All seven remarks sound about right to me. I certainly don’t find them offensive.
George, any time you find yourself agreeing with one of Bill O’Reilly’s public statements you need to seriously examine your values and your beliefs. I’m also curious what you agree with in statement #5.
Edit: Looking back over that list I see statement #4 assumes women take care of all child rearing responsibilities.
Well, we all like to be paid more and that’s great. But the reality is that women have a different lifestyle. They have kids, they have to take them to get dentists’ appointments, doctors’ appointments all those kinds of things, and they’re more interested in flexibility in a job than pay.Do you really agree with that nonsense? Edit: corrected number of statement above the quotation
Of course I agree with it. Why wouldn’t I agree with something that is a fact?
You need to join the 21st Century, George. That worldview is outdated.
Re: Statement #2 by Cornyn of Texas. He is a frickin’ liar. He knows very well that Gov. Perry vetoed the Texas version of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and that courts in Texas have refused to support the act without an equivalent Texas version.
Some of those statements are fairly innocuous posturing but 4,5, and 6 are just knuckle dragging idiotic comments and non-comments.
All things being equal, everyone (not just women) deserves equal pay for doing the same job. Obviously if someone takes off 5 years to do something else and comes back with less seniority that will result in lower pay in some areas of employment but all things being equal pay should be equal regardless of gender or anything else. I’ve never been a fan of seniority anyway so I’m not sure that is even a good excuse. If you’re a new employee and do a better job than me but I’ve been there for 10 years you should get paid the same or more than me because obviously I am not as productive or as valuable to the company or organization. If a man or woman takes a leave of absence and then come back and makes a big contribution they should get paid according to their contribution not according to how long they kept a seat warm.
The problem is that there still exists a moronic attitude that men need to be paid more or that women don’t care about their income as much and unfortunately many of the people in positions of power are the same idiots with that mind set. That needs to be fixed and if it can’t be fixed through education then it needs to be fixed through legislation as imperfect as that fix will be.
It constantly amazes me that Bill O’Reilly can add to his long string of brainless comments day after day and still find a huge audience to listen to him and cheer his remarks.
You need to join the 21st Century, George. That worldview is outdated.So which world view is the zeitgeist du jour? Feminism? Thanks, but I'll pass. I think it is you who has a problem and should probably treat it with some testosterone supplements. The fact is that women who are not married and never had a child (IOW, those who choose a career over being a mom, or at least up to the point of becoming a mom) actually make more money than single men. The rest of them simply work less and choose lower-paying jobs. No mystery here. Go take that pill.
The fact is that women who are not married and never had a child (IOW, those who choose a career over being a mom, or at least up to the point of becoming a mom) actually make more money than single men. The rest of them simply work less and choose lower-paying jobs. No mystery here. Go take that pill.Perhaps you would like to back this bold statement up with some actual facts and data.
Most nay Sayers are missing the argument here. Forget the blather from the barking dogs on the right, the crux of the Republican argument is that this bill was political grandstanding by the Dems. in an election year and the Reps. want to obfuscate the issue to avoid any political fallout and to give their conservative constituents something to scoff at. They also forget that the issue is Equal pay for equal work and full disclosure on paychecks, IOW you paid me less than him. Why? Forget merit, seniority, single women who BTW do earn more than men today, blame ambition if you want, the issue is once again Equal Pay for Equal Work period. Women make 77 cents on the dollar and minority women even less, 54 cents. No one’s demanding that women be paid more for the jobs, however menial, they do only that they are paid an equal wage or salary for the same work as men. if you dig deep enough into these inflamatory quotes (at least to us who are political and social Progressives) you’ll find the same old political football the Reps. Have been kicking around since Obama became President. Their vow was to block and and all legislation they deemed as non-conservative. Here’s an excerpt of the bill: see any bullet point that specifically points to women being paid an equal salary to men simply because they’re women, or they have more domestic responsibilities so they should be compensated by higher pay?
Cap’t Jack
The fact is that women who are not married and never had a child (IOW, those who choose a career over being a mom, or at least up to the point of becoming a mom) actually make more money than single men. The rest of them simply work less and choose lower-paying jobs. No mystery here. Go take that pill.Perhaps you would like to back this bold statement up with some actual facts and data. Here: http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender Wage Gap Final Report.pdf Have fun.
Not sure why the link above doesn’t work, but if you copy the whole thing (from “http” to “pdf”) and do a google search, you’ll find it.
... The fact is that women who are not married and never had a child (IOW, those who choose a career over being a mom, or at least up to the point of becoming a mom) actually make more money than single men...AFAIK, that reverse gender gap in pay, only applies to "unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities". And it makes sense, in that young women are generally more college educated than young men, these days. Also as to your assertion that women make less simply because they choose to work less, when you figure in the number of hours each group works, respectively, the info I've seen indicates that women are still only making 88% of what the men make. Sure there is a law of the land for equal pay for equal work. But it hasn't actually resulted in equal pay for equal work. Sure, new legislation will open employers up to new civil suits. (And this would likely, in the short term, cause some economic disruption. It would, in the short term, benefit lawyers more than workers.) But what else will motivate employers to treat women fairly? If they can increase their bottom line by paying women less, they are generally going to do so, until it doesn't pay off for them any longer.
What it comes down to, IMO, is that Democrats continue to (ineffectually for the most part) try to make things fairer for workers, while the Republicans continue to (effectively for the most part) try to keep the advantages well on the side of businesses and the wealthy.
I just hope these issues get people out to vote in a non-presidential election. We are all screwd by special interest influences on both parties, but elections in reality, almost always come down to voting for the lesser of two evils. I would love to see Washington putting people back to work fixing the infrastructure in bad need of some attention and leveling the pay playing field outright, instead of leaving that up to the markets. I’m so tired of hearing how the markets have our interests at heart. I would like all the anti-government candidates whipped off the map. We need good government, not anti-government.
Hopefully the GOP keeps pandering to its women, poor people, and immigrant hating base. That could bring people out for an important vote. Fingers crossed!
GOP- The party that time forgot.
We’ve got the same nonsense going on here, one of the first things the conservative government did was cut funding to women’s lobby groups and declared there was no such thing as wage disparity here any more.
The federal Conservative government says it will no longer fund women's groups that do advocacy, lobbying or general research. The drastic change to the mandate and operation of Status of Women Canada also drops the word "equality" when listing the agency's goals. Previous objectives such as helping women's organizations participate in the public policy process and increasing the public's understanding of women's equality issues have been eliminated from government literature.I'm guessing that if they could, they'd also take the right to vote away from women also.
AFAIK, that reverse gender gap in pay, only applies to "unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities". And it makes sense, in that young women are generally more college educated than young men, these days.So up until the age of twenty-nine women make more money than men because they are better educated. Then, when they turn thirty, their employers start to pay them less because...because what?
Not sure why the link above doesn't work, but if you copy the whole thing (from "http" to "pdf") and do a google search, you'll find it.So in a nutshell, this study acknowledges the gender gap in pay, but ultimately concludes that it is impossible to determine broadly whether that gap is due to justifiable differences or to overt discrimination. So then, if that's true, should the possibility of overt discrimination just be ignored? Sorry, women, George knows that it might well be that you get paid less for the same work because you have different lifestyle choices, (or you may just be getting screwed over, but let's not rock the boat, because men and women are different). Even though you sometimes do the same work, it is only natural that you women get paid less. You have ovaries in a world where testicles dominate. Might makes right. What is, ought. Justice is an unjustifiable notion.
Time to get the unions back?
AFAIK, that reverse gender gap in pay, only applies to "unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities". And it makes sense, in that young women are generally more college educated than young men, these days.So up until the age of twenty-nine women make more money than men because they are better educated. Then, when they turn thirty, their employers start to pay them less because...because what? Don't be dense. We don't know what will happen to this small subgroup of women who (only in recent history) are getting paid more than their male counterparts. But we do know based on the overall history, that if they have the same qualifications and do the same work and have the same marital status as men, and the same number of children, women are likely to be paid less. Why? you ask. Employers have been able to get away with paying them less. Employers will generally do what makes the most profit.