Just be quiet, go back to the kitchen and do whatever I say.

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

If women were truly paid less than men for the same job, what stupid business in their right mind would ever hire men? They would make way more money hiring just women.

Here's a quote from an article from http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/the_wage_gap_myth.html:

[FONT=times new roman,times]on average, women earn about 80 cents to a man's dollar. Could this mean feminists and Democrats actually have a point on this one? Not a chance. In lieu of the recent 39th anniversary of "Women's Equality Day" and O'Neill's remarks, it is imperative we revisit the wage gap myth. As much as special-interest groups and the media love to parrot the 80 cent statistic, it is hardly due to gender discrimination. [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]For starters, the government statistics bellowed by women's groups are not at all credible because they do not take occupational choice into account. After nearly fifteen years of research, Dr. Warren Farrell uncovered numerous reasons for the [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]pay gap[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]. Generally, women value relationships more than their careers or money, enter and leave the work force at a much higher rate, work part-time at a much higher rate, and work in professions with much lower compensation. As he explains in his book, Why Men Earn More, nearly all of it boils down to differences in occupation, and men overwhelmingly dominate jobs that[/FONT]

• [FONT=times new roman,times]are in an unpleasant environment (sanitation vs. child care)[/FONT]
• [FONT=times new roman,times]require harder-to-attain skills (physics vs. philosophy)[/FONT]
• [FONT=times new roman,times]require longer work hours [/FONT]
• [FONT=times new roman,times]demand financial risk (entrepreneur vs. teaching)[/FONT]
• [FONT=times new roman,times]are inconvenient (i.e., relocation)[/FONT]
• [FONT=times new roman,times]are hazardous (construction vs. librarian)[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Due to the simple laws of supply and demand, these occupations pay more and contribute immensely to the pay gap. But again, government statistics completely neglect occupation -- making a raw comparison of all working men and women instead (e.g., the female receptionist is lumped in with the $21,000/hr Lebron James and little-guy Michael Moore). [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Wage gap statistics also do not account for time commitment. On average, women work far less than men because they choose to have much more balance in their lives. A [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]study[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] by the Center for Policy Alternatives and Lifetime Television found that nearly 85 percent of women took advantage of flexible work arrangements offered by their employers. And a decade after graduating college, 39 percent of women leave the work force or work part-time, versus 3 percent of men. Aside from the obvious benefits of working longer, workers who average 44 or more hours per week earn approximately 100 percent more than workers who average 40 hours. [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]This is particularly significant, as it touches upon the [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]glass ceiling myth[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]. Now, normally the burden of proof is placed on the accusers, but not so with progressives' ad hominem attacks -- making honest debate virtually impossible. Recently dealt the "good ol' boys network"-card by feminists, Obama can finally attest to the pain of identity politics. [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]June O'Neill[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], former director of the CBO, argues that if you take out the effects of marriage and childrearing, essentially, "there is no earnings gap."[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times][/FONT]

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

Here's another excellent point made in that same article:

[FONT=times new roman,times]Also commemorating "Women's Equality Day" was Bill Singler on the [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Huffington Post[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]. Although Singler never quite explains why, he does not buy into the "choice" argument and derides a Chamber of Commerce blog for supposing otherwise, even resorting to capitalism and family values to propagate the wage gap myth. Contrary to "the bedrock of American capitalism," he claims that these choices are often "forced upon women." (Isn't "[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]choice[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]" supposed to be a major platform of the Democratic Party?) [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Columnist [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Marty Nemko[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] speaks to this anecdotal fallacy:[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Steven Rhoades, author of the new book, Taking Sex Differences Seriously, cites study after study indicating that the main reason most women want ample family time is their biological drive to have children and be the primary family caregiver. Feminist activists argue that is social conditioning by "the male hegemony." But if that were true, then why do women take on most family caregiving in every society from Iceland to New Guinea, in every era from ancient times to today, and in all political contexts from communist to capitalist? Women's desire to prioritize family caregiving is mainly biological predisposition, not cultural brainwashing. [/FONT]
​

So women have a biological urge to prioritize family caregiving. Men, not so much. Makes sense to me.

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

If you want the hard statistic data combined with analysis here's a pdf report entitled "An Analysis of Reasons for the Disparity in Wages Between Men and Women."

http://www.the-spearhead.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Gender-Wage-Gap-Final-Report.pdf

This is the conclusion that report comes to:

Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.

 

[Romanseight2005]

Another one bites the dust!

 

[FaithPrevails]

Semi-blind post -

in my family, the women cooked while the men socialized...and the kids played (seen not heard). Then, the kids ate at a separate table - we still have a "kids' table at family gatherings. lol

Afterwards, the women and the girls cleaned up - yeah, the boy cousins got to go play.

My grandma never touched a garbage can in her life b/c that was the husband's job according to her. It's only been since my grandma fell victim to dimentia that my grandpa has done cooking, cleaning, etc.

My grandpa always made or, at the very least, executed the decisions that were made.

My parents, OTOH, are completely different. My dad cooks, cleans, etc. My mom, God love her, isn't exactly domestic. lol

 

[Romanseight2005]

Here's another excellent point made in that same article:



So women have a biological urge to prioritize family caregiving. Men, not so much. Makes sense to me.

By that logic you could also ask why women are routinely, in civilization, after civilization, brutalized and treated like 2nd class citizens. The anser however, does not lie in,"wiring." Rather Scripture lays it out clearly.
Gen 3:14-15

14 So the LORD God said to the serpent:

"Because you have done this,
You are cursed more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you shall go,
And you shall eat dust
All the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel."
NKJV




This sounds to me like Jesus is fighting on behalf of the woman. This makes perfect sense to me, since He treated women in a phenomenally different way than anyone else.

 

[dallasapple]

So women have a biological urge to prioritize family caregiving. Men, not so much. Makes sense to me.

Then why do men complain so much that women are more likely to get the children in a divorce?It would make sense that she would ..Now wouldnt it?

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

Then why do men complain so much that women are more likely to get the children in a divorce?It would make sense that she would ..Now wouldnt it?

Simple, really. If we lived in a perfect world where men and women were always civil to one another then this wouldn't be an issue--women would keep the kids because women do tend to have the care-giving knack, everyone would be civil and tolerate the other, never using the kids as weapons, the man would be able to be an active part of his kids' lives, and life would be good for everyone. Unfortunately, the world is rarely if ever perfect and parents oftentimes use their children to manipulate and hurt their ex in a divorce situation.

I think that many men fear that their ex will use his children against him when all he wants to do is love and care for his children. These fears, unfortunately, are not irrational .

 

[Romanseight2005]

Well I agree with much of that post. The fall of mankind caused all kinds of problems, and since we still have a flesh to contend with, there are problems. But how many of those divorces were in reality due to abuse or infidelity on his part? My point isn't to say that all, or even most divorces are men's fault. But the way the picture is painted around here, is that it's all or mostly the fault of the woman, or a culture that gives any kind of power to woman. Frankly, that just isn't so. Also, having a strength, doesn't negate ability in other areas. btw, women have to LEARN to nurture. It really doesn't come naturally, trust me. I definitely have a heart for my son, and when you carry a person inside of you for 9 months, that usually will cause you to care deeply for that little person. That heart, motivates you to learn how to do whatever it takes to take care of that person. I guarantee you that the skills needed to care of a child did not come naturally for me.

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

By that logic you could also ask why women are routinely, in civilization, after civilization, brutalized and treated like 2nd class citizens.

Your opinion shows one side of coin.

Here's my side. In my opinion history has shown to revere and cherish women. Millions and millions of men have died to protect their wives and families in times of war. When it came to defending with their lives, men were on the front lines--in every war in history. So stabbing, shooting, killing, bleeding, and dying to protect your family is "brutalizing and treating your wife like a second class citizen" eh? That man you claim was brutalizing just gave his life so that you and your kids could live. He must have been really brutal...

Men throughout history have toiled in fields, factories, mines, and in every other working arena to provide for their wives and families. How many men have died, been seriously injured, or toiled themselves to death in human history to provide for their families? A staggering number, I'm sure. That doesn't sound like someone who is brutalizing their wife to me.

I don't think it's fair of you to say that women throughout history were "brutalized and treated like 2nd class citizens" given the level of sacrifice men throughout history have displayed for the very women you claim were brutalized.

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

In the same way women have the biological tendency to care for their families, I believe that men have the biological tendency to provide for and to protect their families.

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

This sounds to me like Jesus is fighting on behalf of the woman. This makes perfect sense to me, since He treated women in a phenomenally different way than anyone else.

I think Jesus fights on behalf on anyone who is oppressed, weak, downtrodden, weary or burdened, and that applies to both male and female. Jesus calls us to find rest and peace in him.

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

The anser however, does not lie in,"wiring." Rather Scripture lays it out clearly.
Gen 3:14-15

14 So the LORD God said to the serpent:

"Because you have done this,
You are cursed more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you shall go,
And you shall eat dust
All the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel."
NKJV

I don't understand how that verse has anything to do with what we're talking about. God is talking to the serpent there....not Adam. I'll even highlight it.

The only thing that those verses lay out clearly is that snakes and women will never really get along.

What does that have to do with your claim that "women are routinely, in civilization, after civilization, brutalized and treated like 2nd class citizens"?

 

[Captivated]

Your opinion shows one side of coin.

Here's my side. In my opinion history has shown to revere and cherish women. Millions and millions of men have died to protect their wives and families in times of war. When it came to defending with their lives, men were on the front lines--in every war in history. So stabbing, shooting, killing, bleeding, and dying to protect your family is "brutalizing and treating your wife like a second class citizen" eh? That man you claim was brutalizing just gave his life so that you and your kids could live. He must have been really brutal...

Men throughout history have toiled in fields, factories, mines, and in every other working arena to provide for their wives and families. How many men have died, been seriously injured, or toiled themselves to death in human history to provide for their families? A staggering number, I'm sure. That doesn't sound like someone who is brutalizing their wife to me.

I don't think it's fair of you to say that women throughout history were "brutalized and treated like 2nd class citizens" given the level of sacrifice men throughout history have displayed for the very women you claim were brutalized.

Not your point I know but I just wanted to highlight that women have done these things too. It's only relatively recently in history that women and children working in mines was disallowed.

Also protecting your family by fighting in war doesn't necessarily preclude domestic violence. Or, indeed, violence towards the defeated enemy; the rape of German women by Russian soldiers in the aftermath of WWII, for example. Not denigrating the sacrifice of countless men in war (I have plenty of examples in my own family's recent history) but just pointing out that one does not rule out the other, nor make it acceptable.

 

[Romanseight2005]

dsrohe, It has EVERYTHING to do with what we are talking about. Do you not think that satan works in and through whoever he can? Do you not think that he has no power in the lives of people? Furthermore, I didn't say it was all men's fault. I am saying that using the way things happen a lot, in many cultures over time, is not proof that anyone was meant for anything, that is all. I was saying that your jump from A to B, was really a jump from A, to Z. My point was that many things happen due to punishment or consequences, and not natural wiring.

 

[Captivated]

For the most part I was talking about wives not being treated as property. Also they've found that in Rome for example at the death of her husband, if there where no males to inherit or if the males where too young, a woman could often manage her late husband's property and slaves.

Also feminists often talk about the past as though men routinely beat their wives and no one cared and that it was encouraged.

But if one looks, it was very much considered an insult in most westernized cultures to say that a man beat his wife. That was an insult that led some men to fight duels to the death. And women where allowed to divorce for "cruelty" which ment that he hit her.

Now while this in and of itself not any sort of organized effort to find the abused and get them to safety, the point is that the culture was very much against a man beating his wife. And in many cases wives could divorce their husband for cruelty. And a man that was shown to have beaten his wife was dishonored. And this is a time when dishonor was about the worst punishment that a man could receive. Remember that men took pistols and shot at eachother, sometimes even from point blank range over matters of honor.

While subservient, they whern't treated or considered pieces of property which no one cared about.

Seriously Luther I would love to know the sources you have used to reach these conclusions as they pretty much fly in the face of the research I've done. Are they textbooks? If so, what primary sources do they reference? I'm not asking to be disingenous; historical evidence is food and drink to me and if I've completely missed a line of academic argument then I want to rectify it.

It does seem to me that the proposition of this thread is following a David Irving approach to history; 'we know it happened but it wasn't as bad as they say'.* I imagine if any group of people had historically been allowed no right to education, no right to make any life choices for themselves, no rights in law, and often treated and regarded as less than fully human (yes, they all applied in various degrees and over various eras; in some parts of the world they still do) they would now be entitled, and correct, to say it was appalling.

It may be questioned that this view of women's history (a relatively new phenomenon, there was little or no attention given to women's role in history until the very recent past) has been driven by a feminist agenda. Maybe that's true, though we'd have to ask who else might have bothered? And remember that feminist is not a synonym for extremist or revisionist. I, however, would also have to question what the agenda was of those who would minimise women's experience. Interesting that as women's history has emerged from the darkness that some are trying to stuff it back in!

* I'm not comparing anyone personally to David Irving, just the particular approach to this topic.

 

[Romanseight2005]

Seriously Luther I would love to know the sources you have used to reach these conclusions as they pretty much fly in the face of the research I've done. Are they textbooks? If so, what primary sources do they reference? I'm not asking to be disingenous; historical evidence is food and drink to me and if I've completely missed a line of academic argument then I want to rectify it.

It does seem to me that the proposition of this thread is following a David Irving approach to history; 'we know it happened but it wasn't as bad as they say'.* I imagine if any group of people had historically been allowed no right to education, no right to make any life choices for themselves, no rights in law, and often treated and regarded as less than fully human (yes, they all applied in various degrees and over various eras; in some parts of the world they still do) they would now be entitled, and correct, to say it was appalling.

It may be questioned that this view of women's history (a relatively new phenomenon, there was little or no attention given to women's role in history until the very recent past) has been driven by a feminist agenda. Maybe that's true, though we'd have to ask who else might have bothered? And remember that feminist is not a synonym for extremist or revisionist. I, however, would also have to question what the agenda was of those who would minimise women's experience. Interesting that as women's history has emerged from the darkness that some are trying to stuff it back in!

* I'm not comparing anyone personally to David Irving, just the particular approach to this topic.

 

[Romanseight2005]

And let's not forget that this thread was started with an opening premise of minimizing the unfairness done to women in the past. Frankly, outside of the U.S. and a few other countries, extreme barbarism still goes on. Also, the points that Luther brought up in regards to the double standard in the area of sex, is not only a real issue, but it's also an area where abuse not only happened, but still happens all over this country. No one likes to admit the ugly truth about this. But the fact is, that many little girls, and even a growing number of little boys, are lured into slavery every day, in the sex industry. The things that go on are absolutely heartbreaking.

 

[Conservativation]

Well I agree with much of that post. The fall of mankind caused all kinds of problems, and since we still have a flesh to contend with, there are problems. But how many of those divorces were in reality due to abuse or infidelity on his part? My point isn't to say that all, or even most divorces are men's fault. But the way the picture is painted around here, is that it's all or mostly the fault of the woman, or a culture that gives any kind of power to woman. Frankly, that just isn't so. Also, having a strength, doesn't negate ability in other areas. btw, women have to LEARN to nurture. It really doesn't come naturally, trust me. I definitely have a heart for my son, and when you carry a person inside of you for 9 months, that usually will cause you to care deeply for that little person. That heart, motivates you to learn how to do whatever it takes to take care of that person. I guarantee you that the skills needed to care of a child did not come naturally for me.

A maximum of 4%. That's a piece of hard data.

 

[Conservativation]

You would be wrong about equal pay/equal work. Employers are allowed to pay employees differently for the same job for 'non discriminatory business reasons', think seniority, skill etc. Men are routinely judged as more skilful and are paid more - this is a well documented phenomenon - I thought I'd better point that in case you wanted to deny it.

Not really. Its a well claimed, and well "said to be documented", and quite recently and thoroughly utterly debunked. I can only speak to the U.S., Ive no idea elsewhere, though I do have a huge study from the U.K. that recently came out debunking it there, I'm not as well versed in that scenario. Here, from citywide studies showing now in a group of white collar jobs women's pay exceeds men, as does their hiring rate, to nationally the whole pay gap issue being accidentally debunked by the US Dept of Labor, embarrassingly right around the time they passed the silly Lilly Ledbetter Act, so they rushed to yank it down from the Depr of Labor web site.

Raw data wise, yes, if you take all women and compare to all men....yes there is a pay gap. When the analysis is done correctly, the most gap thats been found in the most liberal study was 8%, a far cry from the 77cents on the dollar that feminists claim is "well documented". Well alleged is not well documented.

There is no pay gap, and in ten years there indeed will be if you extrapolate the trend, but it will be in the other direction, which according to feminist math when something is 60% 40% in favor of women, as one prominent feminist said about 60/40 women/men college admissions, "well we are making progress and soon we will reach equality"