Posted on 01/20/2014 1:02:17 PM PST by xzins
If it were as simple as the so-called "feminists" make it out to be, then women would fill every position in every company (and government office), and we'd all be better off because our labor costs would be 20% lower.
The link you posted is not research, it’s propaganda. To further your education, you could start here.
Strictly from a business sense, workers will get paid for what they bring to the table. On average, women work fewer hours than men and take leaves more often. This leads to fewer promotions. You could say that’s discriminatory to women, but it’s also discriminatory to pay the same wage and deny promotions to someone who puts in more uninterrupted hours year after year. It’s not just discriminatory to men but also to the family who depends on that income.
If you’re ready to do more research, check out this carefully documented book.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0814472109
If you’re a women that thinks you’re getting the short end of the wage gap, the author will spell out exactly what men tend to do on the job that gives them higher pay and women can do the same things.
I have to agree with you there; American men need to take their lives back, discover and maintain their masculinity and grow up. Even conservative men are getting too mixed up in the ‘metrosexualism’ that is plaguing the culture of men. As for intimacy, don’t do it if you don’t’ want a kid with this woman.
I can't imagine her having to look after him on her own and earn money at the same time. Even looking after a kid requires two people. It's difficult
I’m not the one reading propaganda. The official research sites all agree with about women earning 80%-82% of what men earn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/09/17/male-female-pay-gap-hasnt-moved-much-in-years/
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf
Just remember “garbage in - garbage out”
Enough said!
Thank you...’metrosexual’... that was the word I was trying to think of when I said ‘fluffy socialist society’. It is sad that we even have to have a word for effeminate male behavior. “Too many mothers and not enough wives”, I guess.
As for the intimacy I am the female, but I know what you are saying....its true. I also believe we have ‘babied’ our children to the point that the boys do not want to ‘grow up, or establish that masculinity, with which comes responsibility for the family.
I was a tomboy myself, climbing trees and working on the farm....overhauls and catching night crawlers, but I had a feminine side that developed normally in the teen years. I was in the military reserves for many years, yet in a rate more suited to my gender. That of course explains my fearless, strong, and opinionated posts.
Strong women attract weaker men and that is the downside, imho, of the changes over the past few decades. Which may explain the billions of dollars raked in for romantic movies, books, and the female escape to a more appropriate male-female relationship era fifty to one hundred years ago, etc.....falsely reclaimed through entertainment.
I can’t speak for the males, and what they are thinking.
And to that, I add:
1) Here’s [Walter] Williams’ roadmap out of poverty: Complete high school; get a job, any kind of a job; get married before having children; and be a law-abiding citizen. Among both black and white Americans so described, the poverty rate is in the single digits.
Yes but...... that is rejecting the leftist freedom to do what ever you want. Freedom from restraint is what liberalism is all about.
The restraints are systematically being destroyed or rendered ineffective. A million years of human history boiled down to rules must be trashed to provide ACLU like complete freedom of action.
Pay for equal work has been at at least 97% for at least a couple of decades. Even NOW has acknowledged that. Where you get the 70% figures is when you look at all working women compared to all working men without regard to what they are doing. That climbs to the high 80s when you look at the types of jobs each select; into the low nineties, when you look at continuous experience; and into the high nineties when you look at the subcategories within jobs - like did they take the hard math side of sociology, or the “let’s talk about it” side.
This part is pretty well established. What is open for debate is what is the cause of that last 3%, as well as the trend since the 1990s for women to be (slightly) overpaid in large businesses, and in organizations which have been traditionally male dominated. The first appears to be a combination of actual difference in abilities, and a difference in negotiating aggressiveness. The latter appears to be lawsuit protection in a de facto quota system.
Generation B... (astard)
Well, it IS “culturist”, stating the superiority of traditional Western, Judeo-Christian based culture...
Which, of course, IS demonstrably superior to the other subcultures that the left promotes as foils in order to shake their little fists in the face of God.
The primary restraint that the left attempts to circumvent is the restraint of natural consequences.
Natural consequences are REALITY, ie, the way the universe was created. It’s, as others have said, it was DESIGNED AND INTENDED to be this way.
One of the feminists said something like “do you know the word patriarchy” when she was confronted with this information.
That’s a sound bite. I hope she’s proud of it.
But what is being said here has nothing to do with partriarchies or matriarchies. It has to do with simple logic.
Here’s the logic to all the liberals out there: 2 heads are better than one; 2 sets of eyes watch better than one set of eyes; 2 sets of ears; 2 sets of arms. You name it.
This is not any desire to demean widows, widowers, the divorced, and others who find themselves single parenting. In fact, God has a special place in His heart for widows and orphans. But it is a recognition that in most cases, other things being equal, in a game of 2 on 1, the 2 will generally win.
Good decisions. Don’t turn back.
“No one advocating the role of marriage in poverty and income inequality, to my knowledge, is calling it a panacea.”
It’s pretty darned close to one.
“There are many other factors in this multifaceted problem—poor schools, a lack of jobs, and so on. But to ignore the pivotal role of marriage, or the lack thereof,...”
And each of these ties back to the breakdown of the married nuclear family as the basic social unit in society.
“...is to deny reality and to preclude finding meaningful solutions.”
Marriage, broadly speaking, is the solution.
Chastity and continence before marriage. Education (at least finish high school). THEN marriage. THEN children.
Folks who do it in that order AND STICK WITH IT nearly always prosper.
Amen, sitetest. Good post.
Is it really too hard to read the research from official sources, and stop talking out of your hat....the 80% is certainly explained in details, and does not lend itself to interpretation, it is interpreted to you. Maybe you are agreeing with the research but the premise statement is true as I made it, period. Closed discussion...I do not make the statistics.
Every single one of those sites is talking about a very rudimentary comparison that does not take into account type of work, experience, hours worked per week, leave time, etc. When these are taken into account, the gap disappears. From the beginning of this conversation, I have noted this difference. You have chosen to keep ignoring the more finely tuned statistics while accusing me of not doing my homework. None of the articles you posted refute this.
For example, people who work 44 hours per week instead of 40, make 44% more than those who work 40. It also happens that men tend to put in the extra hours more than women.
I see you are an argument oriented person, so let me say this....I do not give a rat’s rear end now. Ignore the research...claim victory, just go away. I’ll stick with the facts I know.
I don’t argue, period. Enjoy life, it’s short. Your spouse must be exhausted. Some people are predisposed to the negative and having to be right, oy veh!
“Strong women attract weaker men and that is the downside, imho, of the changes over the past few decades.”
Truth be told, I have seen that too and frankly the flip side is that men who have everything going for them, choose women that are all wrong. I’m tough is a tiger and I too have oddly attracted not the strong masculine men, but the emotionally and psychologically weak. I’ve never believed that it’s the fault of women alone, it’s not easy being a woman in a society where easy early sex is considered a given in society and expected after just a couple of dates. Women, nice women, can’t win anymore.
AS for divorce, there’s little safety for women as well. A man might support the wife after, but it’s little consolation to a woman who has dedicated herself to her husband’s life and home and kids for so long, to then suddenly be traded in for someone else.
It’s odd how the new pattern seems to be that the tough and smart and responsible are expected to pair themselves with losers instead of fellow winners.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.