the remainder (5% and 12%) is UNEXPLAINED, which suggests direct discrimination.

this also does not mean that the difference (either 17% or 10%) is not due to social factors (such as conditioned occupational preference, uneven splitting of child-rearing duties, etc.) which need to be addressed in order to attain a more equitable social structure. it just means that the reasons are visible and quantifiable.

anyways, the BLS link works just fine, but i doubt you'll be able to parse the data as you have done a fine job of bungling up already-digested data in the AAUW report.

and as for you calling feminists "liars" while brushing off the fact that you took a couple of numbers and misappropriated them out of context; that is really absurd. really. so, no, you're wrong - no lying or exaggeration going on there...

had a chance to check out the methodology part of that report and it's really quite interesting. they went so far as to survey the level of education of the subjects' parents.

by the way, while you're claiming the UUAW is a bunch of exaggerating liars, check out this little note that did not get into the main thrust of the paper or into the press release:

"This gap among full-time workers may understate the full gender disparities because those excluded from the sample - those working part time or those temporarily out of the work force - include a disproportionate share of women, many of whom can expect to pay a penalty when they return to full-time employment or may have lower wages than the women in the sample."

So, if they're exaggerating, it looks like they're exaggerating down.

Next time, read a study before you rip it out of someone else's comment and start "analyzing" it as lies and exaggerations by the evil matriarchy.

oops... AAUW, not UUAW. don't type angry.

I still don't understand what you're trying to prove with pages 50-57 of the BLS report. There are no footnotes, or bullet points or explanations stating that variables were controlled for. Such as hours worked, years on the job, degrees, exposure to the elements, relocating, or anything else.

Why do you keep insisting this proves discriminatory pay? It's just raw data. It's not even tabulated cross-industries. Smack dab in the middle of page 54 is the listing "order clerks". Suppose there is an order clerk in a brokerage firm ordering boxes, forms and paper products, and an order clerk stationed for 3 months on an off-shore oil rig ordering drums, machinery, and piping. Which do you think will pay more? Which do you think a man is more likely to do?

Once again this report is just raw census data. It's not even tabulated across industries. So every job titles is potentially (and probably meaningless).

If anything the CDC report stating the 93% male on-the-job deathrate proves exactly what is happening. Men enter the death professions in much greater numbers (and the dirty, filthy, stressful jobs in much great numbers). Due to the adverse work conditions of these jobs they must pay higher to attract workers. End of story.

If you want the "wage gap" to disappear, start fighting for women to enter roofing, sewage, construction, commercial fishing, mining and other dangerous jobs just as you fight for female CEO's.
I would actually welcome this because if women started getting trapped in coal-mines and dying maybe society would actually give a shit and safety would improve.

start fighting for women to enter roofing, sewage, construction, commercial fishing, mining and other dangerous jobs just as you fight for female CEO's.

Who do you think you're talking to, bud? Feminists HAVE been fighting for that! Except, the assholes who make up those male-dominated professions harass and bully us relentlessly when we dare to encroach on "their space."

If you actually gave a shit, you'd fight anti-feminist stereotypes about femininity vs. masculinity, and myths re: "a woman's place" (hint: it's not a fishing boat). Watch "North Country."

Feminists just can't win, can we? Arguably, it doesn't matter what we do, because the MRA scumbags who troll this site twist themselves into logically inconsistent arguments just to depict us as the enemy.

LOL @ this, though - "men are still ponying up to the death professions all to earn women's love."

look, if you want to continue this conversation, you're going to have to learn to interpret data. to help you out, i'll show you that...

women's earnings as a percentage of men's across occupational fields are as follows:

mangement, business and financial operations:
71.6%

professional and related:
73.6%

*service:
79%

sales and office:
73%

*natural resources, construction and maintenance:
78.5%

so, what you can see here is that women actually get paid much closer to men's wages in fields related to *danger* and so forth. however, if you look at the median weekly earnings, you'll see that construction workers actually make less money than ceos and financial advisors. i'm not sure if you were aware of that before. truck drivers actually take home smaller paychecks than attorneys! oh, my!

so, the danger pay argument doesn't work, okay? i'm not sure how many off-shore drilling station-based graphic designers there are out there, or how many medical scientists are employed in coal mines, but i can't imagine it's all that many.

that's what those statistics point out so clearly. while there are more vague areas (it's only detailing a little over 300 occupations out of the thousands of available occupations people actually take on), you can't argue that male lawyers make more than female lawyers because male lawyers more often are harnessed to scaffolding 100 stories in the air. besides, i love how you had to find the most vague job description in a list of hundreds. how many accountants and auditors do you think receive danger pay? oh, right... again, it's the deep-ocean accountant jobs that women shy away from.

however, i'm coming to realize that you're not interested in uncovering any information. you're just interested in bullshitting your way into being a victim. even though you probably work some cushy white-collar job and don't have any children, you'd like to pretend that you are a suffering man who works in a coal mine (you get wifi in there?) to pay child support for a baby that was the result of his ex-wife's affair.

yeah, so, certainly, these numbers can be dug more deeply into, but the overwhelming evidence here and in the AAUW report YOU CITED points to a gap. i'm not saying that gap is ALL DISCRIMINATION, but there are other factors (which i mentioned above and with which you'd rather not engage, as they'd require thinking) as well... and some of those factors are related to having an inequitable social landscape and some of those factors are related to choice.

so, yeah, to sum up... you don't hate feminists, but you'd like to see women trapped in coal mines and dying. you are so fucking deluded as to think that the ruling class of rich, white men is going to give a shit if poor working-class women start dying in coal mines? they didn't when working-class women were dying in factory fires and they don't when 7 year old girls go blind sewing gap shirts in guatemala.

aside from all that, i have to say SarahMC's on point... fully on point. and, thank you for coming into this moron's shitfest...

btw, last year i actually saw a doc about female firefighters... "Taking the Heat"... it even talked about one instance where the male firefighters were so mad at having to work with a woman that they emptied her oxygen tank as a "prank" which could have led to her death as she had fearlessly entered a space where there was no breathable air...

i love how it doesn't matter how raw the data is or how processed the data is, this guy won't believe a damned thing if it doesn't fit into his little threatened-masculinity victim-space.

sorry if i got unduly harsh, there, by the way, it's just that you're making me ashamed to be a man, jabes, which is something i'm usually quite proud of.

Hey Puckalish. I appreciate the patience you've shown in here!

Have you heard this story?

“I am just saying that there is not conspiracy to keep women oppressed and all these laws mandating that women get paid more is [sic] just going to breed resentment.”

If that is what you’re saying, your contribution to this discussion is nearly irrelevant. There are no laws mandating that women get paid more. The Fair Pay Act would require employers to pay male and female employees that are doing the same job equally.

In case this somehow confuses you, let me outline how the Fair Pay Act, which will serve to restore portions of Title VII legislation that were destroyed by the Supreme Court last summer, works in its enforcement. Action against employers will be taken on a CASE BY CASE basis. This is not something that is going to tell an employer outright that they have to pay a woman employee a certain amount. It is not a mandate of any specific, fixed salary, nor does it demand that someone of any gender with lesser qualifications get paid equally to someone of any gender with higher qualifications. That is what the Fair Pay Act and Title VII do NOT do.

Now let me explain what they DO do. They do allow a specific person [male or female] to take action against an employer who is paying them less than a person of the opposite gender in the same position. This is not based on averages, or overall data, or even the wage gap. In practice, this affects people on a much smaller scale, as each individual dispute will go to court. The court will decide, based on factors raised by the complainant, whether the difference in pay can be attributed to factors other than gender. If this information does not exist and the evidence instead points to gender discrimination, there will be action taken against the employer to correct the employee’s wages. Things like years of experience, education, skills, etc will be equalized in court because they will be laid out for examination.

I fail to see how this is unfair, and I fail to see how it “mandate[es] that women get maid more.” In fact, if it breeds resentment among men that women working the exact same jobs get equal pay, I don’t really know what to tell them other than to grow the fuck up and stop acting like spoiled children.

Puckalish wrote:
"look, if you want to continue this conversation, you're going to have to learn to interpret data"

What was that you were saying about ME having an ego?

This data is not tabulated across industries. If men and women's pay comes close to parity in the "high danger" fields you mentioned, it's only because now you're coming down to a few titles that can't cut across many different industries.

AND there's still no control for un-broken time on the job, or hours worked, willingness to relocate, commute time, exposure to the elements or any of the other criteria for which workers are paid more for doing shitty jobs.

On average the full time working women works 38 hours, the average full time working man works 43 hours. Even paid an equal hourly wage, that's a 13% earnings gap right there.

All you're doing is obfuscating. If you're such a big-brain guy you have to know this report is not displaying what you WISH it did.

SaraMC wrote:
Who do you think you're talking to, bud? Feminists HAVE been fighting for that! Except, the assholes who make up those male-dominated professions harass and bully us relentlessly when we dare to encroach on "their space."

LOL @ this, though - "men are still ponying up to the death professions all to earn women's love."

A) There is nothing stopping women from entering the death professions except women. When Cosmopolitan runs a special story on a single mother who has to take up mining, they hail her as a saint (which I don't deny). But then feminists assume the thousands of men who work in mining (and not just the short time to find something better but for a life-time all so an adult spouse can stay home)find it fulfilling? Or that they're NOT saints? Could it be the male role of provider is so accepted and invisible that it's taken for granted by society and women and men themselves?

Check this ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lhpevdl2Sng

This won TBS's funniest ad in 2006. A man is watering his lawn on an "water off day" and needs to be punished with a swift kick in the balls.
The fact that this is a sexual assault that gets laugh from many (even men) shows you how many light-years we are as a society in empathizing with men's suffering as we do with women's.

Considering that VAWA was such an easy sell to congress (despite the fact that men are 80% the victims of all violent crimes {by this I don't mean 80% of each crime, but 80% of the grand total})shows you that maybe my point is valid that when men work the death professions, safety doesn't improve because society doesn't care about men's suffering? Why else is there never a peep about men being 90% of the homeless, or 80% of all suicides?

B)Why do you laugh at the concept of men having to "earn/buy" women's love? Do you think the death professions are somehow fulfilling? Why else would ANYBODY do these jobs (for any amount of money) unless it was to be seen as noble, be loved and appreciated? The fact that you laugh at this concept tells me you (and probably many woman on this board) are the one's who have "bought into" anti-male stereotypes.
Men don't want love or companionship because they're evil. And YOU PEOPLE are the "enlightened" ones? Give me a break.

Puckalish wrote:
sorry if i got unduly harsh, there, by the way, it's just that you're making me ashamed to be a man, jabes, which is something i'm usually quite proud of.

Meaning what? That I'm doing something shameful? I'm not I'm expressing my view. If you disagree oh well. But because you disagree doesn't mean that I'm automatically the one who is wrong, or that I'm shaming myself, or that (even if I was doing something shameful) it paints all men in the same light.

I've never said that the bad manners, or bad arguments (or lies) that some radical feminists puke up shames all women.

Your comment is just bizarre. Also, the fact that you think I'm wrong to even voice these opinions and am doing something "shameful" speaks to that arrogance thing I've mentioned seeing in feminists.

"There is nothing stopping women from entering the death professions except women."

And also, the attitudes of men; and that goes across the board into non-death jobs as well. The harassment of women who dare cross the line into "men's work" is terrible. And I'm not saying that every man in an industry populated by men is guilty and I'm not saying that every woman who enters such industries will be harassed. I'm saying that it IS a big deal and it does drive women away and that is a rather large motivating factor.

"Could it be the male role of provider is so accepted and invisible that it's taken for granted by society and women and men themselves?"

Okay, (1) Cosmo? Not exactly feminist literature for our times. And (2) THAT IS THE VERY THING FEMINISTS ARE TRYING TO CHANGE!!! Sorry for the "yelling", but you seem to be under the complete misunderstanding that predominant social views=feminist views, or that feminists somehow don't see and don't CARE that these views are pervasive. We DO. And what's more, *feminists* work to change that. And changing that would help women *and* men.

"This won TBS's funniest ad in 2006. A man is watering his lawn on an "water off day" and needs to be punished with a swift kick in the balls.
The fact that this is a sexual assault that gets laugh from many (even men) shows you how many light-years we are as a society in empathizing with men's suffering as we do with women's."

*Bangs head repeatedly on desk*

Okay, let me tell you what is wrong with this example if you want to attack feminism: we don't hold it up as a beacon of "Yeah, that's great!"

But you wanna know what else? There are *plenty* of shirts advocating rape in the name of "humor". There are *plenty* of ads fetishizing assault against women, and hey, I just heard a "funny" one a couple of days ago about punching a woman in the boob. And then, of course, is the victim-blaming of women who speak out about assaults, so... I'm not seeing how society *empathizes* with the suffering of women.

petpluto:
Okay, let me tell you what is wrong with this example if you want to attack feminism: we don't hold it up as a beacon of "Yeah, that's great!"

I'm not using the TBS ad to attack feminism, but to underlie the fact that MEN ALSO FACE SEXISM. Hello! 93% on the job death rate!

If those two mining accidents over the last couple of years had killed several dozen women, you can bet your bottom dollar that new safety laws for mining wouldn't have been held up in congress just because mining companies threw money at our lawmakers.

Look how fast the army acted to get Lynch out of harm's way so that a tortured female POW didn't wind up on Al-Jazeera TV!

That operation used several blackhawk helicopters, and hundreds of special forces and navy seals soldiers (i.e. men).

That ad I mentioned isn't to attack feminists but to point that society also has sexism/oppression against men--AND the sexism is much much more deeply ingrained.
And NO it isn't because patriarchy fucks up men too!
This is true garden-variety oppression.

When women were mentally conditioned to only seek being homemakers and school teachers they broke free of that mental conditioning and sought freedoms to becomes lawyers, doctors, pilots, judges, ceo's etc.....

(and they were helped in that regard by thousands of compassionate caring men too)

There's no room in the feminist paradigm to help oppressed men! Men are seen as the class enemy!

You're a classic example because you're fighting tooth and nail just ACKNOWLEDGING male oppression.

I bring up the video because it shows a man getting sexually assaulted (by a woman--that makes it okay) from a government agency, on national tv AND WON AWARDS!

When the article was posted about the Wayans bro's "Abortion Man" it was (rightfully) torn apart as a nasty thing. And that was just a BS little ditty on the internet! But in the "abortion man" the grisly message of violence as humor is shown for what it is. The TBS ad is seen as funny!

My point is that oppression of men is SOOOO invisible and insidious and men's mental conditioning so absolute that we're 50 years behind in trying to fight for "something more" as women did.

What do we get for our trouble from feminists?
A) men get paid more because of a boys club, not because men are taking it on the chin and EARNING more through greater blood, sweat, tears, and DEATH.

B) fathers fighting for shared custody must be abusers

C) fathers wanting shared custody is about control (but mothers wanting SOLE CUSTODY isn't)

D) abused fathers (and their children) are denied help from VAWA funded shelters.

E) these hero fathers who risk their lives for money for their wives and children are rewarded by the mothers ability to kick dad out of the children's lives by divorcing him for any dipshit reason ("I'm not fulfilled", "we've grown apart")

F) soldiers "serving their country" face the same problem that (due to deployment) they often never know about, or can't contact the court about divorce hearings and are summarily ruled against in custody hearings and assets

G) women got a movement to fight their oppression, men get alcoholism, drug use, stress, and suicide to fight their oppression

H) important facts like: men are 95% of all workplace deaths, 80% of all suicides, 90% of all homes, 80% the victims of all violent crimes, 95% of all prisoners, overwhelming amount of all drop-outs gets GLOSSED over. If A SINGLE **ONE** of these stats were true of women instead, you could be alone in a shack in montana and you'd know about it!

Their is no room in the feminist paradigm for solutions of these forms of male oppression. There CAN'T be when feminism teaches males are part of the oppressing class (patriarchy) and won't budge their "privileges".

I have never seen any feminist article detailing any of these issues of male oppression. Why? I wonder? Maybe because you might lose some members?

Petpluto wrote:
"I'm not seeing how society *empathizes* with the suffering of women."

VAWA!?? $1 billion dollars for women and women only even though men are the victims of 80% of violent crimes?

What about Marcia Clark's divorce? She was working 18hour days on the OJ Simpson case. Well she was also going through a divorce at the same time.

DESPITE all the hubbub about "care-giving parent" directives judges are supposed to use, the judge gave custody to Marcia knowing that the kid was going to be raised by a non-parent (nanny). The judge's comment was that "kids belong with their mother".

(So the custody system is stacked in favor of mothers-thanks to feminists under the "best to stay with the care-giver parent" mantra. In the rare instance this rule works to advantage of men, judges say "fuck you we'll do what we want")

How about the free Clara Harris club?
http://www.claraharris.org/read_comments.php?file=comment1.htm

They believe Clara should be free'd since her husband was cheating when she ran over him repeatedly with her car.

How about the fact that Mary Winkler GOT HER KIDS BACK!?

If a man shot his preacher wife in the back WHILE SHE SLEPT, then yanked the phone out of the wall so she couldn't call for help & waited the 20minutes for her to bleed to death, there would be no family judge anywhere in the U.S. that would give him his kids back.

AND if a judge was stupid enough to do that, you guys would be all over that shit! There would be HUGE MARCHES on that courthouse!

I'm not seeing even a single mainstream opinion piece about this murderess getting her kids back.

How about that a woman just won a $150,000 award from a jury because the man broke off their engagement. He had paid off $30,000 of her debt and (upon finding out she had a lot more debt she hid) broke it off.

These shirts you mention aren't symbolic of systematic oppression of women. They're symbolic of jack-asses being jack-asses (one of the pains of living in a free society).

What matters is what judges and news-outlets are doing. And judges are dispensing misandry on-tap around the clock in bulk.

A woman barely has to say "boo" and there will be some judge ready to "save her" from the big bad boogeyman in her life.

A) I can't believe you don't believe that men face sexism in today's culture that (probably) dwarfs what women face in terms of scope, and insidiousness.

B) nor can I believe that people are on this site stating that the "earnings gap" (cause that's what it really is) is primarily due to sexism instead of men abusing their bodies.

When feminist leaders have editorial pieces that denounce men having to break their bodies as soldiers or in the death professions as often as the denounce women having to abuse their bodies for money becoming prostitutes, THEN I will believe what you say about feminists concerned about male oppression and that they're interested in fixing it.

But when all I got is denial after denial, well. What can I say really?

Puckalish opined:
"however, i'm coming to realize that you're not interested in uncovering any information. you're just interested in bullshitting your way into being a victim. even though you probably work some cushy white-collar job and don't have any children, you'd like to pretend that you are a suffering man who works in a coal mine (you get wifi in there?) to pay child support for a baby that was the result of his ex-wife's affair."

I never said I was a coal miner, or that I was personally a victim of sexism. That fact doesn't stop anybody else posting about sexism against women. Why is it pertinent with me?

"i love how it doesn't matter how raw the data is or how processed the data is, this guy won't believe a damned thing if it doesn't fit into his little threatened-masculinity victim-space."

Is this an admission that you were wrong about the BLS report? You constantly implied that this report was the end-all be-all of proving the "earnings gap" was from discrimination. Now, you're backpedaling and saying maybe it is raw data and doesn't control for variables?
Once again, I never said I was personally a victim. But neither were Elizabeth Cady Stanton who was one of the founders of the early feminist movement. She looked around and saw a lot of poor women were the victims of feminism. But Elizabeth was smart enough to realize that she personally was unaffected by it.

Why do I only have to pass this "litmus test" of victimhood to pontificate about other peoples victimhood, but no other posters on this site? Man, you are a laugh riot.

Additionally, you're just as rigid in terms of "seeing the light."

What you are doing, Jabes, is lying. It is a lie that feminists do not analyze masculinity and the ways in which men are limited and and oppressed by our sexist culture. You obviously do not read any feminist websites or blogs unless you've been instructed to come over to complain about mining and construction jobs.
You said "Women get a movement, men get [list of social ills]."
Women didn't "get" a movement. They CREATED and participated in one. And we continue to participate in it. Do you think you are owed something by the women's lib movement or something? You want us to fight for all your issues whilst you stand on the sidelines coaching?
If you'd only open your eyes for a minute you'd see that we feminists are opposed to a lot of the same things you're opposed to. You're not going to get anywhere by screaming at and insulting the very people who are ALREADY fighting rigid modes of "masculinity" and "femininity."

Last point Puckalish:
Do women need to have been raped to be concerned about reducing rape?

Jeez.

"You're a classic example because you're fighting tooth and nail just ACKNOWLEDGING male oppression."

Fucking A, dude, no. I am saying that while you gripe and moan about feminism not worrying about teh menz, women face the exact same fucking thing day in and day out. Which is why, FYI, we have a *movement*. Because women are fucking oppressed. Men are also *limited* and *defined* by the patriarchy. And feminists -here's the important part- fight that too. Seriously. We do. We fight for gender equality, we fight for men not being looked down upon if he wants to clean and cook and take care of the babies (and I mean that sincerely, as my *father* was that guy), and we fight for equal opportunity in a variety of ways. No one is trying to minimize *your* suffering. What I'm saying is this: feminism has a purpose. It has, for the past hundred and fifty years or so, focused on women. Why? Well, to be perfectly frank, things *sucked* for women, so they *made* a freakin' movement. And guess what? A lot of things have gotten better; and some things haven't. So we continue fighting because things still suck for women. And by destroying the patriarchy and working toward *equality*, we make things better for women -and *men*.

Other than that, if you have a problem with TBS ads, write a letter, or say "Hey guys, doesn't this suck?" But coming to a feminist site and telling feminists "you suck and are hypocrites and by the way, why aren't you concentrating on TEH MENZ" really doesn't do much except garner dislike and aggravation on the part of said feminists. You don't like the job we're doing on your behalf? You don't think we're covering the issues we need to be? Fucking google for feminist groups who do; there are some out there, I promise you. OR -brain storm!!!!!!- start your own fucking group. And hopefully one that works in tandem with feminism instead of denigrating it.

As for the "kids belong with their mother" bullshit, what do you think causes that? Feminism? Seriously? How about the designated sex roles for women and men -you know, the kind that say women raise the babies and men make the moolah? Because where I'm sitting, that's really to blame in a myriad of cases.

Or, you know, what SarahMC said.

hey, jabes,

a bunch of things, among them:
i'm more than willing to state, outright (as i have on several occasions) that the pay gap is not wholly due to discriminatory practices and an uneven social system. you refuse to accept that and would rather argue with the person you think i am.

TBS is not a woman-run company and women don't promote violence against men. in fact, as you might have seen if you actually read this blog, i don't know, this week or so, FEMINISTS (particularly, the ones on feministing) are disgusted by male-on-male violence, especially as it relates to enforcing gender norms (http://www.feministing.com/archives/010016.html)

also, if you read this site, you'd see that it often addresses issues related to ridiculous levels of male incarceration, enforced gender norms, etc. however, you only sign on here so you can spout on about what you think feminists believe, which, by the way, is a load of shit, like this:

"Men don't want love or companionship because they're evil. And YOU PEOPLE are the "enlightened" ones? Give me a break."

who the fuck ever says that shit on here? who? where do you see it? the only place i've seen anything like it, it was written by open_sketch, a man and a frequent troll, just looking to provoke people. seriously, do you look for demon feminists under your bed at night?

"You constantly implied that this report was the end-all be-all of proving the "earnings gap" was from discrimination."

I HAVE NEVER DONE ANY SUCH THING. AND NO, I'M NOT WRONG. look at what i've written (though i'm beginning to doubt you can actually read) and you'll see that i've never said anything other than that it's RAW DATA - A PRIMARY SOURCE - AS IN, I DIDN'T GET IT FROM A RADIO TALKSHOW, YOU DIMWIT. yeah, see, i like to look at the most raw data i can find and then parse it without the help of feeling like i've been personally wronged by coal mining.

AIN'T NO BACKPEDALING HERE, MOTHERFUCKER. I stand by every single word i've written. THERE IS A PAY GAP. some of it is explainable (that doesn't mean it doesn't exist). a whole lot of it is not. even a lot of the explainable bits can be shown to be due to social conditioning and other aspects of an unevenly weighted social environment (such as job choice).

reread what i said and find a single contradiction. and not one your pea-sized brain hallucinated. just fucking try.

Do women need to have been raped to be concerned about reducing rape?

and what the fuck is this about?

is this about how i've worked blue-collar jobs; i've done landscaping and construction work and i KNOW damn well that it doesn't pay all that well. you keep using it as an excuse for why men get paid more than women.

HERE'S THE NEWS FLASH:

the areas where men make much more than women (as i pointed out quite clearly above) are focused in those occupational areas where danger pay is not an issue (academics, management, etc.) blue-collar women make similar wages to blue-collar men (more similar than white-collar women and men). shitty-ass wages at that.

you keep talking about all the on-site death men have, but you don't know shit about it. i don't think for a minute that you've been on a job where the guy next to you got his leg pierced by a forklift and, since he's a short-term employee, he just gets fired - no health insurance, nothing. well, you know what? i have - and feminists have been working on issues related to job safety and healthcare for the working poor for longer than you've been alive.

if you really cared about the working men and women of this country and in the international scene, you'd take a motherfucking step back and look at who your allies should be. are they the harvey mansfield ivory tower motherfuckers making a sick premium against women in their cushy-ass fields to decry how important manliness is while at the same time undercutting attempts to get a decent safety net set up for the working class? or are they the maria mies capitalism-condemning pinko-commie feminazi types who've been busting ass for decades and longer to change this shitstem for the better - even while getting shouted down by MRAs and the neocons they love to follow...

when did i claim you had an ego, by the way? all i see is ID, motherfucker.

by the way, no one on here except for you and your foaming-at-the-mouth MRA friends actually see men and women as enemies. we actually see one another as ALLIES; brothers and sisters in a struggle for a more equitable, fair and loving society. the one dumbass self-loathing pieces of shit like yourself keep throwing up barricades in front of.

YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING TO HELP OUT WORKING CLASS MEN IN THIS COUNTRY. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. LIKE ALL THE WOMEN WHO MAKE UP AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF SOCIAL WORKERS AND TEACHERS OR LIKE THE RIDICULOUS NUMBERS OF CONTEMPORARY FEMINISTS WITH STRONG CRITIQUES OF OUR CURRENT CLASSIST SYSTEM AND HOW IT WRONGS MEN AND WOMEN.

Shit. This dates back to before Annie Besant, but you wouldn't know about that because you're too busy crying about on-site death rates rather than ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT. you'd rather shout down women because you feel like it's more effective than actually standing UP for your brothers who toil in mines and on scaffolding without any benefits.

as for me, i HAVE worked to deal with issues which primarily affect men - like the death penalty, excessive incarceration, labor rights, drug policy...

all you can do is complain about how your fictional feminists who support Mary Winkler (oh, yeah, the mainstream media, like News Corp, is really fucking feminist - what rock do you live under? - and that's why the story's not covered), Lorena Bobbit (really? really? castration fantasy?) and Clara Harris (whom i hadn't heard of before i followed your link to find out that her supports include her pastor [a man] and her husband's brother, mother and father - all vicious man-hating feminists, i'm sure)...

i mean, really... that's not even close to germane to the debate, here, which is another reason i'm ASHAMED of you... changed that, ashamed FOR you... because you can't help but drag in whatever freakish castration nightmares you have to any conversation, regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with what's being discussed.

so, yeah. now, i'm done. i'm convinced you're not here to actually discuss anything, but to "fight the good fight" against the feminist nazis.

well, i've got news for you: we're fighting the good fight. you're just fighting us - and not FOR anything. when you grow up, we'll be here, ready to hold your hand and take you toward a world where men and women are respected and treated with the dignity we all deserve.

until then, fuck off.

Hey everybody it’s been a while since I posted on this thread. At this point I am not even going to look at the most recent posts. It seems things are kind of de-generating into an oppression Olympics, and a “kill the messenger” attack on me. Considering feminist laws being passed require a need of mainstream society to be tolerant/accepting of your views it sure seems feminists are pretty unaccepting/intolerant of alternate views.

I just wanted to state my opinion and give a response primarily to A) Puckalish’s earlier comment: ”this guy won’t accept any states no matter how refined or how raw.”

I also wanted to state why B) I think “comparable worth” or some kind of equity balancing law to “equal things out” for women through government intervention (guidelines only or laws) is HUGELY misguided.

The other thing I wanted to refute is C) Petpluto’s comment that women are fighting against male oppression. She didn’t say how, but the meaning I drew is that by fighting the narrowly accepted roles of women, this helped men indirectly. Using common sense and logic I will put forward the supposition that (should be) easy to see why this is a totally false concept.

Lastly, I wanted to state D) why I think “female outreach” programs by companies are doomed to failure and ultimately harm men, women, and the companies themselves.

I will do this through common sense suppositions without any personal attacks. If you guys can do the same (Puckalish) then great. If not, well that behavior really says more about YOU than ME doesn’t it?

A) Puckalish, I will accept that there is work-place discrimination against women. You had a possible(?) move to shift and meet somewhere in the middle, retreating from the 26% figure (albeit with outright attacks upon me for having the nerve to disagree and being able to articulately state my opinion). Is it wide-spread, systematic, and around 26%?
I highly doubt it. And I will tell you why. The business mantra is: money. Morality and ethics go out the window as we saw in the 70’s when Lee Iaccoca (then in ford top brass) along with others decided to NOT recall the pinto (prone to exploding when struck in the rear even at low speeds) because some pencil pushers figured out that the lawsuits from the dead and injured would cost less than a recall.

How does this apply to women’s pay discrimination? Well, didn’t Merril Lynch just pay $2million dollars for a discrimination lawsuit? Going by the business mantra (money) it’s plain lunacy to presume that all companies everywhere are discriminating against women. This would open these companies up to such a huge liability that businesses would be going under left and right. Now are there some industries companies that are still discriminating? I would presume so, but these industries would have to be A) dominated by jackasses, and B) have enough clout/money to figure they can do this and get away with it, or don’t care about a (potential) out-of-court settlement of thousands. There aren’t many companies with both of these things. Grocers are out (they make pennies on the dollar in profit), as are department stores, and a lot of other companies except maybe things like IT, Pharmacueticals, stock brokerage houses MAY have a culture conducive to discrimination. While some women may have pay disparity (even after variables) of 20% or 30% I would be surprised if even companies in this group with possible discrimination cultures routinely discriminate (as an aggregate total to all female employees) more than 8%. Why? The business mantra: money. The liability is just too great. Each discriminated-against woman may be saving the company $800 per year. That’s worth a potential liability of hundreds of thousands? No. Businesses may be unethical and cruel, but they love money.

So that’s my attempt to meet in the middle. If a few companies are discriminating here and there to the tune of 2% - 8% that’s a far cry from the battle cry of “Universal, systematic 26%” figure bandied about by politicians and feminists. And a far cry from an epidemic problem that needs “fixing” through government intervention like “comparable worth” laws. That brings me to:

B) Why comparable worth laws are a sham. #1 many people much smarter than me are in the political sphere. They have lots of letters after their name (degrees). I have (pretty much) argued most of you to a stand still and gotten the most vocal person to back off the “26%” figure. And these politicians are a lot SMARTER than me. IF the figure is bogus why do politicians support it?

First, let’s look at the 100’s of millions of dollars companies give in campaign finance to members of both parties. If congress passes a law stating what salaries will be is anybody on this board naïve enough to assume CORPORATIONS won’t have a BIG hand in drafting this bill? With the business mantra in mind (Money) when this un-named (but inevitable) law comes to pass do you think the law will raise wages for women, or lower them for men to come to “parity”?

Of course, men’s will be lowered. Incrementally a couple % points a year, but they will come down. So……. Men will STILL do the dying, but now they won’t even have the high salaries to bring home to their families. Lacking that extra cash what will happen?
Well, the wives will have to go to work of course.
This (upcoming and un-named “comparable worth” and inevitable) law will #1 reduce wages for men (i.e. ALSO take money from wives and children) and in addition FLOOD the market with more labor as the wives are forced into work.
This won’t be a “comparable worth” law, it’s the “great wage reduction act” swindle. Feminists are being used as a bunch of tools, and I can’t believe you people are stupid enough to fall for it! Knowing human nature, and knowing corporate nature, and knowing that corporations have a strangle-hold on government any rationale person should see that I am right!

This is getting to be a long post, I will post arguments C and D in another post.

C) Petpluto (I believe) mentioned that feminists are fighting against the types of oppression that men face in the “provider” role model. I will give a couple of examples of why I (anyway) don’t believe this to be true.

Let’s loo