I understand that abortion rights are being taken away, but I didn't think we were still at a place where women felt like they didn't have the power to be in the workforce if they wanted. I thought that would have been pretty universally acceptable at this point (and almost necessary to have both parents working to support the household). If anything, I feel like the pendulum has swung to where stay at home moms are the ones to be made to feel like they are submissive and aren't living up to their potential.
I am not a scholar on the topic though.
While the era of a woman being expected to be the homemaker might be over in many parts of North America, the workforce still pays women a fraction of what it does for men (and gives raises and promotions less frequently). Those are pretty huge deterrents - work as hard as a male, get paid less, get raises less frequently, and get promotions less frequently.
In the situation I described, I could see a family having to make a difficult choice between a struggling dual-income household, versus a single-income household with one parent taking care of the children - likely the one with the less financial potential (or financial 'power').
All of what you described has been illegal in the U.S. for decades. Also, if a woman is working the same hours and doing a better job than a male, and does not get promoted, she could sue and would probably win. Women have major advantages in the work force now.
Everything you described about what women in the workforce is illegal and has been for decades like I previously stated. College degreed professional women are paid the same, for the same time and amount of work, if they are not than whoever employs them are breaking federal law. That's a fact. Also, women have advantages in the courts getting 50% of what they didn't work for and overwhelmingly win custody when they probably should not. Talk about "privileged."
You are talking about two elements of gender-based wage equality (focusing on hourly wage workers, and not bothering to talk about salaried workers). Did you even bother reading the link I shared? It's abundantly clear that equality is not being achieved.
There are more women in the workforce since the Obama era. For the fourth time, the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Lilly Ledbetter Act under Obama, not paying equal on the basis of gender has been illegal for decades. You want there to be Madmen, and you still see society as the 1960s, but that's not the reality at all. You are stuck in a time warp, and that's a big issue for the Left.
"More women in the workforce since the Obama era"? Reduction in disparity is not the same as attaining equality.
Again (for the third time), clearly you haven't looked at my link with an abundance of evidence of inequality. I'm not stuck in a time warp - you're refusing to look at the evidence that shows you as incorrect. I don't give a fuck about the legality, I care about the reality that's observed today.
Marijuana is federally illegal in the United States - does that mean there's no marijuana consumption in the USA? Give me a break.
Post edited by benjs on
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I understand that abortion rights are being taken away, but I didn't think we were still at a place where women felt like they didn't have the power to be in the workforce if they wanted. I thought that would have been pretty universally acceptable at this point (and almost necessary to have both parents working to support the household). If anything, I feel like the pendulum has swung to where stay at home moms are the ones to be made to feel like they are submissive and aren't living up to their potential.
I am not a scholar on the topic though.
While the era of a woman being expected to be the homemaker might be over in many parts of North America, the workforce still pays women a fraction of what it does for men (and gives raises and promotions less frequently). Those are pretty huge deterrents - work as hard as a male, get paid less, get raises less frequently, and get promotions less frequently.
In the situation I described, I could see a family having to make a difficult choice between a struggling dual-income household, versus a single-income household with one parent taking care of the children - likely the one with the less financial potential (or financial 'power').
All of what you described has been illegal in the U.S. for decades. Also, if a woman is working the same hours and doing a better job than a male, and does not get promoted, she could sue and would probably win. Women have major advantages in the work force now.
Everything you described about what women in the workforce is illegal and has been for decades like I previously stated. College degreed professional women are paid the same, for the same time and amount of work, if they are not than whoever employs them are breaking federal law. That's a fact. Also, women have advantages in the courts getting 50% of what they didn't work for and overwhelmingly win custody when they probably should not. Talk about "privileged."
You are talking about two elements of gender-based wage equality (focusing on hourly wage workers, and not bothering to talk about salaried workers). Did you even bother reading the link I shared? It's abundantly clear that equality is not being achieved.
There are more women in the workforce since the Obama era. For the fourth time, the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Lilly Ledbetter Act under Obama, not paying equal on the basis of gender has been illegal for decades. You want there to be Madmen, and you still see society as the 1960s, but that's not the reality at all. You are stuck in a time warp, and that's a big issue for the Left.
"More women in the workforce since the Obama era"? Reduction in disparity is not the same as attaining equality.
Again (for the third time), clearly you haven't looked at my link with an abundance of evidence of inequality. I'm not stuck in a time warp - you're refusing to look at the evidence that shows you as incorrect. I don't give a fuck about the legality, I care about the reality that's observed today.
Marijuana is federally illegal in the United States - does that mean there's no marijuana consumption in the USA? Give me a break.
That doesn't account for self-selection. If you're always going to have a significant percent of women who want to be stay-at-home moms, what does equality look like statistically?
I understand that abortion rights are being taken away, but I didn't think we were still at a place where women felt like they didn't have the power to be in the workforce if they wanted. I thought that would have been pretty universally acceptable at this point (and almost necessary to have both parents working to support the household). If anything, I feel like the pendulum has swung to where stay at home moms are the ones to be made to feel like they are submissive and aren't living up to their potential.
I am not a scholar on the topic though.
While the era of a woman being expected to be the homemaker might be over in many parts of North America, the workforce still pays women a fraction of what it does for men (and gives raises and promotions less frequently). Those are pretty huge deterrents - work as hard as a male, get paid less, get raises less frequently, and get promotions less frequently.
In the situation I described, I could see a family having to make a difficult choice between a struggling dual-income household, versus a single-income household with one parent taking care of the children - likely the one with the less financial potential (or financial 'power').
All of what you described has been illegal in the U.S. for decades. Also, if a woman is working the same hours and doing a better job than a male, and does not get promoted, she could sue and would probably win. Women have major advantages in the work force now.
Everything you described about what women in the workforce is illegal and has been for decades like I previously stated. College degreed professional women are paid the same, for the same time and amount of work, if they are not than whoever employs them are breaking federal law. That's a fact. Also, women have advantages in the courts getting 50% of what they didn't work for and overwhelmingly win custody when they probably should not. Talk about "privileged."
You are talking about two elements of gender-based wage equality (focusing on hourly wage workers, and not bothering to talk about salaried workers). Did you even bother reading the link I shared? It's abundantly clear that equality is not being achieved.
There are more women in the workforce since the Obama era. For the fourth time, the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Lilly Ledbetter Act under Obama, not paying equal on the basis of gender has been illegal for decades. You want there to be Madmen, and you still see society as the 1960s, but that's not the reality at all. You are stuck in a time warp, and that's a big issue for the Left.
"More women in the workforce since the Obama era"? Reduction in disparity is not the same as attaining equality.
Again (for the third time), clearly you haven't looked at my link with an abundance of evidence of inequality. I'm not stuck in a time warp - you're refusing to look at the evidence that shows you as incorrect. I don't give a fuck about the legality, I care about the reality that's observed today.
Marijuana is federally illegal in the United States - does that mean there's no marijuana consumption in the USA? Give me a break.
Also your misstating/misunderstanding about how marijuana laws work in the US doesn't inspire confidence in your ability to interpret studies
I understand that abortion rights are being taken away, but I didn't think we were still at a place where women felt like they didn't have the power to be in the workforce if they wanted. I thought that would have been pretty universally acceptable at this point (and almost necessary to have both parents working to support the household). If anything, I feel like the pendulum has swung to where stay at home moms are the ones to be made to feel like they are submissive and aren't living up to their potential.
I am not a scholar on the topic though.
While the era of a woman being expected to be the homemaker might be over in many parts of North America, the workforce still pays women a fraction of what it does for men (and gives raises and promotions less frequently). Those are pretty huge deterrents - work as hard as a male, get paid less, get raises less frequently, and get promotions less frequently.
In the situation I described, I could see a family having to make a difficult choice between a struggling dual-income household, versus a single-income household with one parent taking care of the children - likely the one with the less financial potential (or financial 'power').
Not necessarily in the workforce for large American employers, many of whom have strongly embraced DEI initiatives. While affirmative action programs for college admissions are now not allowed by the recent SCOTUS decision, they are alive and well in the employment sector. One does not want to be a male over fifty working for a large employer undergoing a reorganization. The survival odds are much lower than for people of color and women.
I understand that abortion rights are being taken away, but I didn't think we were still at a place where women felt like they didn't have the power to be in the workforce if they wanted. I thought that would have been pretty universally acceptable at this point (and almost necessary to have both parents working to support the household). If anything, I feel like the pendulum has swung to where stay at home moms are the ones to be made to feel like they are submissive and aren't living up to their potential.
I am not a scholar on the topic though.
While the era of a woman being expected to be the homemaker might be over in many parts of North America, the workforce still pays women a fraction of what it does for men (and gives raises and promotions less frequently). Those are pretty huge deterrents - work as hard as a male, get paid less, get raises less frequently, and get promotions less frequently.
In the situation I described, I could see a family having to make a difficult choice between a struggling dual-income household, versus a single-income household with one parent taking care of the children - likely the one with the less financial potential (or financial 'power').
Not necessarily in the workforce for large American employers, many of whom have strongly embraced DEI initiatives. While affirmative action programs for college admissions are now not allowed by the recent SCOTUS decision, they are alive and well in the employment sector. One does not want to be a male over fifty working for a large employer undergoing a reorganization. The survival odds are much lower than for people of color and women.
Do you think it’s legal to hire and fire based in race and gender?
I worry about some young women (teens to 20s or thereabouts) I see these days. Those who dress for seduction. I see this more and more. And a lot of the time, the young woman is with some guy who hangs his arm on her like she's a coat rack or a trophy. Sure, any guy will tell you a fit, attractive 16, 18, 22, whatever, year old girl wearing in a skimpy lacy little thing is going to look hot. Most any guy who says, "Nah, that's not true," is a liar.
Well, ok so look beyond that. What does that say about how that young lady sees herself and how she wants to be seen? Don't get me wrong- I'm not trying to be a puritan and I don't think there should be "a law against" wearing this or that. It's what a person projects and what someone prioritizes that I'm talking about.
Here's another scenario. I know a you woman who started dating the man who is now her husband. Someone else I know (the girls mom) was concerned and asked the guy, "So what attracted you to my daughter? Is it because she is beautiful?" He said, "Well actually, the first thing that attracted me to her is that she is smart and kind. The fact that she is beautiful just makes it even better." This young woman is savvy enough to know what counts the most, and projects qualities like being smart and kind. And her guy is smart enough to appreciate those qualities. And they have one of the best relationships of any young couple I know.
So which of these scenarios is the predominant one these days? I'm not sure, but I don't know that I would find the answer to that would be very encouraging.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
The Equal Pay Act of 1963: Protects against wage discrimination based on sex. (Over 60 years ago). Since then there have been countless laws and government regulation oversite of discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace. Women outnumbered men in the workplace for the first time in 2009. The Lilly Ledbetter Act: Backed up the equal rights act of 1963, and made things easier form women to sue companies who break the law by discriminating based on gender or sexual orientation. You live in La La Land and need a reality check if you think the "patriarchy" or all those "evil white men" are conspiring against you. They are not, stop blaming the faults in your lives on imagined outside enemies. Get real.
Las Cruces, NM Pan Am Center September 14, 1995
Albuquerque, NM Tingley Coliseum July 7, 1998
New York City, NY MSG May 20, 2010
Eddie Vedder Solo Albuquerque, NM November 9, 2012
Wrigley Field July 19, 2013
LA Nov. 23: 24, 2013
Denver 10-22-14
The Equal Pay Act of 1963: Protects against wage discrimination based on sex. (Over 60 years ago). Since then there have been countless laws and government regulation oversite of discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace. Women outnumbered men in the workplace for the first time in 2009. The Lilly Ledbetter Act: Backed up the equal rights act of 1963, and made things easier form women to sue companies who break the law by discriminating based on gender or sexual orientation. You live in La La Land and need a reality check if you think the "patriarchy" or all those "evil white men" are conspiring against you. They are not, stop blaming the faults in your lives on imagined outside enemies. Get real.
So, clearly the two laws you cite and the numerous other regulations that have resulted in a just and equitable society don’t seem to be working, what’s the solution? Women filing lawsuits? Unions? Or sit down, shut up, know your place, everything is perfect?
I worry about some young women (teens to 20s or thereabouts) I see these days. Those who dress for seduction. I see this more and more. And a lot of the time, the young woman is with some guy who hangs his arm on her like she's a coat rack or a trophy. Sure, any guy will tell you a fit, attractive 16, 18, 22, whatever, year old girl wearing in a skimpy lacy little thing is going to look hot. Most any guy who says, "Nah, that's not true," is a liar.
Well, ok so look beyond that. What does that say about how that young lady sees herself and how she wants to be seen? Don't get me wrong- I'm not trying to be a puritan and I don't think there should be "a law against" wearing this or that. It's what a person projects and what someone prioritizes that I'm talking about.
Here's another scenario. I know a you woman who started dating the man who is now her husband. Someone else I know (the girls mom) was concerned and asked the guy, "So what attracted you to my daughter? Is it because she is beautiful?" He said, "Well actually, the first thing that attracted me to her is that she is smart and kind. The fact that she is beautiful just makes it even better." This young woman is savvy enough to know what counts the most, and projects qualities like being smart and kind. And her guy is smart enough to appreciate those qualities. And they have one of the best relationships of any young couple I know.
So which of these scenarios is the predominant one these days? I'm not sure, but I don't know that I would find the answer to that would be very encouraging.
Honestly there are certainly some over the top outifts...but I also don't think it is a girls responsibility to dress the way anyone else wants. We should probably try and teach young men to respect and not always sexualize women, especially in schools and the workplace. My daughter is a dancer and very comfortable in many outifts. I also know she scored a 36 on her ACT and will likely be an engineer.
I only worry if the girls/women are dressing FOR other people. As long as it's for themselves, very few issues
The Equal Pay Act of 1963: Protects against wage discrimination based on sex. (Over 60 years ago). Since then there have been countless laws and government regulation oversite of discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace. Women outnumbered men in the workplace for the first time in 2009. The Lilly Ledbetter Act: Backed up the equal rights act of 1963, and made things easier form women to sue companies who break the law by discriminating based on gender or sexual orientation. You live in La La Land and need a reality check if you think the "patriarchy" or all those "evil white men" are conspiring against you. They are not, stop blaming the faults in your lives on imagined outside enemies. Get real.
I'm a lifelong Chiefs fan, so I've seen a lot of viewpoints from the fanbase. Not surprisingly many are "defending" Butker and calling those who have a problem with his speech the "Woke Mob." My initial feelings were similar to Ed's, but I've backed off of the maliciousness I felt. It was disappointing as a fan to hear him express those opinions to female college graduates. The speech was all pre-calculated and he had to have known the blowback he was going to face. If not, he's a complete idiot. He's free to express his views using his platform, but it does come at a cost like most polarizing statements. If he wasn't prepared for the possibility of this affecting his football career then he's in for a rude awakening. It may not be this year, but if he struggles and the Chiefs release him I'll be anxious to see if he gets picked up by another team.
I wish I was a sacrifice, but somehow still lived on.
I'm a lifelong Chiefs fan, so I've seen a lot of viewpoints from the fanbase. Not surprisingly many are "defending" Butker and calling those who have a problem with his speech the "Woke Mob." My initial feelings were similar to Ed's, but I've backed off of the maliciousness I felt. It was disappointing as a fan to hear him express those opinions to female college graduates. The speech was all pre-calculated and he had to have known the blowback he was going to face. If not, he's a complete idiot. He's free to express his views using his platform, but it does come at a cost like most polarizing statements. If he wasn't prepared for the possibility of this affecting his football career then he's in for a rude awakening. It may not be this year, but if he struggles and the Chiefs release him I'll be anxious to see if he gets picked up by another team.
he would get picked up at the end of his contract because he is pretty good at his job. but like you said, if he struggles and gets waived, he will probably wash out.
i live in st louis and was a big kurt warner fan. he was uber religious to the point where it was kind of annoying. every interview every question was god this and jesus that. couldn't have won without jesus, etc. he never used his faith to attack or belittle anyone though. i think he is a very decent person and knows that if he publicly stated his beliefs on issues that are politically sensitive it would hurt him. butker and his ilk do not seem to have that kind of self awareness though.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
The Equal Pay Act of 1963: Protects against wage discrimination based on sex. (Over 60 years ago). Since then there have been countless laws and government regulation oversite of discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace. Women outnumbered men in the workplace for the first time in 2009. The Lilly Ledbetter Act: Backed up the equal rights act of 1963, and made things easier form women to sue companies who break the law by discriminating based on gender or sexual orientation. You live in La La Land and need a reality check if you think the "patriarchy" or all those "evil white men" are conspiring against you. They are not, stop blaming the faults in your lives on imagined outside enemies. Get real.
Missing the total hours worked and time off taken for various reasons, plus ignoring the law and illegality of not paying a person equal pay for equal work. This is what it all comes down to. Also, women strive for more positions of power. They desire no "equality" with physical laborious jobs. First responders, electricians, construction workers in the ninetieth percentile are men. Gee, I wonder why.
Post edited by dmaradona10 on
Las Cruces, NM Pan Am Center September 14, 1995
Albuquerque, NM Tingley Coliseum July 7, 1998
New York City, NY MSG May 20, 2010
Eddie Vedder Solo Albuquerque, NM November 9, 2012
Wrigley Field July 19, 2013
LA Nov. 23: 24, 2013
Denver 10-22-14
I'm a lifelong Chiefs fan, so I've seen a lot of viewpoints from the fanbase. Not surprisingly many are "defending" Butker and calling those who have a problem with his speech the "Woke Mob." My initial feelings were similar to Ed's, but I've backed off of the maliciousness I felt. It was disappointing as a fan to hear him express those opinions to female college graduates. The speech was all pre-calculated and he had to have known the blowback he was going to face. If not, he's a complete idiot. He's free to express his views using his platform, but it does come at a cost like most polarizing statements. If he wasn't prepared for the possibility of this affecting his football career then he's in for a rude awakening. It may not be this year, but if he struggles and the Chiefs release him I'll be anxious to see if he gets picked up by another team.
he would get picked up at the end of his contract because he is pretty good at his job. but like you said, if he struggles and gets waived, he will probably wash out.
i live in st louis and was a big kurt warner fan. he was uber religious to the point where it was kind of annoying. every interview every question was god this and jesus that. couldn't have won without jesus, etc. he never used his faith to attack or belittle anyone though. i think he is a very decent person and knows that if he publicly stated his beliefs on issues that are politically sensitive it would hurt him. butker and his ilk do not seem to have that kind of self awareness though.
I think Butker is of the same ilk as Warner in that he knew this response was likely. I've read the transcript of his speech and it is very well thought out. He had to have spent a lot of time putting it together and to understand what bed he was making for himself.
I wish I was a sacrifice, but somehow still lived on.
The Equal Pay Act of 1963: Protects against wage discrimination based on sex. (Over 60 years ago). Since then there have been countless laws and government regulation oversite of discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace. Women outnumbered men in the workplace for the first time in 2009. The Lilly Ledbetter Act: Backed up the equal rights act of 1963, and made things easier form women to sue companies who break the law by discriminating based on gender or sexual orientation. You live in La La Land and need a reality check if you think the "patriarchy" or all those "evil white men" are conspiring against you. They are not, stop blaming the faults in your lives on imagined outside enemies. Get real.
Missing the total hours worked and time off taken for various reasons, plus ignoring the law and illegality of not paying a person equal pay for equal work. This is what it all comes down to. Also, women strive for more positions of power. They desire no "equality" with physical laborious jobs. First responders, electricians, construction workers in the ninetieth percentile are men. Gee, I wonder why.
I'm sure you would be all for increased funding for the EEOC so that they could take a pro-active role in enforcing the law through auditing and inspection rather than a reactive role by waiting for a complaint to be filed? Much like the IRS can proactively audit certain classes of businesses, cash transactions, or certain income earners with a higher-than-average percent of tax cheats? Or the uber wealthy who are found not to pay their taxes? Right, you'd be all for an active EEOC, right? Unless you believe employers shouldn't be held accountable to the law or that the burden falls on the aggrieved employee?
Interestingly enough, the EEOC budget has increased over the years but its staffing has fallen. Kind of difficult to process and investigate claims without the staff available to do so. Maybe its because women earn the same as men and there's no issue? Hell, just eliminate the EEOC, who needs it?
Also, and last statement. If women wanted true equality they would join the Selective Service as every male is legally required to do when the turn 18. Women in the Ukraine do not have to fight in the war against Russia, however, men 18-67 are legally required to fight in a war. How come feminists are not pushing for women to be part of the Selective Service in the U.S.? The answer is obvious, they only are selective when it comes to true "equality."
Las Cruces, NM Pan Am Center September 14, 1995
Albuquerque, NM Tingley Coliseum July 7, 1998
New York City, NY MSG May 20, 2010
Eddie Vedder Solo Albuquerque, NM November 9, 2012
Wrigley Field July 19, 2013
LA Nov. 23: 24, 2013
Denver 10-22-14
I worry about some young women (teens to 20s or thereabouts) I see these days. Those who dress for seduction. I see this more and more. And a lot of the time, the young woman is with some guy who hangs his arm on her like she's a coat rack or a trophy. Sure, any guy will tell you a fit, attractive 16, 18, 22, whatever, year old girl wearing in a skimpy lacy little thing is going to look hot. Most any guy who says, "Nah, that's not true," is a liar.
Well, ok so look beyond that. What does that say about how that young lady sees herself and how she wants to be seen? Don't get me wrong- I'm not trying to be a puritan and I don't think there should be "a law against" wearing this or that. It's what a person projects and what someone prioritizes that I'm talking about.
Here's another scenario. I know a you woman who started dating the man who is now her husband. Someone else I know (the girls mom) was concerned and asked the guy, "So what attracted you to my daughter? Is it because she is beautiful?" He said, "Well actually, the first thing that attracted me to her is that she is smart and kind. The fact that she is beautiful just makes it even better." This young woman is savvy enough to know what counts the most, and projects qualities like being smart and kind. And her guy is smart enough to appreciate those qualities. And they have one of the best relationships of any young couple I know.
So which of these scenarios is the predominant one these days? I'm not sure, but I don't know that I would find the answer to that would be very encouraging.
Honestly there are certainly some over the top outifts...but I also don't think it is a girls responsibility to dress the way anyone else wants. We should probably try and teach young men to respect and not always sexualize women, especially in schools and the workplace. My daughter is a dancer and very comfortable in many outifts. I also know she scored a 36 on her ACT and will likely be an engineer.
I only worry if the girls/women are dressing FOR other people. As long as it's for themselves, very few issues
Well said, CIncy.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Also, and last statement. If women wanted true equality they would join the Selective Service as every male is legally required to do when the turn 18. Women in the Ukraine do not have to fight in the war against Russia, however, men 18-67 are legally required to fight in a war. How come feminists are not pushing for women to be part of the Selective Service in the U.S.? The answer is obvious, they only are selective when it comes to true "equality."
You don’t “join” the selective service. You “register.” It’s a legal requirement for males when they turn 18 or become a citizen before age 26. If you care so much about women “joining” the selective service, lobby your congressional representation to include women in this requirement. I’d fully support it. Women do serve in the military and while not in front line combat rolls, they have served in combat. I’m willing to wager that men and women in similar roles and same rank are paid the same whereas the same can’t be said of corporate America, despite the laws and regulations you’ve mentioned.
Sometimes the government, military in this case, is ahead of the curve and most times its behind societal aspirations.
The Equal Pay Act of 1963: Protects against wage discrimination based on sex. (Over 60 years ago). Since then there have been countless laws and government regulation oversite of discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace. Women outnumbered men in the workplace for the first time in 2009. The Lilly Ledbetter Act: Backed up the equal rights act of 1963, and made things easier form women to sue companies who break the law by discriminating based on gender or sexual orientation. You live in La La Land and need a reality check if you think the "patriarchy" or all those "evil white men" are conspiring against you. They are not, stop blaming the faults in your lives on imagined outside enemies. Get real.
Missing the total hours worked and time off taken for various reasons, plus ignoring the law and illegality of not paying a person equal pay for equal work. This is what it all comes down to. Also, women strive for more positions of power. They desire no "equality" with physical laborious jobs. First responders, electricians, construction workers in the ninetieth percentile are men. Gee, I wonder why.
Also, and last statement. If women wanted true equality they would join the Selective Service as every male is legally required to do when the turn 18. Women in the Ukraine do not have to fight in the war against Russia, however, men 18-67 are legally required to fight in a war. How come feminists are not pushing for women to be part of the Selective Service in the U.S.? The answer is obvious, they only are selective when it comes to true "equality."
Comments
Again (for the third time), clearly you haven't looked at my link with an abundance of evidence of inequality. I'm not stuck in a time warp - you're refusing to look at the evidence that shows you as incorrect. I don't give a fuck about the legality, I care about the reality that's observed today.
Marijuana is federally illegal in the United States - does that mean there's no marijuana consumption in the USA? Give me a break.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
The Lilly Ledbetter Act: Backed up the equal rights act of 1963, and made things easier form women to sue companies who break the law by discriminating based on gender or sexual orientation.
You live in La La Land and need a reality check if you think the "patriarchy" or all those "evil white men" are conspiring against you. They are not, stop blaming the faults in your lives on imagined outside enemies. Get real.
https://www.eeoc.gov/fact-sheet/federal-laws-prohibiting-job-discrimination-questions-and-answers
Albuquerque, NM Tingley Coliseum July 7, 1998
New York City, NY MSG May 20, 2010
Eddie Vedder Solo Albuquerque, NM November 9, 2012
Wrigley Field July 19, 2013
LA Nov. 23: 24, 2013
Denver 10-22-14
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/03/01/the-enduring-grip-of-the-gender-pay-gap/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I only worry if the girls/women are dressing FOR other people. As long as it's for themselves, very few issues
Get real.
Gender gains and gaps in the US, ahead of Women's History Month | Pew Research Center
The Gender Wage Gap Endures in the U.S. | Pew Research Center
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
i live in st louis and was a big kurt warner fan. he was uber religious to the point where it was kind of annoying. every interview every question was god this and jesus that. couldn't have won without jesus, etc. he never used his faith to attack or belittle anyone though. i think he is a very decent person and knows that if he publicly stated his beliefs on issues that are politically sensitive it would hurt him. butker and his ilk do not seem to have that kind of self awareness though.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Albuquerque, NM Tingley Coliseum July 7, 1998
New York City, NY MSG May 20, 2010
Eddie Vedder Solo Albuquerque, NM November 9, 2012
Wrigley Field July 19, 2013
LA Nov. 23: 24, 2013
Denver 10-22-14
Interestingly enough, the EEOC budget has increased over the years but its staffing has fallen. Kind of difficult to process and investigate claims without the staff available to do so. Maybe its because women earn the same as men and there's no issue? Hell, just eliminate the EEOC, who needs it?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Albuquerque, NM Tingley Coliseum July 7, 1998
New York City, NY MSG May 20, 2010
Eddie Vedder Solo Albuquerque, NM November 9, 2012
Wrigley Field July 19, 2013
LA Nov. 23: 24, 2013
Denver 10-22-14
Well said, CIncy.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
2003: 4/29 Albany, 5/2 Buffalo, 7/9 MSG 2 2006: 5/12 Albany, 6/3 East Rutherford 2
2008: 6/27 Hartford 2009: 10/27 Philadelphia 1 2010: 5/15 Hartford, 5/21 MSG 2
2013: 10/15 Worcester 1, 10/25 Hartford 2014: 10/1 Cincinnati
2018: 9/2 Fenway 1
2024: 9/3 MSG 1, 9/4 MSG 2 , 9/15 Fenway 1, 9/17 Fenway 2