The Politics Sexual Assault Thread

[LadySkinsFan]

54 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

IMO, the Trump tape and his subsequent election is what lead to this moment.

 

 

It certainly motivated women to speak up, plus the Women's March really motivated people to refuse to put up with this ****. 

 

People were motivated to run this year, and the success of the elections this year confirms that there can be change. The defeat of the bill to repeal the ACA, and if the Republicans manage to screw up the economy with this stupid tax bill will further motivate more people to run. 

 

The Republicans may win this battle but lose the war. They just don't know it yet.

[Predicto]

4 hours ago, Busch1724 said:

 

Now that's a finishing move!

 

What should it be called?

 

Last question, I wonder if Ric Flair has ever thought of such an in ring move? 

 

[visionary]

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

5 hours ago, Busch1724 said:

Now that's a finishing move!

 

What should it be called?

 

Last question, I wonder if Ric Flair has ever thought of such an in ring move? 

I believe that move is called the California Potato Chip. It’s been outlawed since Jimmy Garvin started using it backstage on the boys in the ring crew.

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

[Burgold]

Quote

61% of registered voters say they believe the accusations against Trump are mostly true: http://cnn.it/2kGL3Uz

.Personally, if I had to guess, I'd say they are understated and what Trump has done is much worse than what we know and too many, many more individuals.

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Riggo-toni]

[LadySkinsFan]

Some find it hard to keep their hands to themselves without an explicit Yes. 

[visionary]

 

[LD0506]

 

[Cooked Crack]

Probably not political but just in case.

[Bozo the kKklown]

34 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

Probably not political but just in case.

Its definitely political.

 

Shows how messed up this country is, especially the lunatics on the right.

[LadySkinsFan]

So it seems as though a lot of media men who have been fired for sexual assault/harassment were also involved in media messaging during the 2016 election season. In particular they harped upon Clinton's emails and server, her trustworthiness, and fitness to be president. 

 

https://shareblue.com/7th-man-who-controlled-clinton-media-coverage-ousted-for-predatory-behavior/#.WlJJf1HwlLQ.facebook

 

Misogyny is alive and well. 

 

And judging from the Women's March and 2017 election season, there will be adjustments made.

 

Of note, Iceland has mandated, starting the first of this year, that women and men will be paid the same.  None of the stupid, fanciful reasons that exist in the U.S. to keep women's wages and thus retirement depressed.

Edited January 7, 2018 by LadySkinsFan

[Burgold]

2 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

 

Of note, Iceland has mandated, starting the first of this year, that women and men will be paid the same.  None of the stupid, fanciful reasons that exist in the U.S. to keep women's wages and thus retirement depressed.

The pay thing really doesn't make sense to me. If a person can do the same job with the same quality and has the been doing the same number of years why should we care what color or gender or religion they are. I think it's even more ridiculous in this age where the expectation is not that someone will get a job and stay with the company for thirty years. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

So this is my understanding on the man vs women pay issue and please correct me if I am wrong @LadySkinsFan.  I'm honestly asking.

 

Two situations.  1. John and Sara both went to the same school, got the same grades, etc.  They have both worked at Buzz Corp (LLC) for 5 years and have performed the exact same, moved up the ladder at the same time, etc.  They are the exact same except for their naughty bits.  They both get paid the same and most don't have an issue with this.  2.  John and Sara both go to the same school, grades, etc like above but 3 years into their career, Sara takes 6 months off to start a family.  She now has less experience than John.  In that time, John got a promotion and now makes more than Sara.  OR they both leave Buzz Corp and apply for a job at @Burgold Corp.  Burgold Corp offers John more because he has more experience.  

 

Obviously this an overly simplified version but you catch what I'm saying.  Often women get paid less because they likely have less experience due to starting a family.  It is rare that a company will blatantly pay a equally qualified women less because that opens them up for a huge lawsuit.  Now all of this is from what my wife explained to me years ago when discussing the issue.  She is a semi-big wig at an HR company so I'm assuming she knows what she is talking about.  But there also may have been something I missed or didn't get mentioned.

[LadySkinsFan]

You are exactly describing the excuses used by most of the world to pay women less, because of unequal pay policies.

 

Corporations have been using these so-called discrimators to pay women less. They are called discrimators because they discriminate.

 

Example: way back when, only men were secretaries. When executives figured that they could hire women at less wages than men, they kicked men up to the executive suite and hired women. After all, it was men who supported their families and needed higher wages, except there were female heads of household who needed to support their families too.

 

Iceland says that women and men now get the same pay regardless of these excuses. If men and women are hired to do the same job, they get the same pay.

[Burgold]

I don’t think that’s it. I think Mary and Joe graduated together with the same GPA, the same work experiences and the same internships, but Joe is considered the bigger catch and is offered a higher starting salary because the company is worried that Mary might one day get married and move if her hubby gets a job offer or leave if she gets pregnant. No consideration is given to the idea that Joe could get married and might have to move because of his wife’s career or that he’d ever take time off for family. 

 

I know now this sounds pretty 1960’s but I recently was reviewing some articles for the American Sociology Association and this is the logic 2016 HR committees were bandying about... not on hypothetical candidates, but with real ones. 

 

In fact, superior female candidates were discarded in favor of males if the committee discovered that the female had so much as a boyfriend. And they would scan social media to see if they might. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

3 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

You are exactly describing the excuses used by most of the world to pay women less, because of unequal pay policies.

 

So is there anything else that goes into it?  I want to understand before I form an opinion.  But right now I'm inclined to support paying someone less if they have less experience no matter the reason.  I also fully support a women (or anyone for that matter) suing the crap out of said company if they can show they are the same/more qualified but getting paid less just because of their gender (or race, or sexual orientation, etc).

[TheGreatBuzz]

3 minutes ago, Burgold said:

I don’t think that’s it. I think Mary and Joe graduated together with the same GPA, the same work experiences and the same internships, but Joe is considered the bigger catch and is offered a higher starting salary because the company is worried that Mary might one day get married and move if her hubby gets a job offer or leave if she gets pregnant. No consideration is given to the idea that Joe could get married and might have to move because of his wife’s career or that he’d ever take time off for family. 

 

I know now this sounds pretty 1960’s but I recently was reviewing some articles for the American Sociology Association and this is the logic 2016 HR committees were bandying about... not on hypothetical candidates, but with real ones. 

 

In fact, superior female candidates were discarded in favor of males if the committee discovered that the female had so much as a boyfriend. And they would scan social media to see if they might. 

I had not heard of this.  Thanks for sharing.  Wouldn't that open up the company to a huge lawsuit though?  I'm going to ask my wife how much she has seen this and how it is dealt with.  She has a lot of big clients (Emmitt Smith was one of her clients, don't know if he still is.  I came home one day and she was on the phone.  She muted it to tell me she was on the phone with him.  I told her to tell him I said "**** dallas" ).  I do know that when she brings on new clients she always tells me about things they are doing that they are lucky they didn't get sued.  Apparently the popular thing right now is to hire someone as a "contractor"  (a 1099?) so you don't have to deal with their taxes, etc.  But then you can't give them work hours, uniform requirements, etc.  But a lot of companys do anyways not realizing it's actually illegal.

[Burgold]

I will say what I didn’t like about the above study is that they used a case study approach. The researchers only looked at three HR departments. So, generalizability is pretty limited. 

I had the same questions, Buzz. Some of the quoted interview questions didn’t seem legal or right to me at all. 

[LadySkinsFan]

Pay excuses are subjective, right? Who's to say that someone who went to Wharton received a better education than someone who went to a state university? Trump went to Wharton and he's squandered his education, apparently didn't learn anything. His methods of bilking his subs, constantly filing bankruptcy aren't standard business practices.

 

These excuses are so ingrained that people can't see that they are discriminatory.

It's like the Rooney Rule, that teams have to interview minority candidates. The rule can be waived by paying a fine.  Wonder what fine the Raiders have to pay?