relevantmatters

relevantmatters

30p

20 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0

11 years ago @ Political News and Opi... - Despite Obama’s Fair... · 0 replies · +1 points

Contrary to what pay-equity advocates say, women's 77 cents to men's dollar does NOT mean women are paid less than men in the same jobs. Nor does it mean, even more incredibly in the vein of “men are stronger than women” (which means to many that every man is stronger than every woman), that every woman earns 23% less than every man, perhaps leading some of the more benighted and the blinkered ideological to believe Diane Sawyer of ABC News earns less than the young man walking back and forth on the street wearing a “Pizzas $5” sign.

The figures are arrived at by comparing the sexes' median incomes: women's median is 77 percent of men's. In 2009, the median income of full-time, year-round workers was $47,127 for men, compared to $36,278 for women or 77 percent of men's median. http://www.catalyst.org/publication/217/womens-ea...

Median means 50% of workers earn above the figures and 50% below. That means that a lot of female workers in the higher ranges of women's median make more money than a lot of male workers in the lower ranges of men's median.

The advocates' use of “women's 77 cents to men's dollar" doesn't account for the number of hours worked each week, experience, seniority, training, education or even the job description itself. It compares all women to all men, not people in the same job with the same experience. So the salary of a 60-year-old male computer engineer with 30 years at his company is weighed against that of a young first-year female teacher. Also, men are much more likely than women to work two jobs; hence, more often than women, a man earning, say, $50,000 from his two jobs is weighed against a women earning $25,000 from her one job, so that he appears to be unfairly earning twice as much as she.

Over the decades, strategically ignoring the true meaning of "women's 77 cents to men's dollar" has been less than productive:

(Continued....)

12 years ago @ KOMO - Seattle, WA - Female jail workers al... · 0 replies · 0 points

This may explain it:

"Anybody can sue for sexual harassment because it is completely subjective,” writes Adam Carolla (in his book In Fifty Years, We'll All be Chicks). Picture an office where there’s a Cool Guy and a Creepy Guy. Attractive receptionist comes in wearing tight new jeans. Carolla writes: “Cool Guy comments, ‘Somebody’s been working out.’ She replies, ‘Oh, it’s only the jeans.’ Cool Guy looks her up and down and says, ‘You do have good genes.’ She laughs.

Now, same scenario with Creepy Guy. Receptionist walks in, Creepy Guy says, ‘Hey Kelly, nice jeans.’ And she marches straight off to Human Resources to file a report.” Rather than enforce a no-fun policy in the workplace, surely it would be more satisfying (and effective) for Kelly to deal with Creepy Guy herself, via a slap in the chops.” -Kyle Smith, Nov. 20, 2010, New York Post.

For an in-depth analysis of the sexes' most destructive behavioral difference:

"The Sexual Harassment Quagmire" at http://battlinbog.blog-city.com/the_sexual_harass....

12 years ago @ Jewish Daily Forward - How Does Katie Roiphe ... · 0 replies · +1 points

After decades of laws and policies to curb sexual harassment, it remains prevalent (http://www.freep.com/article/20111109/FEATURES01/111090427/Reported-incidents-down-sexual-harassment-workplace-remains-prevalent). Why?

Is it possible something is missing?

Is it possible we should consider another way to look at sexual harassment other than through the feminist lens of "male power and control," which often suggests a "lock 'em up and throw away the key" approach, an approach that has clearly failed?

Is it possible that women contribute to the problem without knowing how? (No, it's not by the way they dress.)

I recommend a reading of an in-depth analysis of the sexes' most destructive behavioral difference:

"The Sexual Harassment Quagmire" at http://battlinbog.blog-city.com/the_sexual_harass....

12 years ago @ http://www.journal-adv... - Panel speaks on women\... · 0 replies · +1 points

Has Northeastern Junior College and the Logan County Chamber of Commerce ever celebrated National Men's Health Month?

Consider: On average, not only do men die sooner than women, but they die sooner of the 12 leading causes of death, including heart disease, cancer, and stroke.

Suppose that on average women died sooner than men of the 12 leading causes of death. Suppose Northeastern Junior College and the Logan County Chamber of Commerce celebrated only National Men's Health Month. What would women's groups call that?

How about sexism?

See:

"Women's Advocates Wrong About Why More Women Than Men Die of Heart Disease" http://battlinbog.blog-city.com/why_more_women_di...

“From infancy to old age, women are simply healthier than men” http://men.webmd.com/features/6-top-health-threat...

12 years ago @ http://www.belfasttele... - Not stunning but still... · 0 replies · +3 points

Hakim asks in the beginning of her book, “Why does no one encourage women to exploit men whenever they can?”

Suppose a man said, “Why does no one encourage men to exploit women?" Would he be taken as seriously as Hakim is? Or would he be run out of the country?

By "exploit men," Hakim means women should flirt and tease their way to success.

But in effect she is telling women to create a hostile work environment that exposes men to an even greater risk of sexual-harassment charges.

Anyone who goes along with this should be called sexist.

For an in-depth look at the sexes' most destructive behavioral difference, see: "The Sexual Harassment Quagmire" at http://battlinbog.blog-city.com/the_sexual_harass...

12 years ago @ The New Civil Rights M... - What Makes Powerful Me... · 0 replies · +1 points

Thanks, David. Good point. I'm guilty of speed-reading! (But I do think the writer is too one-sided and negative toward men. That much seemed clear.)

---

12 years ago @ The New Civil Rights M... - What Makes Powerful Me... · 2 replies · +1 points

For many feminist writers, the transgressions of some men are an opportunity to trash all men -- a decades-old tactic that always leaves out the tinest effort to understand the male-male dynamic on a deeper lever.

It is possible there are untold "male" views on issues like pay and violence?

Here are just two:

“A Response to the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act” at http://tinyurl.com/pvbrcu

"The Greater Outrage for Female Victims of Governments’ Brutality Perpetuates Risk to Both Sexes" http://battlinbog.blog-city.com/governments_viole...

(When I as a person am attacked instead of my ideas being challenged with reasoned debate, I know I've already won the argument.)

13 years ago @ The Shlog - I’m certain there’... · 0 replies · +1 points

No legislation yet has closed the gender wage gap in the U.S. — not the 1963 Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, not Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, not the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, not the 1991 amendments to Title VII, not affirmative action, not diversity, not the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, not the countless state and local laws and regulations, not the horde of overseers at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission..... Nor would the Paycheck Fairness Act have worked.

That's because pay-equity advocates continue to overlook the effects of this female AND male behavior:

Despite the 40-year-old demand for women's equal pay, millions of wives still choose to have no pay at all. In fact, according to Dr. Scott Haltzman, author of "The Secrets of Happily Married Women," stay-at-home wives, including the childless who represent an estimated 10 percent, constitute a growing niche. "In the past few years,” he says in a CNN August 2008 report at http://tinyurl.com/6reowj, “many women who are well educated and trained for career tracks have decided instead to stay at home.” (“Census Bureau data show that 5.6 million mothers stayed home with their children in 2005, about 1.2 million more than did so a decade earlier....” at http://tinyurl.com/qqkaka. This may or may not reflect a higher percentage of women staying at home than in the previous decade. But if the percentage is higher, perhaps it's because feminists and the media have told women for years that female workers are paid less than men in the same jobs, and so why bother working if they're going to be penalized and humiliated for being a woman.)

As full-time mothers or homemakers, stay-at-home wives earn zero. How can they afford to do this while in many cases living in luxury? Because they're supported by their husband.

If millions of wives can accept no wages and live as well as their husbands, millions of other wives can accept low wages, refuse overtime and promotions, take more unpaid days off, avoid uncomfortable wage-bargaining (http://tinyurl.com/45ecy7p) — all of which lower women's average pay. They can do this because they are supported by a husband who must earn more than if he'd chosen never to marry — which is how MEN help create the wage gap. (If the roles were reversed so that men raised the children and women raised the income, men would average lower pay than women.)

See “A Response to the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act” at http://tinyurl.com/pvbrcu

By the way, the next Equal Occupational Fatality Day is in 2020. The year 2020 is how far into the future women will have to work to experience the same number of work-related deaths that men experienced in 2009 alone.

13 years ago @ Jewish Daily Forward - Jewish Women Lag Behin... · 0 replies · +1 points

No legislation yet has closed the gender wage gap in the U.S. — not the 1963 Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, not Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, not the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, not the 1991 amendments to Title VII, not affirmative action, not diversity, not the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, not the countless state and local laws and regulations, not the horde of overseers at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission..... Nor would the Paycheck Fairness Act have worked.

That's because pay-equity advocates continue to overlook the effects of this female AND male behavior:

Despite the 40-year-old demand for women's equal pay, millions of wives still choose to have no pay at all. In fact, according to Dr. Scott Haltzman, author of "The Secrets of Happily Married Women," stay-at-home wives, including the childless who represent an estimated 10 percent, constitute a growing niche. "In the past few years,” he says in a CNN August 2008 report at http://tinyurl.com/6reowj, “many women who are well educated and trained for career tracks have decided instead to stay at home.” (“Census Bureau data show that 5.6 million mothers stayed home with their children in 2005, about 1.2 million more than did so a decade earlier....” at http://tinyurl.com/qqkaka. This may or may not reflect a higher percentage of women staying at home than in the previous decade. But if the percentage is higher, perhaps it's because feminists and the media have told women for years that female workers are paid less than men in the same jobs, and so why bother working if they're going to be penalized and humiliated for being a woman.)

As full-time mothers or homemakers, stay-at-home wives earn zero. How can they afford to do this while in many cases living in luxury? Because they're supported by their husband.

If millions of wives can accept no wages and live as well as their husbands, millions of other wives can accept low wages, refuse overtime and promotions, take more unpaid days off, avoid uncomfortable wage-bargaining (http://tinyurl.com/45ecy7p) — all of which lower women's average pay. They can do this because they are supported by a husband who must earn more than if he'd chosen never to marry — which is how MEN help create the wage gap. (If the roles were reversed so that men raised the children and women raised the income, men would average lower pay than women.)

See “A Response to the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act” at http://tinyurl.com/pvbrcu

By the way, the next Equal Occupational Fatality Day is in 2020. The year 2020 is how far into the future women will have to work to experience the same number of work-related deaths that men experienced in 2009 alone.

13 years ago @ Family Edge - Guys v. men · 0 replies · +4 points

Men's "new" fear of commitment began about 20 years ago, around the time new domestic-violence laws kicked in, making men easy prey for angry wives and girlfriends.