A suggestion for the "war on women".

[The T]

I do not think that there is now a consistent pattern of women being paid less than men for the same work.

There used to be, of course.

That said, I still do not doubt that nationwide and icnluding all income brackets women are making something less than men.

But that can be explained, I suspect, by the fact that women still bear the brunt of domestic responsibility and for many women that means interupting their careers in favor of their families.

And if one studies incomes of professional women without families one finds that now they make more money than their males counterparts.

STill why the Republicans are refusing to sign a bill that makes compensation descrimination illegal totally mystifies me.

Probably because what the bill is designed to do is NOT to ensure that men and women doing the exact same job in the same firm are paid the same but because it tries to foist some "pay equity" on different jobs in different firms.

The bill would repeal the law that gives women the legal right to contest pay discrimination in a court of law. To date, no one has proven that what you assert has been going on since the law was in effect. Your right to take people to court is in the Constitution, you know.

YOU are full of SHIT.

 

[taichiliberal]

There IS zero 'War On Women' except for the Left and the misogynists in the DNC...that have to use some group to deflect.

The chronology of the posts shows "The T" to be just regurgitating ad nauseum the SOS Drudge feeds his ilk....and totally NOT being able to disprove or refute the documented evidence to the contrary. Carry on.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Truth is hard for the Left

In fact, it is their worst enemy

 

[The T]

Truth is hard for the Left

In fact, it is their worst enemy

Truth is the BANE for the left. Worldview notwithstanding in thier alternate Universe

 

[taichiliberal]

And some more evidence of the "war on women".


The Attack Democrat--Nothing Conservative Here: Proof: Republicans wage war on women


Fox News guest Rev Jesse Lee Peterson says women shouldn't be allowed to vote | Mail Online

Strange that you want to require me to prove that the Black Caucus chairman represents the majority of Dems immediately after you use Rev. Peterson to represent the majority of Repubs.


I am truly sorry that you and your leaders are so desperate to identify a victim in your scramble to collect votes.

The EEOC does, and has always had, bi-partisan support.

Strange that YOU keep lying your ass off despite the FACT that the chronology of the post contradicts you.

I asked you to PROVE that the Chairman's statement that YOU highlighted was stated for all the Caucus, and NOT just the Chairman's personal opinion. To date, you can't.

And the link regarding Peterson demonstrates NOT the "majority of Repubs", but the bias that is Fox News.......who PAY this clown to spew his garbage, with NO cross exam or challenge by Hannity, who's usually all over ANY Dem, Liberal, Progressive, Independent who isn't parroting the neocon/teabagger GOP mantra.

To further dumb it down for ya, chuckles....it's not the good Rev., but an example of the GOP's partisan broadcaster Fox News, that is purporting a negative on women's rights.

Laugh that one off, chuckles.

 

[taichiliberal]

Probably because what the bill is designed to do is NOT to ensure that men and women doing the exact same job in the same firm are paid the same but because it tries to foist some "pay equity" on different jobs in different firms.

The bill would repeal the law that gives women the legal right to contest pay discrimination in a court of law. To date, no one has proven that what you assert has been going on since the law was in effect. Your right to take people to court is in the Constitution, you know.

No it wouldn't.

Oh PLEASE explain to everyone how repealing a law that is designed to guarantee that a person can take their boss or company to trial specifically for wage discrimination does not open the door for such disparity to take place. I'll wait.

 

[Neotrotsky]

 

[The T]

The bill would repeal the law that gives women the legal right to contest pay discrimination in a court of law. To date, no one has proven that what you assert has been going on since the law was in effect. Your right to take people to court is in the Constitution, you know.

No it wouldn't.

Oh PLEASE explain to everyone how repealing a law that is designed to guarantee that a person can take their boss or company to trial specifically for wage discrimination does not open the door for such disparity to take place. I'll wait.

Wage discrimination? Really? Where are the women that were getting paid LESS by Obama?

 

[taichiliberal]

Probably because what the bill is designed to do is NOT to ensure that men and women doing the exact same job in the same firm are paid the same but because it tries to foist some "pay equity" on different jobs in different firms.

The bill would repeal the law that gives women the legal right to contest pay discrimination in a court of law. To date, no one has proven that what you assert has been going on since the law was in effect. Your right to take people to court is in the Constitution, you know.

YOU are full of SHIT.

Despite your scintillating retort, I'll have to press on by asking you to logically prove to everyone how removing a law that guarantees a right to take an employer to court for alleged wage discrimination does not open the door for such an action to take place. Also, could you please tell us all how the Constitution does not guarantee the right to take someone to court for a grievance. We'll wait.

 

[The T]

The bill would repeal the law that gives women the legal right to contest pay discrimination in a court of law. To date, no one has proven that what you assert has been going on since the law was in effect. Your right to take people to court is in the Constitution, you know.

YOU are full of SHIT.

Despite your scintillating retort, I'll have to press on by asking you to logically prove to everyone how removing a law that guarantees a right to take an employer to court for alleged wage discrimination does not open the door for such an action to take place. Also, could you please tell us all how the Constitution does not guarantee the right to take someone to court for a grievance. We'll wait.

Where ARE the women taking Obama's whitehouse to court for making LESS?

 

[Neotrotsky]

No it wouldn't.

Oh PLEASE explain to everyone how repealing a law that is designed to guarantee that a person can take their boss or company to trial specifically for wage discrimination does not open the door for such disparity to take place. I'll wait.

Wage discrimination? Really? Where are the women that were getting paid LESS by Obama?

Or how about the women Clinton molested?

Was Monica servicing the President, her boss, the standard
the Left wants to set?

 

[The T]

Oh PLEASE explain to everyone how repealing a law that is designed to guarantee that a person can take their boss or company to trial specifically for wage discrimination does not open the door for such disparity to take place. I'll wait.

Wage discrimination? Really? Where are the women that were getting paid LESS by Obama?

Or how about the women Clinton molested?

Was Monica servicing the President, her boss, the standard
the Left wants to set?

She was getting something...wasn't she?

NOT exactly what her father would like...seeing as it is common street lingo to get a LEWINSKY whikle working for Government officials...

 

[taichiliberal]

No it wouldn't.

Oh PLEASE explain to everyone how repealing a law that is designed to guarantee that a person can take their boss or company to trial specifically for wage discrimination does not open the door for such disparity to take place. I'll wait.

Wage discrimination? Really? Where are the women that were getting paid LESS by Obama?

Quit stalling by acting dumber than you are "T". If you can't support your "No it wouldn't" response, then grow a pair and just own up to that. If not, stop wasting everyone's time with your petty "I got the last shot in" tactic. Oh and in case you're STILL going to stall when the chronology of the posts shows what a BS artist you are, here's how I shut the mouth of your idiot companion Bripart on the matter. http://www.usmessageboard.com/5248726-post96.html

I'm waiting.

 

[The T]

Oh PLEASE explain to everyone how repealing a law that is designed to guarantee that a person can take their boss or company to trial specifically for wage discrimination does not open the door for such disparity to take place. I'll wait.

Wage discrimination? Really? Where are the women that were getting paid LESS by Obama?

Quit stalling by acting dumber than you are "T". If you can't support your "No it wouldn't" response, then grow a pair and just own up to that. If not, stop wasting everyone's time with your petty "I got the last shot in" tactic. Oh and in case you're STILL going to stall when the chronology of the posts shows what a BS artist you are, here's how I shut the mouth of your idiot companion Bripart on the matter. http://www.usmessageboard.com/5248726-post96.html

I'm waiting.

And *I* answered YOU. Sorry I don't answer to YOUR liking assface.

Take yer crap walking.

 

[taichiliberal]

YOU are full of SHIT.

Despite your scintillating retort, I'll have to press on by asking you to logically prove to everyone how removing a law that guarantees a right to take an employer to court for alleged wage discrimination does not open the door for such an action to take place. Also, could you please tell us all how the Constitution does not guarantee the right to take someone to court for a grievance. We'll wait.

Where ARE the women taking Obama's whitehouse to court for making LESS?

Probably because they're not as stupid as you to swallow the latest neocon noise machine's distortion. Damn man, get your head out of Drudge's ass!

But as The American Prospect's Paul Waldman has noted, the only thing that the Beacon's data indicate is that "men, on average, are occupying higher-paying jobs in the White House (a legitimate grounds for criticism, but not something they pointed out), not that women are being paid less for doing the same job -- the kind of discrimination the Ledbetter act was designed to combat."

Conservative Journalism Keeps Getting Better

 

[taichiliberal]

Wage discrimination? Really? Where are the women that were getting paid LESS by Obama?

Quit stalling by acting dumber than you are "T". If you can't support your "No it wouldn't" response, then grow a pair and just own up to that. If not, stop wasting everyone's time with your petty "I got the last shot in" tactic. Oh and in case you're STILL going to stall when the chronology of the posts shows what a BS artist you are, here's how I shut the mouth of your idiot companion Bripart on the matter. http://www.usmessageboard.com/5248726-post96.html

I'm waiting.

And *I* answered YOU. Sorry I don't answer to YOUR liking assface.

Take yer crap walking.

In case you fell asleep in school that day, answering a challenge to your statement with a question is NOT an answer, my silly "T".

So once again I've exposed yet another intellectually stunted neocon/teabagger bullhorn who can't even muster a decent bluff in a printed forum. Sorry "T" but your personal opinion, supposition and conjecture is a piss in the wind if you can't back it up with FACTS. I did, you didn't. You're done. See ya.

 

[Artevelde]

For your education:

http://www.census.gov/apsd/www/statbrief/sb94_24.pdf

Now PLEASE don't waste my time with the standard neocon/teabagger denial tact of taking information out-of-context to attach to your Drudge addled mantras. Read it carefully and comprehensively, then you'll understand how the article I cited was able to refer stats to the CB.

Did you actually read the link you posted? It says very clearly that the differences in income between men and women comes primarily from working in different firms and from the differences in pay between those firms.

Actually, it said that was PART of the reason for difference in income. There were OTHER factors as well. Would you like me to copy and paste them? Or are you going to man-up and actually acknowledge them? I'll wait.

You somehow forgot the adjective "large" before "part". And nowhere in the link you gave does it give any indication of any proof for men and women in the same job in the same firm being paid different wages.

 

[Artevelde]

I do not think that there is now a consistent pattern of women being paid less than men for the same work.

There used to be, of course.

That said, I still do not doubt that nationwide and icnluding all income brackets women are making something less than men.

But that can be explained, I suspect, by the fact that women still bear the brunt of domestic responsibility and for many women that means interupting their careers in favor of their families.

And if one studies incomes of professional women without families one finds that now they make more money than their males counterparts.

STill why the Republicans are refusing to sign a bill that makes compensation descrimination illegal totally mystifies me.

Probably because what the bill is designed to do is NOT to ensure that men and women doing the exact same job in the same firm are paid the same but because it tries to foist some "pay equity" on different jobs in different firms.

The bill would repeal the law that gives women the legal right to contest pay discrimination in a court of law. To date, no one has proven that what you assert has been going on since the law was in effect. Your right to take people to court is in the Constitution, you know.

If it's in the constitution, why is there a seperate state law required?

 

[Artevelde]

For your education:

http://www.census.gov/apsd/www/statbrief/sb94_24.pdf

Now PLEASE don't waste my time with the standard neocon/teabagger denial tact of taking information out-of-context to attach to your Drudge addled mantras. Read it carefully and comprehensively, then you'll understand how the article I cited was able to refer stats to the CB.

Sorry, but that document doesn't prove your claim. It says that businesses that were primarily populated with males paid higher wages. The reason for that is the fact that men gravitate towards male dominated occupations that pay higher wages. Men take construction jobs, that pay higher wages. Women take teaching jobs that pay lower wages. If teaching paid better, then there would be plenty of men entering the profession.

My brother's girlfriend owns a company that does in-home nursing for the elderly. That profession is dominated by women, so it's hardly surprising that the owner of the company is a woman. It typically doesn't pay high wages because it's a low skill occupation.

The premise of your document is totally flawed. It's the typical misleading horse manure that demagogues who wail about "the war against women" typically trot out.

Now produce some evidence that women in the exact same occupation as men and with the same education and experience get paid a lower wage. You can't do it, and we both know it.

As I expected, you only read up to what you thought would bolster your beliefs and then you ignored everything else. I swear, I sometimes think your icon truly represents your mental capacity. Here's some of what you left out:

Firms with 76-90 percent male
employees paid wages that, on
average, were 40 percent higher
than similar firms whose work
force was almost entirely female.

When firms with similar sales receipts
were compared, firms with
76-90 percent males still paid,
on average, wages that were 10 percent
higher than comparable firms
whose work force was almost entirely
female.


As I said before, look at this information with my previous links, and you get the picture (or you should).

Yes, and the picture is that there is no evidence of women and men doing the same jobs in the same firms being paid differently.

 

[Artevelde]

The bill would repeal the law that gives women the legal right to contest pay discrimination in a court of law. To date, no one has proven that what you assert has been going on since the law was in effect. Your right to take people to court is in the Constitution, you know.

YOU are full of SHIT.

Despite your scintillating retort, I'll have to press on by asking you to logically prove to everyone how removing a law that guarantees a right to take an employer to court for alleged wage discrimination does not open the door for such an action to take place. Also, could you please tell us all how the Constitution does not guarantee the right to take someone to court for a grievance. We'll wait.

Explain how the guarantees provided by the constitution are in any way diminished by the absence of a state law.