The "War on Women"

[Larry]

Larry would you consider claiming silence from the GOP on the matter honest?

I'll point out that his statement can be interpreted two ways.

(If one person speaks up, and nobody else does, than was that a case of "one person spoke up, but the entirety was silent"?)

But I agree, absolute statements are rarely true. (And are real easy to disprove.)

----------

OTOH, his larger point is valid. (And, I observe, undisputed by you.)

When GOP legislatures in some of the more famous Red States make headlines by going even further on the Crazy Scale than the previous title holder, I don't see a whole lot of the GOP doing facepalms at the stupidity of their lunatic fringe.

When was the last time a GOP incumbent was successfully kicked out of office, by a fellow Republican, for being too extreme?

Heck, has the bulk of the GOP actually admitted that the Birthers are kooks, yet?

[HeluCopter29]

The way I understand the repeal of the Wisconsin law is that it made it harder to sue in state court for the redress of wage grievances. Of course you can still sue in federal court, and I don't know of any push to repeal that.

I would assert that the dishonesty regarding wages comes from the left. My kids probably know that "women earn 77 cents for every dollar a man earns." And I suspect there's a very good reason that THAT is the rallying cry as opposed to, "female teachers earn one dollar for every dollar a male teacher in the same position with the same qualifications earns."

The issue is that woman are less likely to get higher position jobs. And when they do, they get payed less on average. If you wanted to average the two issues (which I don't know how you would do exactly) you'd probably see that woman get payed 90 cents to the mans dollar. Which, yes is better then 77 cents but better doesn't mean good.

[Larry]

The issue is that woman are less likely to get higher position jobs. And when they do, they get payed less on average. If you wanted to average the two issues (which I don't know how you would do exactly) you'd probably see that woman get payed 90 cents to the mans dollar. Which, yes is better then 77 cents but better doesn't mean good.

My ethics class actually touched on the pay equality issue some. And there were some interesting points made.

They pointed out that, for example, far more women have taken time off, like, a year or longer, to start a family. Whereas very few men do. And that doing something like that really hurts somebody's future earnings levels.

Very few people get to be CEOs of major corporations, if they've taken a couple of years off on their resumes. There's simply too many candidates who don't have that on their resumes.

The claim was that women are less likely to put in the long hours that men put in, when they're competing to be the next partner in the Firm. Things like that.

In short, it seems at least possible that part, maybe a big part, of the wage differential is due to choices that the average woman makes in her career.

(Many of the writers in my Ethics class looked at this fact, and concluded that this proves that employers are being sexist, by judging candidates based on tings like how much overtime they've put in. That this somehow proves that men have "rigged the game", by judging people based on things that men are better at. Others concluded that obviously what was needed was for employers to change the way they do business, so that things like showing up for work on time aren't important to the company.)

(I disagreed with many such assertions. I was of the opinion that it's not discriminatory for an employer to evaluate employees based on whether they show up for work or not.)

But yes, it's certainly possible that part. maybe a big part, of that wage differential isn't because of widespread discrimination against women.

----------

That said, though ,we;re talking the politics of "The War on Women".

When a Republican legislator, as he's voting to repeal the equal pay for women law, publicly states that he's doing it because women don't need equal pay, because they aren't breadwinners, like men are, are you really shocked when women think they're being attacked?

[twa]

That said, though ,we;re talking the politics of "The War on Women".

When a Republican legislator, as he's voting to repeal the equal pay for women law, publicly states that he's doing it because women don't need equal pay, because they aren't breadwinners, like men are, are you really shocked when women think they're being attacked?

That would be excellent proof of idiots in office,but not necessarily a war on women.

and since the idiot thing is already well established ....

[Kindred]

GOP:

1. No, you can't have contraception.

2. When you get pregnant, you don't get to choose if you have an abortion or not.

3. If you end up a single mother, you could be considered a child abuser.

Wisconsin Lawmaker Introduces Law To Classify Single Parenthood As Child Abuse: Chicagoist

http://chicagoist.com/2012/03/07/wi_grothman_parenthood_abuse.php

[twa]

your link is not working

and judging from this

https://regator.com/p/255211736/wisconsin_lawmaker_introduces_law_to_classify_single_parenthood/

you are mistaken or misrepresenting it

[Teller]

And yet the entirety of the GOP is silent, where are the national GOP voice lending their voices to the women?

It is exactly like when McCain was giving speeches and people would scream out that Obama was a communist or socialist or a Kenyan...he was silent...why? He could have offered leadership and a counter voice to the stupidity...instead he grimmaced and then went on.

To go along with Spearfeather's correction, I'll add another:

[Burgold]

Yeah, I respected McCain for that moment. He may have waited a bit long to have it, but when he was directly confronted with that type of ignorance, he stood up to it. Overall, there are way too many who happily stay silent while the insane or the maliscious rant and curse.

[Larry]

your link is not working

and judging from this

https://regator.com/p/255211736/wisconsin_lawmaker_introduces_law_to_classify_single_parenthood/

you are mistaken or misrepresenting it

Yeah, you're right.

He only introduced legislation, demanding that the government CLAIM that single parenting CAUSES child abuse.

[twa]

A contributing factor is not the cause

going by statistics it is a precursor....kinda like smoking and cancer

[Teller]

Yeah, I respected McCain for that moment. He may have waited a bit long to have it, but when he was directly confronted with that type of ignorance, he stood up to it. Overall, there are way too many who happily stay silent while the insane or the maliscious rant and curse.

Kinda makes me wish we could hear, oh, I don't know, the President of the United States say "The GOP isn't waging war on women. We just have policy differences."

[HeluCopter29]

That would be excellent proof of idiots in office,but not necessarily a war on women.

and since the idiot thing is already well established ....

Jon Stewart is not a news caster by any means, but he did have a nice synopsis that was already in post #2 but I'll repost it here.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-april-16-2012/the-battle-for-the-war-on-women

I'd agree with you, it's not a "war on women" but there's good reason for calling it that. If there's gonna be a "War on Christmas" or a "War on Fisherman" a "War on Chocolate Milk" and a "War on Spuds," then perhaps an issue like equality, which hopefully takes precedent over all of those, should also be classified as a war.

Like it or not, the word war has a new definition.

---------- Post added May-13th-2012 at 08:18 PM ----------

Kinda makes me wish we could hear, oh, I don't know, the President of the United States say "The GOP isn't waging war on women. We just have policy differences."

I think I'd like to hear that from every politician.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2_mH8bNZNg

[Larry]

A contributing factor is not the cause

going by statistics it is a precursor....kinda like smoking and cancer

Low income is a factor, too.

Obviously, we should be slashing support to low-income mothers everywhere the GOP has power, huh?

[twa]

Low income is a factor, too.

Obviously, we should be slashing support to low-income mothers everywhere the GOP has power, huh?

Where do you come up with slashing support?

the proposed bill simply inserts it in the committees verbage

[Larry]

Where do you come up with slashing support?

From the rest of the War on Women. .

You want to claim that the GOP isn't waging War on support? Food stamps? Things like that?

[twa]

From the rest of the War on Women. .

You want to claim that the GOP isn't waging War on support? Food stamps? Things like that?

Thats the war on the poor , we don't discriminate by sex

Pain is weakness leaving the body....we don't enable weakness

[Teller]

From the rest of the War on Women. .

You want to claim that the GOP isn't waging War on support? Food stamps? Things like that?

Support? Like child support? That war is being fully waged on non-custodial parents, who are overwhelmingly fathers. Obama promised half the tax credit for fathers paying child support. What we got was stepped up enforcement.

And again, I didn't realize only women used food stamps. I should execute some citizens arrests next time I go to the market.

[endzone_dave]

From the rest of the War on Women. .

You want to claim that the GOP isn't waging War on support? Food stamps? Things like that?

Waging war on our crippling budget deficit might be a better way to say it.

[nonniey]

The issue is that woman are less likely to get higher position jobs. And when they do, they get payed less on average. If you wanted to average the two issues (which I don't know how you would do exactly) you'd probably see that woman get payed 90 cents to the mans dollar. Which, yes is better then 77 cents but better doesn't mean good.

And you are completely wrong. On average women actually make more than men when in the same position for the same amount of time. The big discrepencies come from the amount of hours a man works versus women and the professions each gravitate too. Men make up a disproportionate amount of engineering and higher paying hazardous jobs. Are you arguing all jobs should be equal in pay?

[Burgold]

Kinda makes me wish we could hear, oh, I don't know, the President of the United States say "The GOP isn't waging war on women. We just have policy differences."

Here's the thing... I'm not sure the GOP isn't. I'm honestly not. The number of bills aimed at women's rights is staggering. The language may be slightly hyperbolic, but the impact and attacks are certainly very concrete and real.

[HeluCopter29]

And you are completely wrong. On average women actually make more than men when in the same position for the same amount of time. The big discrepencies come from the amount of hours a man works versus women and the professions each gravitate too. Men make up a disproportionate amount of engineering and higher paying hazardous jobs. Are you arguing all jobs should be equal in pay?

Well if they did then there wouldn't be a call for an equal pay act, would there?

And no, I'm not arguing that all jobs should be equal in pay.

[Teller]

Well if they did then there wouldn't be a call for an equal pay act, would there?

I don't know. I haven't heard any calls to offer more scholarships for men only to balance out college enrollment and graduation rates.

[HeluCopter29]

I don't know. I haven't heard any calls to offer more scholarships for men only to balance out college enrollment and graduation rates.

Affirimitive Action plays a major role with race, not with sex.

[Teller]

Affirimitive Action plays a major role with race, not with sex.

Who said anything about affirmative action? You want fair pay laws based on sex, why not do a reverse Title IX and say state funded schools that have sex-based scholarships must offer them in equal numbers?

There I go again, wanting everyone treated the same. I'm sorry.

[twa]

affirmative action includes females