Women's Rights Movement

[jman507]

Other possibly ways to increase pay for women, is to give full custody to the man after the divorce. That keeps time conflicts lower. There is also the benefit of having to pay child support, so there is a build in incentive to have to work more. Work more, get more experience, and that can help in a promotion and pay raise.

 

[Aleii]

From your link:

Statistics like these are meant to mislead. We are not told, for example, that a large percentage of women receive their college degrees in fields that WILL earn them less than men. Women are 53 times more likely than men to get master’s degrees in education rather than higher paying fields like engineering, finance, physical sciences, plumber, etc.
There is a much greater discrepancy in wages between never married men and married (62 cents to the dollar) than there is between women and men (80 cents to the dollar). If studies such as the one cited above focused on the employment choices many women make, such as choosing flexible hours, fulfilling jobs, or working fewer hours, or being unwilling to move to undesirable locations, or taking more family leave, it would be clear that these personal prefereces explain disparaities in average wages.

Women are less than half as likely as men to work for over fifty hours a week. On average, working men work about 43 hours a week while women spend about 37 hours a week on the job. Working women are 8 times as likely as men to spend 4 or more years our of the labor force and nearly 9 times as likely to leave work for 6 months or longer for family reasons. The feminist misinformation campaign wants you to believe that women are not being paid equally for the same jobs. But the truth is they want women to get the same pay for doing different jobs then men.

And my grandmother also went to work after her husband killed himself. What does that prove? I imagine everyone on CAF has a story like this but it certainly doesn’t apply to the issue here. Women have always been able to work for a living. My grandmother chose to work as a cook in a neighborhood bar rather than go back to school and get a degree in something that might have earned her more money. Feminism did not “grant” my grandmother the right to work or go to school or earn money.

Interesting how you quoted pretty much every part of the link except the part that I specifically quoted in my post to counter your statement that society has more than made up for discrimination in the work place. Here it is again in case you happened to have missed it:
“Between one-third and one-half of the wage gap between men and women cannot be explained by differences in experience, education, or other justifiable credentials, according to the National Academy of Sciences. If pay inequity were eliminated, poverty rates in the U.S. would drop by more than half.”
quote from: nh.gov/csw/resources/publ…_fact_pay.html

The discrimination comes about when glass ceilings and difference in pay for equal work with equal qualifications exist. You still have not told me how society has more than made up for this discrimination.

The point of my story was to say that it is important for women to make enough money to be able to support their families if need be. It is not right to say that a man doing a job should earn more than a women doing the same one with the same qualifications, when both may very well be counting on the paycheck to support their families.

edit: maternity leave is a big positive too. I’m not saying feminism gave women the ability to work, just that it widely increased the possibilities for women to work, and be protected at work. I am very curious as to how you see working towards equal pay and FMLA and other protections as a negative, as you said that nothing positive came from feminism.

 

[blessedtoo]

Interesting how you quoted pretty much every part of the link except the part that I specifically quoted in my post to counter your statement that society has more than made up for discrimination in the work place. Here it is again in case you happened to have missed it:
"Between one-third and one-half of the wage gap between men and women cannot be explained by differences in experience, education, or other justifiable credentials, according to the National Academy of Sciences.

I thought I did address your quotation. Percentages like these do not take into account the fact that

On average, working men work about 43 hours a week while women spend about 37 hours a week on the job. Working women are 8 times as likely as men to spend 4 or more years our of the labor force and nearly 9 times as likely to leave work for 6 months or longer for family reasons.

or

If studies such as the one cited above focused on the employment choices many women make, such as choosing flexible hours, fulfilling jobs, or working fewer hours, or being unwilling to move to undesirable locations, or taking more family leave, it would be clear that these personal prefereces explain disparaities in average wages.

In addition, what is a vague phrase like “justifiable credentials” supposed to mean? While women may be obtaining degrees in greater number than men, what are their chosen careers? If 95 percent of nurses are women, but 42% of higher paid nurse anesthetists are men, is that gender inequality? Or is it just that women are choosing carrers that offer a lower salary. Male doctors are more likely to specialize and be in private practive, while female doctors tend to favor jobs as salaried employees. Female veterinarians work fewer hours and are less interested in owning a practice than men. Studies that promote the idea of unequal pay are agenda driven and do not take into account that women, for the most part, have different priorities when choosing their careers.

The discrimination comes about when glass ceilings and difference in pay for equal work with equal qualifications exist. You still have not told me how society has more than made up for this discrimination.

Since the Equal Pay Act of 1963, sex discrimination in hiring, promotion, or pay has been illegal. If it is true, as you are contending, that women with similar educations, skills and job experience work at jobs for salaries that are less than men would demand, American employers are guilty and should be brought to court. But if this assertion is true, one would have to wonder why then wouldn’t all employers hire a cheap female-only work force, and bury their competition? After all, if this problem is so rampant, why isn’t the blue-collar work force dominated by women? Wouldn’t a contractor make a larger profit if he could hire an all female work force and pay them less? It doesn’t happen for two reasons: because it is illegal AND because women, by and large, are not interested in doing this type of work. Is that gender bias?

maternity leave is a big positive too.

I usually get slammed for this but I’ll say it anyway. Maternity leave may be a “big positive” for the employee but it is not for the business owner. From a purely business standpoint, if an employer interviews a man and a woman for the same position, with the same qualifications, it would not be in his best interest to hire the woman because chances are, she will be requiring more time off, more flex-time, more family leave. As I said, from a business standpoint, this is not a positive. In my state, they are currently voting on a bill that would force more money from our paychecks to pay for other employees who want to take time off to care for sick “relatives, friends, companions, etc.” What ever happened to the concept of personal responsibiltiy? Why are business owners and taxpayers expected to pick up the tab for people who wish to take leave from work? And who are the people who take this leave? The majority are women.

I am very curious as to how you see working towards equal pay and FMLA and other protections as a negative, as you said that nothing positive came from feminism.

As I stated above, the Equal Pay Act protects women from pay discrimination. If such a thing existed, and were as widespread as the feminists would have you believe, our courts would be jammed with cases (yes, I am aware of the Walmart suit). I am not saying that in the early 60’s, when this law was enacted, there weren’t cases of discrimination. What I am saying is that the current battle cry of unequal pay is a lie and one that the radical feminists hang onto in order to foster this notion of female “victimization”. Modern feminists do not really believe in choices for women: unless the choices women make are in complete agreement with their anti-tradition doctrines.

 

[hasikelee]

Actually, I think her whole argument is summed up by this:

It’s better to be dead than poor.

Poor people should be exterminated before they can be a burden on others.

Being poor is a fate worse than death, and poor people are all miserable and beaten-down.

We should redistribute all the wealth in this country so that no one is poor-- and if we aren’t willing to do that then we should kill poor people.

(Remember, Jesus said the poor would always be with us. We should certainlly help poor people-- but we will never eliminate poverty. And, we shoudl remember that “Happy are the poor in spirit”.)

Sheesh, that’s an old argument! Lots of people have used it, too, such as Campbell, Hitler, Sanger, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Stalin…wasn’t it even Thomas Jefferson himself who conservatively said we should move slowly on the salvery issue as it was better to be a slave well-treated than a poor man?

It’s funny how this is such an age old argument. All things are old under this sun. But how come it seems no one can learn from the past?

 

[heavenly]

Your “summary” of what I said is your interpretation. And a wild one at that. I just don’t like communities shirking their responsibility to unwed/pregnant women, and while current efforts are admirable, albeit insuficent.I’ve seen the impact years later in clinics with screwed up kids. The last thing I would want to be is a totalitarian socialist, or any form of totalitarianism. Yes it is okay to be poor rather than dead but try telling that to mothers of kids in ther mental health system, poor, single, whose children are now dead. In a sense my whole working life was a prayer for them. We all fall short in helping the least of us. I have not spent a lot of time helping rich or middle class people with resources.

 

[Catholig]

Your “summary” of what I said is your interpretation. And a wild one at that. I just don’t like communities shirking their responsibility to unwed/pregnant women, and while current efforts are admirable, albeit insuficent.I’ve seen the impact years later in clinics with screwed up kids. The last thing I would want to be is a totalitarian socialist, or any form of totalitarianism. Yes it is okay to be poor rather than dead but try telling that to mothers of kids in ther mental health system, poor, single, whose children are now dead. In a sense my whole working life was a prayer for them. We all fall short in helping the least of us. I have not spent a lot of time helping rich or middle class people with resources.

Heavenly, I only quoted what you said, and told you how I interpreted it. I simply disagree with the argument that every expense should be paid, because it is so commonly used by the pro-abortion crowd. We should concentrate on illegalizing abortion.

Catholig

 

[migurl]

A woman doesn’t have the right to birth control. That would suggest that she could walk up to a pharmicist and demand it without a perscription and without paying for it. Sure, there are some OTC methods, but that is not a right. A right is something that cannot be denied or taken away from us wihtout due process. BC is a product, not a right

 

[Kaninchen]

A woman doesn’t have the right to birth control. That would suggest that she could walk up to a pharmicist and demand it without a perscription and without paying for it. Sure, there are some OTC methods, but that is not a right. A right is something that cannot be denied or taken away from us wihtout due process. BC is a product, not a right

There are people happy to sell and to buy certain goods, so how would the trade be prevented without due process?

I would suggest that if you wanted to establish a clear statement of a right to birth control products, proposing to ban them would be one of the swiftest ways.

 

[1ke]

There are people happy to sell and to buy certain goods, so how would the trade be prevented without due process?

I would suggest that if you wanted to establish a clear statement of a right to birth control products, proposing to ban them would be one of the swiftest ways.

Perhaps you are unaware that contraception was illegal in the U.S. until as recently as the 1960s.

 

[Kaninchen]

Perhaps you are unaware that contraception was illegal in the U.S. until as recently as the 1960s.

That’s not actually correct. What changed in the 1960’s (and 1970’s for unmarrieds) were decisions that the right to privacy precluded their illegality.

Meanwhile, how can the right to provide/acquire be made illegal without ‘due process’? How do you rank the chances of birth control being made illegal alongside the chances of the proverbial ‘cat in hell’?