it's kind of funny that socialism, or socialist policies would serve as a very viable answer to the idea that we are all unhappy because we don't get to spend time with family, and that neoliberal capitalism is at the crux of the problem. wonder if the OP would be up for a shift towards something like 1 and 2 year paid leaves for children?
i am pretty sure he blames gov't intervention for all this ...
feminists and it seems most people here, in my opinion seem to have a double-standard with regards to biological determinism.
This double-standard is of course not limited to femals/feminists. But, from one perspective, it is said(known) that homosexuality is biologically determined and not a choice, and the role of biologically is greatly highlighted.
From another perspective, when the biological differences, with psychological and behavioral implications, between men and women are highlighted via scientific research, they (feminists) deny that there are preferred roles for men and women, in order to blur the notion of genders. So basically, your saying that biology cannot be used to speak about gender roles.
So why is it that the biological implications seem to be highlighted in one case and neglected in another case?
Oh and just another thought on wage discrepancy.... I teach at a public high school and our salaries are based on education level and years of experience so men and women make the same. However, the discrepancy comes in the number of women in administration (assistant principals, principals, superintendents and others who work at the Board of Ed) Fewer women are in those positions so you will see a wage gap. There are fewer women because we are staying at home OR in my case and in the case of several colleagues we won't go through the time, expense, and hassle of trying to move up because family is our priority and we are still primarily responsible for picking up the kids, fixing dinner, and running the kids to softball, football, cross country, etc. Guess where I'm headed now
This isn't about household chores. This is about acknowledging that raising a family, teaching a family, maintaining family unity is one of the most important functions in society and it is the number one topic of abasement in the feminist agenda. How many social problems are born out of dysfunctional families?
Women are made to feel worthless by other women,(I am witnessing right here) because apparently taking care of one's family is less honorable than earning a fulltime paycheck.
You people are pathetic, you ignore biology and can't define equal...
dude i did....i said you are lumping feminists into one category, and while you may have an argument there with 1st and 2nd wave feminism, 3rd wave post-structuralist feminism attempts to answer your valid critique.
sexual revolution came about during second wave feminism/women's lib (ugh) which was simply about breaking the social structures posed by biological determinism, and we have now entered third wave feminism concerned with post-structuralism (Foucault and the like) whereby social structures are constantly changing, biological determinism has given way to social influence (the panopticon) and so on. This is where Blockhead's question about homosexuality and female/male issues are conflated. There are many feminists who disagree with one another depending on where they stand 1st/2nd/3rd wave. The type of feminism I most closely align with is 3rd wave whereby nearly everything is socially constructed and biological determinism is considered too simple. Thus sexuality is both a biological impulse AND a social construct (there are degrees of sexuality in this conception thus no one is a perfect hetero/homo sexual), just the same as gender (there are degrees of masculinity and femininity that overlap and diverge). This, however, doesn't mean that everything means nothing, but rather that there are degrees of oppression based on social and biological structures. In that case, discrimination of homosexuals and discrimination of women are both understood as not good.
Oh and just another thought on wage discrepancy.... I teach at a public high school and our salaries are based on education level and years of experience so men and women make the same. However, the discrepancy comes in the number of women in administration (assistant principals, principals, superintendents and others who work at the Board of Ed) Fewer women are in those positions so you will see a wage gap. There are fewer women because we are staying at home OR in my case and in the case of several colleagues we won't go through the time, expense, and hassle of trying to move up because family is our priority and we are still primarily responsible for picking up the kids, fixing dinner, and running the kids to softball, football, cross country, etc. Guess where I'm headed now
This isn't about household chores. This is about acknowledging that raising a family, teaching a family, maintaining family unity is one of the most important functions in society and it is the number one topic of abasement in the feminist agenda. How many social problems are born out of dysfunctional families?
Women are made to feel worthless by other women,(I am witnessing right here) because apparently taking care of one's family is less honorable than earning a fulltime paycheck.
You people are pathetic, you ignore biology and can't define equal...
are you thus insinuating that it is womens' job to raise, teach, and maintain a family, because feminists are arguing that it is not their sole purpose in life? where do you envision the male role in this? should men look down at other men who stay at home? do you? i mean it's not like we are hunting and gathering anymore, we're sitting in fucking cubicles selling shit that people don't need.
Oh and just another thought on wage discrepancy.... I teach at a public high school and our salaries are based on education level and years of experience so men and women make the same. However, the discrepancy comes in the number of women in administration (assistant principals, principals, superintendents and others who work at the Board of Ed) Fewer women are in those positions so you will see a wage gap. There are fewer women because we are staying at home OR in my case and in the case of several colleagues we won't go through the time, expense, and hassle of trying to move up because family is our priority and we are still primarily responsible for picking up the kids, fixing dinner, and running the kids to softball, football, cross country, etc. Guess where I'm headed now
This isn't about household chores. This is about acknowledging that raising a family, teaching a family, maintaining family unity is one of the most important functions in society and it is the number one topic of abasement in the feminist agenda. How many social problems are born out of dysfunctional families?
Women are made to feel worthless by other women,(I am witnessing right here) because apparently taking care of one's family is less honorable than earning a fulltime paycheck.
You people are pathetic, you ignore biology and can't define equal...
are you thus insinuating that it is womens' job to raise, teach, and maintain a family, because feminists are arguing that it is not their sole purpose in life? where do you envision the male role in this? should men look down at other men who stay at home? do you? i mean it's not like we are hunting and gathering anymore, we're sitting in fucking cubicles selling shit that people don't need.
As you can read, it was in response to the person above complaining about HER situation of doing chores/raising family. It was not a generalization of womens "jobs"
dude i did....i said you are lumping feminists into one category, and while you may have an argument there with 1st and 2nd wave feminism, 3rd wave post-structuralist feminism attempts to answer your valid critique.
Please outline the 3rd wave post-structuralist feminism?
sexual revolution came about during second wave feminism/women's lib (ugh) which was simply about breaking the social structures posed by biological determinism, and we have now entered third wave feminism concerned with post-structuralism (Foucault and the like) whereby social structures are constantly changing, biological determinism has given way to social influence (the panopticon) and so on. This is where Blockhead's question about homosexuality and female/male issues are conflated. There are many feminists who disagree with one another depending on where they stand 1st/2nd/3rd wave. The type of feminism I most closely align with is 3rd wave whereby nearly everything is socially constructed and biological determinism is considered too simple. Thus sexuality is both a biological impulse AND a social construct (there are degrees of sexuality in this conception thus no one is a perfect hetero/homo sexual), just the same as gender (there are degrees of masculinity and femininity that overlap and diverge). This, however, doesn't mean that everything means nothing, but rather that there are degrees of oppression based on social and biological structures. In that case, discrimination of homosexuals and discrimination of women are both understood as not good.
So your ignoring psychological and behavorial issues tied to biology...
sexual revolution came about during second wave feminism/women's lib (ugh) which was simply about breaking the social structures posed by biological determinism, and we have now entered third wave feminism concerned with post-structuralism (Foucault and the like) whereby social structures are constantly changing, biological determinism has given way to social influence (the panopticon) and so on. This is where Blockhead's question about homosexuality and female/male issues are conflated. There are many feminists who disagree with one another depending on where they stand 1st/2nd/3rd wave. The type of feminism I most closely align with is 3rd wave whereby nearly everything is socially constructed and biological determinism is considered too simple. Thus sexuality is both a biological impulse AND a social construct (there are degrees of sexuality in this conception thus no one is a perfect hetero/homo sexual), just the same as gender (there are degrees of masculinity and femininity that overlap and diverge). This, however, doesn't mean that everything means nothing, but rather that there are degrees of oppression based on social and biological structures. In that case, discrimination of homosexuals and discrimination of women are both understood as not good.
So your ignoring psychological and behavorial issues tied to biology...
really!?? ... you read his post and that is what you got?? ...
"Thus sexuality is both a biological impulse AND a social construct"
"This, however, doesn't mean that everything means nothing, but rather that there are degrees of oppression based on social and biological structure"
it's kind of funny that socialism, or socialist policies would serve as a very viable answer to the idea that we are all unhappy because we don't get to spend time with family, and that neoliberal capitalism is at the crux of the problem. wonder if the OP would be up for a shift towards something like 1 and 2 year paid leaves for children?
Just a side note - I don't understand why you don't just quote me if you'd like me to respond. It's hard to read every single post word for word and search for "OP". Plus, this thread has turned into a horrible arguing match at this point, so I'm not sure there's even a reason to respond. No one is really listening to one another.
As for your question, I'm 100% for companies deciding to grant 1 and 2 year paid leaves for children to their employees. That's a company that would be nice to work for. It's a great perk. Yet, it would cost a company a lot of money, so I understand why it's rare. In fact, a lot of companies would go under if they tried this. Yet, it's their right to do so. That said, I'm 100% against government mandating that sort of policy for a variety of reasons. See Europe (particularly Greece) for one rationale on why government involvement in issues such as this can blow up in a country's face.
Back to the original topic... and what I've said plenty of times. ...There's really no solution to this issue that government can provide. It's more of a cultural change. My point here throughout this thread was that with that change (that was deemed by many to be 100% positive), came some negatives. This negative is underscored by the fact that many households can't afford to have a parent stay home to help raise children anymore. This wasn't as pervasive before the cultural change.
So why is it that the biological implications seem to be highlighted in one case and neglected in another case?
Your argument is pretty straight-forward within this question.
To answer your question - I'm quite certain everyone knows why. It's not useful to that point of view here.
It's a shame this thread devolved into an arguing match. Some questions like this one could have been interesting to discuss.
i answered this twice already...and even pointed out that he has a case with this argument with 1st and 2nd wave feminists. didn't even really argue, just pointed out that blockhead was wrong lumping all feminists together. what would you envision this thread look like? people posting "yes i agree i'm unhappier because my wife, who earned her master's degree, goes to work doing what she studied for. This women's right's thing really sucks"? It'd be a pretty boring thread first of all, secondly what does it accomplish? What change would you like to see come of this discussion?
i answered this twice already...and even pointed out that he has a case with this argument with 1st and 2nd wave feminists. didn't even really argue, just pointed out that blockhead was wrong lumping all feminists together.
Sorry. Personally, I felt the caveats are best summarized as academic ramblings, that end up semi-incoherent. But, if you'd like to continue to argue on the subject of waves of feminist thought and how that changes things entirely, be my guest. I don't really care either way. I just thought Blockhead had a very good point.
what would you envision this thread look like? people posting "yes i agree i'm unhappier because my wife, who earned her master's degree, goes to work doing what she studied for. This women's right's thing really sucks"? It'd be a pretty boring thread first of all, secondly what does it accomplish? What change would you like to see come of this discussion?
I envision a thread where people exchange ideas civilly and realize this isn't an issue that can change either way. Just exchange ideas when you can. If you disagree, fine. State how you disagree respectfully. That sort of thing.
Greece went down because they over-promised, and in doing so exposed themselves. Anyone who claims otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about and discredits their argument.
Sorry. Personally, I felt the caveats are best summarized as academic ramblings, that end up semi-incoherent. But, if you'd like to continue to argue on the subject of waves of feminist thought and how that changes things entirely, be my guest. I don't really care either way. I just thought Blockhead had a very good point.
.
... what did i say about intellectualizing this discussion!? ... :P
Sorry. Personally, I felt the caveats are best summarized as academic ramblings, that end up semi-incoherent. But, if you'd like to continue to argue on the subject of waves of feminist thought and how that changes things entirely, be my guest. I don't really care either way. I just thought Blockhead had a very good point.
.
... what did i say about intellectualizing this discussion!? ... :P
it's so crazy...when someone does come at blockhead or inlet with knowledge they just dismiss it as being too academic, rambling, whatever. but i was answering the fucking question. i guess it's easier to complain about not getting one's question answered when you don't want to respond to answers that don't match one's politics.
i answered this twice already...and even pointed out that he has a case with this argument with 1st and 2nd wave feminists. didn't even really argue, just pointed out that blockhead was wrong lumping all feminists together.
Sorry. Personally, I felt the caveats are best summarized as academic ramblings, that end up semi-incoherent. But, if you'd like to continue to argue on the subject of waves of feminist thought and how that changes things entirely, be my guest. I don't really care either way. I just thought Blockhead had a very good point.
what would you envision this thread look like? people posting "yes i agree i'm unhappier because my wife, who earned her master's degree, goes to work doing what she studied for. This women's right's thing really sucks"? It'd be a pretty boring thread first of all, secondly what does it accomplish? What change would you like to see come of this discussion?
I envision a thread where people exchange ideas civilly and realize this isn't an issue that can change either way. Just exchange ideas when you can. If you disagree, fine. State how you disagree respectfully. That sort of thing.
Greece went down because they over-promised, and in doing so exposed themselves. Anyone who claims otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about and discredits their argument.
Anyway, I'm done posting for the day. Enjoy.
so you basically posted this to start an bland, respectful, discussion about nothing in particular? as for respect i have taken the time to actually read the links blockhead and others have posted on here before commenting...you saw the title of my article and dismissed it. what are you afraid of in reading opposing viewpoints? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14972015
it's so crazy...when someone does come at blockhead or inlet with knowledge they just dismiss it as being too academic, rambling, whatever. but i was answering the fucking question. i guess it's easier to complain about not getting one's question answered when you don't want to respond to answers that don't match one's politics.
there definitely seems to be a disdain for academia and the social sciences ... i've been through this same thing with global warming ... i'll read there articles but they won't read mine ...
Sorry. Personally, I felt the caveats are best summarized as academic ramblings, that end up semi-incoherent. But, if you'd like to continue to argue on the subject of waves of feminist thought and how that changes things entirely, be my guest. I don't really care either way. I just thought Blockhead had a very good point.
.
... what did i say about intellectualizing this discussion!? ... :P
it's so crazy...when someone does come at blockhead or inlet with knowledge they just dismiss it as being too academic, rambling, whatever. but i was answering the fucking question. i guess it's easier to complain about not getting one's question answered when you don't want to respond to answers that don't match one's politics.
:roll: All you have offered has been emotional responses back by opiniated pieces.
I can't imagine you witnessing first hand sexism(discrimination) in regard to wage differences and just sitting by and not doing anything about it...
I don't recall you asking me anything? If so ask again.
it's so crazy...when someone does come at blockhead or inlet with knowledge they just dismiss it as being too academic, rambling, whatever. but i was answering the fucking question. i guess it's easier to complain about not getting one's question answered when you don't want to respond to answers that don't match one's politics.
there definitely seems to be a disdain for academia and the social sciences ... i've been through this same thing with global warming ... i'll read there articles but they won't read mine ...
it's so crazy...when someone does come at blockhead or inlet with knowledge they just dismiss it as being too academic, rambling, whatever. but i was answering the fucking question. i guess it's easier to complain about not getting one's question answered when you don't want to respond to answers that don't match one's politics.
there definitely seems to be a disdain for academia and the social sciences ... i've been through this same thing with global warming ... i'll read there articles but they won't read mine ...
Got two minutes to respond...
First, it's "their" not "there". An academic you are, that's for sure.
Second, I'm a PhD economist, bro. Economics IS a social science. I work IN academia. I publish my research IN academic journals. In fact, the reason I have to go in 10 minutes is to teach a SOCIAL SCIENCE class. I don't think there's a disdain for the social sciences or academia within me. Re-read what I just said for proof. So, please, save the nonsense for your Global Warming threads.
Anyway, I got to go teach. I'll try to respond later if you want me to.
if there is a wage gap in a somewhat socialized country like Canada - you can postulate on what that would be in the US ...
Statistical evidence demonstrates that women continue to earn less than men in Canada, as in all the countries that are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). This is the case despite the fact that women are catching up with men in labour force participation, and have caught up with men in educational attainment. The gap between what women earn and what men earn is known as the gender wage gap.
sexual revolution came about during second wave feminism/women's lib (ugh) which was simply about breaking the social structures posed by biological determinism, and we have now entered third wave feminism concerned with post-structuralism (Foucault and the like) whereby social structures are constantly changing, biological determinism has given way to social influence (the panopticon) and so on. This is where Blockhead's question about homosexuality and female/male issues are conflated. There are many feminists who disagree with one another depending on where they stand 1st/2nd/3rd wave. The type of feminism I most closely align with is 3rd wave whereby nearly everything is socially constructed and biological determinism is considered too simple. Thus sexuality is both a biological impulse AND a social construct (there are degrees of sexuality in this conception thus no one is a perfect hetero/homo sexual), just the same as gender (there are degrees of masculinity and femininity that overlap and diverge). This, however, doesn't mean that everything means nothing, but rather that there are degrees of oppression based on social and biological structures. In that case, discrimination of homosexuals and discrimination of women are both understood as not good.
So your ignoring psychological and behavorial issues tied to biology...
really!?? ... you read his post and that is what you got?? ...
"Thus sexuality is both a biological impulse AND a social construct"
"This, however, doesn't mean that everything means nothing, but rather that there are degrees of oppression based on social and biological structure"
if there is a wage gap in a somewhat socialized country like Canada - you can postulate on what that would be in the US ...
Statistical evidence demonstrates that women continue to earn less than men in Canada, as in all the countries that are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). This is the case despite the fact that women are catching up with men in labour force participation, and have caught up with men in educational attainment. The gap between what women earn and what men earn is known as the gender wage gap.
please note the bolded part ...
what about this?
What about it...
OF course men on AVERAGE or MEDIAN make more, thats because men usually have the higher ranking jobs/CEO/CFO, ect... MEN also do the most dangerous job, that tend to pay very well.
You can't compare 10 women who are waitressess and 10 men who are CEO's and say, Look at that wage gap, men make so much more...
Nothing is comparing men and women with the same job titles/experience/ect. There are so many variables... You also have to factor in things like sick time/maternity leave...
Its a well known fact that most women don't negotiate thier wages and or demand raises, all this plays a part.
Thats like saying taller men make more money than shorter men (which is a fact) so short men are not created equal...
First, it's "their" not "there". An academic you are, that's for sure.
Second, I'm a PhD economist, bro. Economics IS a social science. I work IN academia. I publish my research IN academic journals. In fact, the reason I have to go in 10 minutes is to teach a SOCIAL SCIENCE class. I don't think there's a disdain for the social sciences or academia within me. Re-read what I just said for proof. So, please, save the nonsense for your Global Warming threads.
Anyway, I got to go teach. I'll try to respond later if you want me to.
blockhead i read your study that you posted and within that study they even found wage discrimination. i posted and asked what you thought about it, and you didn't respond. i even asked if you've read the links i've posted in response and you haven't responded to those links.
First, it's "their" not "there". An academic you are, that's for sure.
Huh?
Thank god its economics and not english!
i wonder if he's going to tell his female students that they suck for being there and that their presence is making us all unhappy
then when they get all pissed at him inlet will suggest that they are being overemotional and that he was merely presenting facts for discussion, and since they are his "facts", they are not to be pulled apart just talked about in a banal fashion.
i would pay money to have him upload a video of the classroom when he posits this belief. seriously i would.
Comments
i am pretty sure he blames gov't intervention for all this ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_determinism
feminists and it seems most people here, in my opinion seem to have a double-standard with regards to biological determinism.
This double-standard is of course not limited to femals/feminists. But, from one perspective, it is said(known) that homosexuality is biologically determined and not a choice, and the role of biologically is greatly highlighted.
From another perspective, when the biological differences, with psychological and behavioral implications, between men and women are highlighted via scientific research, they (feminists) deny that there are preferred roles for men and women, in order to blur the notion of genders. So basically, your saying that biology cannot be used to speak about gender roles.
So why is it that the biological implications seem to be highlighted in one case and neglected in another case?
Women are made to feel worthless by other women,(I am witnessing right here) because apparently taking care of one's family is less honorable than earning a fulltime paycheck.
You people are pathetic, you ignore biology and can't define equal...
http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ejrot/cms ... cullen.pdf
http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?itemid=9827282
really!?? ... you read his post and that is what you got?? ...
"Thus sexuality is both a biological impulse AND a social construct"
"This, however, doesn't mean that everything means nothing, but rather that there are degrees of oppression based on social and biological structure"
Just a side note - I don't understand why you don't just quote me if you'd like me to respond. It's hard to read every single post word for word and search for "OP". Plus, this thread has turned into a horrible arguing match at this point, so I'm not sure there's even a reason to respond. No one is really listening to one another.
As for your question, I'm 100% for companies deciding to grant 1 and 2 year paid leaves for children to their employees. That's a company that would be nice to work for. It's a great perk. Yet, it would cost a company a lot of money, so I understand why it's rare. In fact, a lot of companies would go under if they tried this. Yet, it's their right to do so. That said, I'm 100% against government mandating that sort of policy for a variety of reasons. See Europe (particularly Greece) for one rationale on why government involvement in issues such as this can blow up in a country's face.
Back to the original topic... and what I've said plenty of times. ...There's really no solution to this issue that government can provide. It's more of a cultural change. My point here throughout this thread was that with that change (that was deemed by many to be 100% positive), came some negatives. This negative is underscored by the fact that many households can't afford to have a parent stay home to help raise children anymore. This wasn't as pervasive before the cultural change.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Your argument is pretty straight-forward within this question.
To answer your question - I'm quite certain everyone knows why. It's not useful to that point of view here.
It's a shame this thread devolved into an arguing match. Some questions like this one could have been interesting to discuss.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
P.S. You do know Greece went to shit when it shifted to a capitalist economy right? http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish ... 8024.shtml
Sorry. Personally, I felt the caveats are best summarized as academic ramblings, that end up semi-incoherent. But, if you'd like to continue to argue on the subject of waves of feminist thought and how that changes things entirely, be my guest. I don't really care either way. I just thought Blockhead had a very good point.
I envision a thread where people exchange ideas civilly and realize this isn't an issue that can change either way. Just exchange ideas when you can. If you disagree, fine. State how you disagree respectfully. That sort of thing.
Ha ha ha. Seriously? Farrakhan? Ha ha ha.
Greece went down because they over-promised, and in doing so exposed themselves. Anyone who claims otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about and discredits their argument.
Anyway, I'm done posting for the day. Enjoy.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
there definitely seems to be a disdain for academia and the social sciences ... i've been through this same thing with global warming ... i'll read there articles but they won't read mine ...
I can't imagine you witnessing first hand sexism(discrimination) in regard to wage differences and just sitting by and not doing anything about it...
I don't recall you asking me anything? If so ask again.
Got two minutes to respond...
First, it's "their" not "there". An academic you are, that's for sure.
Second, I'm a PhD economist, bro. Economics IS a social science. I work IN academia. I publish my research IN academic journals. In fact, the reason I have to go in 10 minutes is to teach a SOCIAL SCIENCE class. I don't think there's a disdain for the social sciences or academia within me. Re-read what I just said for proof. So, please, save the nonsense for your Global Warming threads.
Anyway, I got to go teach. I'll try to respond later if you want me to.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
what about this?
or this?
OF course men on AVERAGE or MEDIAN make more, thats because men usually have the higher ranking jobs/CEO/CFO, ect... MEN also do the most dangerous job, that tend to pay very well.
You can't compare 10 women who are waitressess and 10 men who are CEO's and say, Look at that wage gap, men make so much more...
Nothing is comparing men and women with the same job titles/experience/ect. There are so many variables... You also have to factor in things like sick time/maternity leave...
Its a well known fact that most women don't negotiate thier wages and or demand raises, all this plays a part.
Thats like saying taller men make more money than shorter men (which is a fact) so short men are not created equal...
http://www.wikihow.com/Use-There,-Their-and-They%27re
Huh?
Thank god its economics and not english!
i would pay money to have him upload a video of the classroom when he posits this belief. seriously i would.