Gender pay gap

[Kinser79]

(05-19-2016, 09:57 PM)Bronco80 Wrote: 1) When it comes to paid parental leave, I believe that it should offered to mothers and fathers on an equal basis.  It's the fair think to do for both men, who don't have to take on the exclusive burden of being the breadwinner, and for women, who don't have to fall behind their spouse in experience on the workplace.  This helps to temper the pure biological differences that you mention, and after both parents are through with their leave, ideally it won't always be the woman that's exclusively staying at home.

While I'm perfectly fine with adding paternity leave into the mix, and I'm not about to say that any woman who wants to work in any field should be prohibited to do so--the biological differences between men and women are not going to be tempered. I know that on the left there is this bizarre meme that gender is a social construct, but the reality is that gender is a biological construct. As such no legislation no matter how "progressive" change those biological differences.

Quote:2-3) I don't think anything you've said really contradicts the point I'm making.

Actually it does. The Wage Gap Myth is prediated on women having a lower wage than men which is untrue. A woman who works X job will get Y pay; a man who works X job will get Y pay. Equal pay is enforced by law, specifically the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (signed by JFK), not that the lack of need will stop yet more legislation.

Rather any and all wage gaps that occur between the sexes seem to be predicated on choices made by women and men that have consequences on their over all life time earnings. As the US Department of Labor will tell you.

http://blog.dol.gov/2012/06/07/myth-bust...e-pay-gap/

Quote:Condoms can be purchased in any typical store at any time, and used immediately.  All female contraceptive options require extra effort to acquire, and some of those aspects make it disproportionately tougher on poorer women.  Reproductive freedom should be available to all, and that's not the case in today's United States.

Oral contraception is by prescription and is covered under Medicaid which is more than available for poor women who would also likely want their children covered by SCHIP. In fact all manner of contraception is covered by Medicaid and other forms of health care insurance. The morning after pill is of course available without prescription--I should know since I happen to know straight women who've had this problem and they are far from rich.

Only abortion presents a problem, and it should be noted that I do not agree with the abortion prohibitionists simply because abortion is a necessary evil under our current system of social organization.

As for being for reproductive freedom, I'm all for that. We also already have it nothing further needs to be done than to maintain the status quo or perhaps loosen abortion regulations and incorporate new developments.

Quote:4) I certainly agree that the causes of the pay gap are subject to other forces, we just disagree as to what forces.  I don't think certain sexist biases can be ruled out, such as the bias of the woman being the caretaker (countering hours worked and to some extent education), and being biased toward certain professions and against others (countering job type and skill).  That's more implicit bias than simply employers actively not wanting women in high profile positions, although the latter can occasionally happen.

I would contend that there is no sexist biases to be countered. Women take up certain professions because they want to. Should a woman be forced to become a sanitation engineer instead of a kindergarten teacher? I say no. How about forcing a woman to be a steel worker when her life's ambition is to be a nurse? The governmental organ to force such a thing would be both expensive, large, intrusive and unnecessary. Indeed if anything sexist biases in professions work against men. After all a woman being an elementary school teacher is considered to be quite normal but a man wanting the same thing is automatically assumed to be some sort of pervert. As if men by virtue of being men are incapable of caring for children.

As for who the breadwinner is, I must admit that my experience with heterosexual family dynamics is limited, but from what I've seen with my own family growing up and my sister's family now is that the bread winner is the one who can make the most money. In both cases that would be my mother and sister respectively.

I notice that the complain is a lack of women in being high profile positions, part of that is biologically driven--men can and do exist without reproducing or forming families. In fact only about 40% of men breed (and that includes many straight ones) whereas about 85% of women manage to do it. It would seem to me that biological drives are preventing breaking that glass ceiling and no amount of activism or legislation is going to change that. But it is telling that it is the top that you and Feminists complain of--why is their no demand for female trash collectors or sewerage workers or lumberjacks?

[Bronco80]

(05-20-2016, 02:24 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-19-2016, 09:57 PM)Bronco80 Wrote: 1) When it comes to paid parental leave, I believe that it should offered to mothers and fathers on an equal basis.  It's the fair think to do for both men, who don't have to take on the exclusive burden of being the breadwinner, and for women, who don't have to fall behind their spouse in experience on the workplace.  This helps to temper the pure biological differences that you mention, and after both parents are through with their leave, ideally it won't always be the woman that's exclusively staying at home.

While I'm perfectly fine with adding paternity leave into the mix, and I'm not about to say that any woman who wants to work in any field should be prohibited to do so--the biological differences between men and women are not going to be tempered.  I know that on the left there is this bizarre meme that gender is a social construct, but the reality is that gender is a biological construct.  As such no legislation no matter how "progressive" change those biological differences.

I originally titled this thread "Equal Pay Among The Sexes" (and still wish that that title stuck) since there's a distinction in that sex is a biological construct while gender is a social construct (and quite frankly, it's a social construct I'd like to see disposed of).  With regards to childbirth, there will be (or at least should be) an extra period of recovery that women will solely need on a biological basis, that's undeniable.  But paternity leave is what I would see as the key to "tempering" the biological gap.

Quote:

Quote:2-3) I don't think anything you've said really contradicts the point I'm making.

Actually it does.  The Wage Gap Myth is prediated on women having a lower wage than men which is untrue.  A woman who works X job will get Y pay; a man who works X job will get Y pay.  Equal pay is enforced by law, specifically the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (signed by JFK),  not that the lack of need will stop yet more legislation.

Rather any and all wage gaps that occur between the sexes seem to be predicated on choices made by women and men that have consequences on their over all life time earnings.  As the US Department of Labor will tell you.

http://blog.dol.gov/2012/06/07/myth-bust...e-pay-gap/

Anti-discrimination law is very important to have on the books, but it's also very difficult to enforce, as people are adept to finding clever excuses as to demonstrate how their behavior wasn't discriminatory.

Quote:

Quote:Condoms can be purchased in any typical store at any time, and used immediately.  All female contraceptive options require extra effort to acquire, and some of those aspects make it disproportionately tougher on poorer women.  Reproductive freedom should be available to all, and that's not the case in today's United States.

Oral contraception is by prescription and is covered under Medicaid which is more than available for poor women who would also likely want their children covered by SCHIP.  In fact all manner of contraception is covered by Medicaid and other forms of health care insurance.  The morning after pill is of course available without prescription--I should know since I happen to know straight women who've had this problem and they are far from rich.

Only abortion presents a problem, and it should be noted that I do not agree with the abortion prohibitionists simply because abortion is a necessary evil under our current system of social organization.

As for being for reproductive freedom, I'm all for that.  We also already have it nothing further needs to be done than to maintain the status quo or perhaps loosen abortion regulations and incorporate new developments.

With Medicaid, we've still got a gap of that in several states across to the nation thanks to the SCOTUS justices on the left who had to throw a bone to John Roberts to prevent him from junking all of the ACA.  Even if money were not an issue, there's still an issue of time, of which the poor typically have less of, to go through all the steps needed.  Finally, there's also knowledge and social structures that need to be altered; things like making sure that girls are made aware of all their reproductive options, assuring they're not slutshamed, and so on.  While we're at it, teach boys to respect female sexuality as well.

Quote:

Quote:4) I certainly agree that the causes of the pay gap are subject to other forces, we just disagree as to what forces.  I don't think certain sexist biases can be ruled out, such as the bias of the woman being the caretaker (countering hours worked and to some extent education), and being biased toward certain professions and against others (countering job type and skill).  That's more implicit bias than simply employers actively not wanting women in high profile positions, although the latter can occasionally happen.

I would contend that there is no sexist biases to be countered.  Women take up certain professions because they want to.  Should a woman be forced to become a sanitation engineer instead of a kindergarten teacher?  I say no.  How about forcing a woman to be a steel worker when her life's ambition is to be a nurse?  The governmental organ to force such a thing would be both expensive, large, intrusive and unnecessary.  Indeed if anything sexist biases in professions work against men.  After all a woman being an elementary school teacher is considered to be quite normal but a man wanting the same thing is automatically assumed to be some sort of pervert.  As if men by virtue of being men are incapable of caring for children.

As for who the breadwinner is, I must admit that my experience with heterosexual family dynamics is limited, but from what I've seen with my own family growing up and my sister's family now is that the bread winner is the one who can make the most money.  In both cases that would be my mother and sister respectively.

I notice that the complain is a lack of women in being high profile positions, part of that is biologically driven--men can and do exist without reproducing or forming families.  In fact only about 40% of men breed (and that includes many straight ones) whereas about 85% of women manage to do it.  It would seem to me that biological drives are preventing breaking that glass ceiling and no amount of activism or legislation is going to change that.  But it is telling that it is the top that you and Feminists complain of--why is their no demand for female trash collectors or sewerage workers or lumberjacks?

Sure, there will be some jobs that require brute strength that women can't biologically compete with.  I didn't bother to mention that because I thought that was quite obvious.  But when it comes to mental aspects of jobs there's no basis to say that either men or women are better or worse at it.  And yes, there are sexist biases that disadvantage or shame men with regards to certain jobs as well.  Those social constructs should be fought as well.  Nor does the profile of the job matter to me either: if women want to be trash collectors and societal factors aren't allowing them to do so on an equal benefits, then that needs to be addressed.

[Kinser79]

(05-20-2016, 12:19 PM)Bronco80 Wrote: I originally titled this thread "Equal Pay Among The Sexes" (and still wish that that title stuck) since there's a distinction in that sex is a biological construct while gender is a social construct (and quite frankly, it's a social construct I'd like to see disposed of).

Actually not only is sex a biological construct, but gender is a biological construct as well.  The only social constructs around gender have to do with the demonstration of that gender.  That is to say that different cultures have different ideas as to what is an is not masculine and feminine but over all they have similar ideas as to what it means to be a man or what it means to be a woman.

In the West there is already equality with the sexes, and where there is inequality it generally favors women and not men.

Quote:With regards to childbirth, there will be (or at least should be) an extra period of recovery that women will solely need on a biological basis, that's undeniable.  But paternity leave is what I would see as the key to "tempering" the biological gap.

Paternity leave will not temper a "biological gap" because no law of man is going to change human biology.  I don't look for natural selection to close that gap either.  Rather having paternity leave will help a great deal with men bonding to their children which is vital for healthy development.  Boys in particular seem to require a male role model of some sort be it a father, uncle or older cousin for healthy development.

Quote:Anti-discrimination law is very important to have on the books, but it's also very difficult to enforce, as people are adept to finding clever excuses as to demonstrate how their behavior wasn't discriminatory.

Not really.  One either pays men and women for the same job or they do not.  That said, they are not required to pay a woman overtime pay when she chooses to not work overtime.  That being said there is some reforms needed in the laws regarding wages as overtime hours worked fall disproportionately on salaried employees.

Quote:With Medicaid, we've still got a gap of that in several states across to the nation thanks to the SCOTUS justices on the left who had to throw a bone to John Roberts to prevent him from junking all of the ACA.

The whole thing should have been junked, it is nothing but a massive give away to the insurance companies.  I was rather upset when it wasn't struck down.  If the goal is universal health care then the easiest way is to take an existing program (Medicare) reduce the eligibility age to 0 years old and abolish Medicade, SCHIP and the other host of governmental programs.

Quote:  Even if money were not an issue, there's still an issue of time, of which the poor typically have less of, to go through all the steps needed.

If a woman is receiving Medicade she has a primary care physician who can prescribe her birth control on her regularly scheduled appointments.  It takes less than 5 minutes to write the script, and an other 10 to fill it at the local pharmacy.  I'm sorry but this is an excuse and a bad one at that.

Quote:  Finally, there's also knowledge and social structures that need to be altered; things like making sure that girls are made aware of all their reproductive options, assuring they're not slutshamed, and so on.  While we're at it, teach boys to respect female sexuality as well.

Slut Shaming isn't a thing that men do, rather women do that to other women and I don't see how that can be legislated against, or why anyone would even want to.  As for the rest that can be addressed through comprehensive sex education, and while we're at it lets teach girls to respect male sexuality.  

Quote:Sure, there will be some jobs that require brute strength that women can't biologically compete with.  I didn't bother to mention that because I thought that was quite obvious.

So then you aren't in favor of equality when biology dictates itself that the sexes are in fact not equal.  Indeed for some jobs I think the lowering of physical standards to employ women is a public disservice.  Given the choice of being carried out of a burning building by a man or dragged out by a woman I'd prefer to be carried--less chance of me getting injured that way.

Quote:But when it comes to mental aspects of jobs there's no basis to say that either men or women are better or worse at it.

This isn't always true.  Men tend to be better at spacial conception while women tend to be better at verbal cognition.  Part of this has to do with the whole male brain and female brain dilemma that the Regressive Left is in.  Milo pointed it out in regard to Gender Dysphoria Disorder, but it apparently explains other things as well--principally why gender is a biological construct.





It should be noted that this experiment has been replicated several times with several different species of primates and the results are much the same.

Quote:And yes, there are sexist biases that disadvantage or shame men with regards to certain jobs as well.  Those social constructs should be fought as well.

Yes, those social constructs should be fought.  I think having more male teachers, particularly in the Elementary age range would go a long way to bringing more order to the classrooms and playgrounds.  It may also be particularly beneficial to boys who have the deck stacked against them anyway as current academic models are geared more toward girls than boys.  The sit and lecture format, modular rather than liner testing, focus on coursework rather than tests all favor girls.  And that doesn't even to begin to get into the whole ADHD scam, which is driven by boys behaving like boys do.

Quote:  Nor does the profile of the job matter to me either: if women want to be trash collectors and societal factors aren't allowing them to do so on an equal benefits, then that needs to be addressed.

I would agree so long as we are talking about societal factors such as it being considered unfeminine to be a trash collector.  If a woman is physically incapable of doing the job, well she's incapable of doing it and therefore has no business wasting everyone's time with attempting to do it.

[Bronco80]

Just going to reply a few points here without direct quotes:
--The West is certainly better in progress towards equality among the sexes, but it's not there yet. We may have to agree to disagree on the magnitude of progress.
--I'd love to junk the monstrosity of the current health care system in favor of a "Medicare at age 0", or single payer.  But politics is difficult, and it's just not politically feasible at this time, so you gotta take what you can get.
--Of course women slutshame as well, and it's just as bad as when men do it.  I agree that it can't be legislated, at least with direct law, and I think we agree in comprehensive sex education to solve the problem, which in my opinion is to be open, honest, and respectful of sexuality.
--If there are sex-neutral physical job requirements (i.e., you must be able to lift X number of pounds), that's fine.  Again, it's obvious that there will be biological discrepancies there.  But any sort of social constructs, regardless of which sex it disadvantages, should be questioned.

[Ragnarök_62]

(05-16-2016, 09:04 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Gabrielle, I hate to break this to you darling, but women already get equal pay to men.  If a businessman could save 25%, 23% or whatever the new number is by hiring women over men he'd be smart to fire all the men and hire only women.  The so-called pay gap is a complete myth based on economic ignorance and statistical chicanery. It only surfaces if you take the earnings of all men and all women and do a few simple calculations without taking into consideration other factors, not the least of which is men work more overtime than women and work in higher paying fields than women.

Of course there's a little known option of procuring a strap-on so under the transgender thingie, you can assert being a male, regardless of your biological XX chromosomes as opposed to XY.  Since you now have a dick, you're entitled to all rights and privileges of being a guy.

[Kinser79]

(05-25-2016, 08:50 PM)Bronco80 Wrote: Just going to reply a few points here without direct quotes:
--The West is certainly better in progress towards equality among the sexes, but it's not there yet. We may have to agree to disagree on the magnitude of progress.

The problem here is the expectation that men and women in order to be equal have to behave in the same manner, want the same things, etc. The simple fact of the matter is that our species is sex dimorphic. Women have different needs, wants and goals then men and vice versa. As such to expect legislation to counteract millions of years of biological evolution is ludicrous.

Quote:--I'd love to junk the monstrosity of the current health care system in favor of a "Medicare at age 0", or single payer.  But politics is difficult, and it's just not politically feasible at this time, so you gotta take what you can get.

Bullshit. Obama had a majority in the House and enough to break a filibuster in the Senate. He could have gone for "Medicare Part E" as I sometimes call it (E stands for everyone) but he didn't. Not because of politics, but because it was never on the table. The whole time with Establishment Democrats whining that "one should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good".

If the situation was that he didn't have enough votes to obtain cloture (pursuant to Senate Rule 22) that might be a reasonable argument but the fact of the matter is he had both enough votes in the House and the Senate to pass whatever he wanted.

Quote:--Of course women slutshame as well, and it's just as bad as when men do it.  I agree that it can't be legislated, at least with direct law, and I think we agree in comprehensive sex education to solve the problem, which in my opinion is to be open, honest, and respectful of sexuality.

Here's the problem. Men do not slutshame at all. Men might not marry a so-called slut but shaming them is not relevant to male interests. Women on the other hand slutshame all the time. This is of course because of sexual dimorphism.

Comprehensive sex education is absolutely vital to the health of the nation. I've done my bit by providing my son his required sex ed for gays which honestly isn't covered in schools.

Quote:--If there are sex-neutral physical job requirements (i.e., you must be able to lift X number of pounds), that's fine.  Again, it's obvious that there will be biological discrepancies there.  But any sort of social constructs, regardless of which sex it disadvantages, should be questioned.

I'm not seeing much disagreement here. If a man wants to teach kindergarten there should be no social barrier to him doing so. If a woman wants to be a civil engineer so far as I'm aware of there are no social barriers to her. Perhaps the best solution is to abolish all quotas, all affirmative action and so forth and simply allow whomever wants to take whatever job to do so and if that means we have a handful of male elementary school teachers that's fine, and a handful of female civil engineers that is fine too.

As for physical requirements those are the requirements and if women simply cannot meet those requirements we can chalk it up to biology.

[Kinser79]

(05-25-2016, 11:06 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Of course there's a little known option of procuring a strap-on so under the transgender thingie, you can assert being a male, regardless of your biological XX chromosomes as opposed to XY.  Since you now have a dick, you're entitled to all rights and privileges of being a guy.

Like the privilege of potentially getting drafted.  Or the privilege of giving up their seat on the life boat to women and children.  Those sorts of privileges?.

[Odin]

I know plenty of women who are A-OK with having to sign up for the draft. In fact the only women I know who are explicitly against it are militant (heh) pacifists and the one nutty New Age pseudo-feminist I know who repackages old sexist stereotypes and uses them as proof of female superiority.

[Bronco80]

(05-26-2016, 06:17 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

Quote:--I'd love to junk the monstrosity of the current health care system in favor of a "Medicare at age 0", or single payer.  But politics is difficult, and it's just not politically feasible at this time, so you gotta take what you can get.

Bullshit.  Obama had a majority in the House and enough to break a filibuster in the Senate.  He could have gone for "Medicare Part E" as I sometimes call it (E stands for everyone) but he didn't.  Not because of politics, but because it was never on the table.  The whole time with Establishment Democrats whining that "one should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good".

If the situation was that he didn't have enough votes to obtain cloture (pursuant to Senate Rule 22) that might be a reasonable argument but the fact of the matter is he had both enough votes in the House and the Senate to pass whatever he wanted.

You've got the process backwards here, though it is a mistake almost everyone makes (I make it myself at times).  Congress is the one responsible for creating law.  All that the president's responsible for is signing or vetoing it after the fact.  Obama could have screamed bloody murder for a Medicare Part E and it would do no good if not enough votes in Congress are interested.  It's true that the president can try to set the tone via public relations, but the president isn't a prime minister: in the US system, the executive and legislature is separate, and neither particularly likes the other to tell them how to do their job.

Quote:Here's the problem.  Men do not slutshame at all.  Men might not marry a so-called slut but shaming them is not relevant to male interests.  Women on the other hand slutshame all the time.  This is of course because of sexual dimorphism.

The type of slutshaming does tend to differ in society by sex, I'm using the term a bit broadly here.  Most women do it on terms that are more blatant and familiar--for most men it ties back to the awful concept that a woman should only be having sex with the one man that is "his woman", that a woman's sexuality is only for the purpose of the man.

[Bronco80]

(05-26-2016, 07:03 AM)Odin Wrote: I know plenty of women who are A-OK with having to sign up for the draft. In fact the only women I know who are explicitly against it are militant (heh) pacifists and the one nutty New Age pseudo-feminist I know who repackages old sexist stereotypes and uses them as proof of female superiority.

I'll all for abolishing the Selective Service, but if we're going to have it, it damn well better be for both sexes.  I expect this to happen, or the Supreme Court to strike it down as unconstitutional within the next few years.

[Ragnarök_62]

(05-26-2016, 06:13 PM)Bronco80 Wrote:

(05-26-2016, 07:03 AM)Odin Wrote: I know plenty of women who are A-OK with having to sign up for the draft. In fact the only women I know who are explicitly against it are militant (heh) pacifists and the one nutty New Age pseudo-feminist I know who repackages old sexist stereotypes and uses them as proof of female superiority.

I'll all for abolishing the Selective Service, but if we're going to have it, it damn well better be for both sexes.  I expect this to happen, or the Supreme Court to strike it down as unconstitutional within the next few years.  It's sort of like everyone's a "special snowflake" syndrome.

This is Rags and I approve of this message.


In other news, Millie college students have jumped the shark.




http://theweek.com/speedreads/626361/obe...es-below-c

I mean really. These "students" are in desperate need of a paddling instead of being pandered to.
I have full faith that GenX will at some point just explode and spank these dimwits as needed. Protest signs make for excellent paddles, btw.

Another option is to put all special snow flakes under one of these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_glass

[Ragnarök_62]

(05-26-2016, 06:11 PM)Bronco80 Wrote: ...
The type of slutshaming does tend to differ in society by sex, I'm using the term a bit broadly here.  Most women do it on terms that are more blatant and familiar--for most men it ties back to the awful concept that a woman should only be having sex with the one man that is "his woman", that a woman's sexuality is only for the purpose of the man.

Uh, what about Slick Willy's Willy?  That was one hell of a one eyed trouser snake on the loose at the White House.



As for the ladies... I'd guess Hillary blamed all of Bill's tryst ladies for seducing Bill, right? If so, then her position as being "for women"  is thus forever compromised.

So, as it happens a lot nowadays... what was old, is new again.

[Kinser79]

(05-26-2016, 06:11 PM)Bronco80 Wrote: You've got the process backwards here, though it is a mistake almost everyone makes (I make it myself at times).  Congress is the one responsible for creating law.

No, you didn't read my post.  I clearly stated that the Democrats had control over the House which is majority driven, and that they had the 60 votes to break any filibuster in the Senate they just had to herd all their cats into the right direction.

Quote:  All that the president's responsible for is signing or vetoing it after the fact.  Obama could have screamed bloody murder for a Medicare Part E and it would do no good if not enough votes in Congress are interested.  It's true that the president can try to set the tone via public relations, but the president isn't a prime minister: in the US system, the executive and legislature is separate, and neither particularly likes the other to tell them how to do their job.

Sure seems odd to me that most President's have no problem getting whatever they want if their party is in charge of both houses of Congress.  All he needs to do is make the Congress say no, assuming he has popular support which Obama did during his first two years.  No he squandered every opportunity to pass actually socialized medicine and instead we get a plan designed to fail from the Heritage Foundation.

Quote:The type of slutshaming does tend to differ in society by sex, I'm using the term a bit broadly here.  Most women do it on terms that are more blatant and familiar--for most men it ties back to the awful concept that a woman should only be having sex with the one man that is "his woman", that a woman's sexuality is only for the purpose of the man.

Not quite true.  Humans by and large are serially monogamous.  That is how we evolved because our children, which are the intended result of sex from an evolutionary standpoint, are so helpless that a man is only interested in making massive investments in children that are his.  When it comes to females who do not conform to that, they are not so much shamed by men, but rather viewed as unsuitable for marriage and raising kids with.

With women, and this only really applies to straights--and I've never been straight so I'm kind of going off what my straight friends say--women are the gate keepers of the vagina and as such a female that is looser than is socially acceptable (that is to say a slut) is an actual threat to their sexual currency.