Eddie Vedder's Reaction to KC Chiefs Kicker Harrison Butker Benedictine College Speech in LV Night 2
Comments
-
God speed...HughFreakingDillon said:I don't care about Ed's language. he was spot on. and my daughters have and will hear the same message from me, day in, and day out. fuck misogyny and the patriarchy.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 10-22-140 -
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.benjs said:
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.bootlegger10 said: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.
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').Post edited by dmaradona10 onLas 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 10-22-140 -
pjhawks said:Ed's message would been more powerful if he hadn't said he looked like a... that is what all the stories are focusing on instead of the message. that being said Butker's views are that of an extreme religious nature. as said above he is a nutjob. Patrick Mahomes was quoted before all this that he doesn't talk to Butker at all. Like they sit next to each other at the training table and he wouldn't talk to him. So I'm thinking he comes off pretty nutty even to his teammates.
Looks like Mahomes came out in support of Butker, calling him "a good guy and teammate." There are articles about it today.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 10-22-140 -
Everything you wrote is empirically false.dmaradona10 said:
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.benjs said:
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.bootlegger10 said: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.
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').Gender gains and gaps in the US, ahead of Women's History Month | Pew Research Center
'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 10 -
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."benjs said:
Everything you wrote is empirically false.dmaradona10 said:
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.benjs said:
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.bootlegger10 said: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.
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').Gender gains and gaps in the US, ahead of Women's History Month | Pew Research Center
Post edited by dmaradona10 onLas 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 10-22-140 -
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.dmaradona10 said:
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."benjs said:
Everything you wrote is empirically false.dmaradona10 said:
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.benjs said:
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.bootlegger10 said: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.
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').Gender gains and gaps in the US, ahead of Women's History Month | Pew Research Center
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 10 -
dmaradona10 said:
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."benjs said:
Everything you wrote is empirically false.dmaradona10 said:
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.benjs said:
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.bootlegger10 said: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.
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').Gender gains and gaps in the US, ahead of Women's History Month | Pew Research Center
right.and yet......._____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
Yep. Takes literally seconds to find the facts that support the notion of gender inequality in the USA, backed up by statistics. I guess that's too much for some.mickeyrat said:dmaradona10 said:
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."benjs said:
Everything you wrote is empirically false.dmaradona10 said:
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.benjs said:
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.bootlegger10 said: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.
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').Gender gains and gaps in the US, ahead of Women's History Month | Pew Research Center
right.and yet.......'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 10 -
benjs said:
Yep. Takes literally seconds to find the facts that support the notion of gender inequality in the USA, backed up by statistics. I guess that's too much for some.mickeyrat said:dmaradona10 said:
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."benjs said:
Everything you wrote is empirically false.dmaradona10 said:
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.benjs said:
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.bootlegger10 said: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.
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').Gender gains and gaps in the US, ahead of Women's History Month | Pew Research Center
right.and yet.......
Like the equal pay act of 1963. 1963!! and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act under Obama. You can keep claiming "inequality" all you want, because that what you do and that's what you want. The laws are clear on this and have been for decades, like I have said and pointed out three times now.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 10-22-140 -
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.benjs said:
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.dmaradona10 said:
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."benjs said:
Everything you wrote is empirically false.dmaradona10 said:
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.benjs said:
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.bootlegger10 said: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.
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').Gender gains and gaps in the US, ahead of Women's History Month | Pew Research Center
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 10-22-140 -
"More women in the workforce since the Obama era"? Reduction in disparity is not the same as attaining equality.dmaradona10 said:
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.benjs said:
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.dmaradona10 said:
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."benjs said:
Everything you wrote is empirically false.dmaradona10 said:
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.benjs said:
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.bootlegger10 said: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.
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').Gender gains and gaps in the US, ahead of Women's History Month | Pew Research Center
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 10 -
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?benjs said:
"More women in the workforce since the Obama era"? Reduction in disparity is not the same as attaining equality.dmaradona10 said:
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.benjs said:
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.dmaradona10 said:
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."benjs said:
Everything you wrote is empirically false.dmaradona10 said:
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.benjs said:
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.bootlegger10 said: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.
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').Gender gains and gaps in the US, ahead of Women's History Month | Pew Research Center
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.0 -
Also your misstating/misunderstanding about how marijuana laws work in the US doesn't inspire confidence in your ability to interpret studiesbenjs said:
"More women in the workforce since the Obama era"? Reduction in disparity is not the same as attaining equality.dmaradona10 said:
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.benjs said:
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.dmaradona10 said:
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."benjs said:
Everything you wrote is empirically false.dmaradona10 said:
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.benjs said:
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.bootlegger10 said: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.
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').Gender gains and gaps in the US, ahead of Women's History Month | Pew Research Center
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.0 -
benjs said:
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.bootlegger10 said: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.
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.0 -
Do you think it’s legal to hire and fire based in race and gender?Lerxst1992 said:benjs said:
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.bootlegger10 said: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.
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.0 -
Women. The new other.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
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."It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0
-
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.
https://www.eeoc.gov/fact-sheet/federal-laws-prohibiting-job-discrimination-questions-and-answers
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 10-22-140 -
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?dmaradona10 said: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.
https://www.eeoc.gov/fact-sheet/federal-laws-prohibiting-job-discrimination-questions-and-answers
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/03/01/the-enduring-grip-of-the-gender-pay-gap/
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
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.brianlux said: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.
I only worry if the girls/women are dressing FOR other people. As long as it's for themselves, very few issueshippiemom = goodness0
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 278 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help