Women's Rights Movement

[litllulu]

Yes, these are excellent points :tiphat: You should also remind them who the majority of abortion patients are, the minorities pariticularly African Americans. Demonstrate that although AA are only less than 10% (not totally sure, look it up though) of the total population, they account for more than 80% of abortions. Also mention that abortion and “family planning” clinics are almost exclusive to poor cities with high volumes of minorites. Do a bit of research on Margaret Sanger. She is the patron saint of PP. She was heavily into Eugenics. She believed that we should stop the poor and the minorities (including Italians at the time ) from reproducing. The word “eugenics” means “good birth”. She believed in Nazi-ism. Look her up. This is indisputable evidence of the culture of death.
Also, there is an excelent book about the Slavery Abortion link. Just google it or look on Amazon.com for it. This is great too. It shows the comonalities betweent the two atrocities that both got the Supreme Court’s vote. Check it out. This is the way to win the liberals. Just look at history and the effects of the evil people!

The book is called "Extremism Triumphant, The Politics of Slavery and Abortion"

 

[hasikelee]

Lol! I am about to get into this segment in my history class, too.

Unfortunately, I accidentally already tagged myself. As the teacher was lecturing on the 19th century and the plight of Africans after the Civil War, along with the industrial age of abuses, she asked the class, “We have here racism, social darwinism, monopolies, lynching, propaganda. Who does this remind you of?”

Look, it’s a 4hour night class that is rather elemental and boring. I was sitting there honestly listening and the name “Margaret Sanger” popped out…very loudly…as no one else in the class even cared enough to try an answer.

Of course she was talking about Hitler.

Here’s my unique position. The teacher gave an expression and body language that supported my answer! But the rest of the class was about ready to lynch me. One girl sitting next to me stood up and moved to the other side of the room.

Oh dear.

There is a whole chapter in our history book devoted to our heroine Sanger. If you have mention of her in your history book, why not argue most effectively by using Sanger’s own words? She wrote quite extensively and openly regarding her eugenics, racism and pro-nazi views.

 

[1ke]

Look, it’s a 4hour night class that is rather elemental and boring. I was sitting there honestly listening and the name “Margaret Sanger” popped out…very loudly…as no one else in the class even cared enough to try an answer.

Of course she was talking about Hitler.

Hitler, Sanger… not much difference… each is responsible for a terrible Holocaust.

There is a whole chapter in our history book devoted to our heroine Sanger. If you have mention of her in your history book, why not argue most effectively by using Sanger’s own words? She wrote quite extensively and openly regarding her eugenics, racism and pro-nazi views.

Excellent point. The OP should be armed with Sanger’s anarchist writings.

 

[Kaninchen]

At the risk of repeating myself . . . . but for the OP’s consideration.

Moaning about Sanger or whoever isn’t actually any kind of resolution to the question of whether there is a ‘right’ to birth control.

A clear ‘right’ to birth control would very likely be established as soon as there was a serious threat to its availability. Something, admittedly, unlikely to happen.

 

[otjm]

The UK (population c. 60 million) has 1.6 million Muslims, in the past 3 years half a million Eastern Europeans (largely Poles) have moved there. Eurabia is a term used by people who haven’t done some basic demographics or census work.

Or, perhaps, you have not been watching the news from the UK. In two other websites, I have been following the demands from teh Muslim communities. Given that overall they are active religiously, and the rest of the UK is following the pattern of Europe, with religious attendanceon a weekly basis hovering in the teens or lower, and given the kowtowing to Muslim demands that the Brittish government has been doing, you might want to take another look at your post.

Further, demographics do matter; the UK last I checked is below replacement rate in births of what could be dubbed “Englishmen”. given the two-pronged effect of a much higher birthrate among Muslims plus immigration, that ratio is changing, not static, and the direction of change is to a larger and even more significant population.

 

[Kaninchen]

Or, perhaps, you have not been watching the news from the UK. In two other websites, I have been following the demands from teh Muslim communities.

I’m a European; I spend an awful lot of time in the UK, more time than you spend on ‘two other websites’ by a very long way.

Given that overall they are active religiously, and the rest of the UK is following the pattern of Europe, with religious attendanceon a weekly basis hovering in the teens or lower, and given the kowtowing to Muslim demands that the Brittish government has been doing, you might want to take another look at your post.

Treating a community that feels itself beleaguered (if you watched British television, you’d be able to notice the continuous reports of arrests and raids on homes) carefully on some issues can seem to be a fairly sensible policy.

Perhaps, being Jewish, I get rather concerned about minorities being singled-out as some kind of sinister ‘threat’ (“breeding for victory”). Most Muslims in Western Europe are just people trying to make their way in fast-paced, very expensive, highly urbanized societies and feeling rather vulnerable.

Further, demographics do matter; the UK last I checked is below replacement rate in births of what could be dubbed “Englishmen”. given the two-pronged effect of a much higher birthrate among Muslims plus immigration, that ratio is changing, not static, and the direction of change is to a larger and even more significant population.

60 million total population, 1.6 million Muslims and your assumption is that the Muslim birth rate will be the same as that in the most backward parts of the Muslim world - for numerous generations. Do you know what the fertility rates are in Turkey, The Islamic Republic of Iran (Yes, IRAN), Algeria and Tunisia? They’re less than 2.0 per family, in other words below replacement rate. Why are we to expect that European Muslims (even from backward countries like Pakistan) are going to behave, over time, differently from Muslims from more advanced (though backward in terms of conditions in Western Europe) Islamic countries?

Meanwhile 100,000-200,000 Eastern Europeans (mostly Catholics) flood into the UK every year.

 

[heavenly]

Here’s what I would like to see, after women who do not want their unborn child, agree to giving birth. I would like to see families unrelated to the woman, that is the community, house the woman and pay all of her expenses before and after the birth, If she has the child and decides to keep it, without a partner ( marriage), then the community should pay all of her expenses for getting a sufficient education and job training, so that she, alone in the world, can prevent her child from living in abject poverty. Abject
poverty is what happens to these children and all the related issues that accompany it. It’s basically a sentence to hell for these women, and a smiliar sentence for a child who knows he was not wanted. How is it that everyone forgets about the woman and her child post-birth? And since women’s status and wages only recently improved in this era of history, thanks to discrimination, only middle class women can survive well after giving birth, and even then, struggle.
If we care so much about life, then why don’t we see Catholic men coming forward and offering to marry these women and support them- there’s a vocation! And where are the nunneries like those back in previous centuries that took in thse women and their children- there’s a message, that we care about you, you will not be out on the street!
Anyone howling that “feminism” leads to heresy ought to put their
money and their house open to these women, not just rant and judge, and then look the other way. If women were deprived of professions and earning capacity for so long, we are then obligated to support them fully , so that they can choose to keep a pregnancy without the spector of a horrible life afterwards. If you subscribe to the" positive" side of feminism, which is supporting a woman’s right to support herself financially, then you are obligated to support the victims of discrimination so that they do not terminate a pregnancy. Why hasn’t this happened already? probably because let’s face it, men are not NOT! natural leaders of everything, they are flawed, and only recently do we have women in positions of legislative authority and religious authority who can remind men that you can’t make women financially unequal in society and expect them to birth their children when the males who impregnated them have run off and shirked their responsibility. Here’s another “vocation”- track down the “fathers” of these unwed mothers and have them pay the expenses of the mother and child for a lifetime!

 

[gam197]

originally posted by hasikelee
There is a whole chapter in our history book devoted to our heroine Sanger. If you have mention of her in your history book, why not argue most effectively by using Sanger’s own words? She wrote quite extensively and openly regarding her eugenics, racism and pro-nazi views.

Exactly.

I would also know a little about original 1960’s group:

Betty Freidan - divorced

Gloria Steinhem - never married ?and no children. She had a difficult childhood.
.

Germaine Greer - She was always on TV. She has a poor relationship with her father. She has had 2 abortions and has breast cancer. The movement has ignored her because of her recent writings - one linking birth control to abortion. Recently she had a young boyfriend and has taken a liking to teen boys publishing a book of nudes.

sycophants.info/greer.html

Kate Millett- divorced, had lesbian lovers, is bipolar and refuses to take her medications.

Naomi Wolfe - this generation hero - troubled marriage?

 

[st_lucy]

Here’s what I would like to see, after women who do not want their unborn child, agree to giving birth. I would like to see families unrelated to the woman, that is the community, house the woman and pay all of her expenses before and after the birth, If she has the child and decides to keep it, without a partner ( marriage), then the community should pay all of her expenses for getting a sufficient education and job training, so that she, alone in the world, can prevent her child from living in abject poverty. Abject
poverty is what happens to these children and all the related issues that accompany it. It’s basically a sentence to hell for these women, and a smiliar sentence for a child who knows he was not wanted. How is it that everyone forgets about the woman and her child post-birth? And since women’s status and wages only recently improved in this era of history, thanks to discrimination, only middle class women can survive well after giving birth, and even then, struggle.
If we care so much about life, then why don’t we see Catholic men coming forward and offering to marry these women and support them- there’s a vocation! And where are the nunneries like those back in previous centuries that took in thse women and their children- there’s a message, that we care about you, you will not be out on the street!
Anyone howling that “feminism” leads to heresy ought to put their
money and their house open to these women, not just rant and judge, and then look the other way. If women were deprived of professions and earning capacity for so long, we are then obligated to support them fully , so that they can choose to keep a pregnancy without the spector of a horrible life afterwards. If you subscribe to the" positive" side of feminism, which is supporting a woman’s right to support herself financially, then you are obligated to support the victims of discrimination so that they do not terminate a pregnancy. Why hasn’t this happened already? probably because let’s face it, men are not NOT! natural leaders of everything, they are flawed, and only recently do we have women in positions of legislative authority and religious authority who can remind men that you can’t make women financially unequal in society and expect them to birth their children when the males who impregnated them have run off and shirked their responsibility. Here’s another “vocation”- track down the “fathers” of these unwed mothers and have them pay the expenses of the mother and child for a lifetime!

Obviously you have never been to a maturnity home. You know they are popping up everywhere. Also, how about the pregnency centers. The pro-life movement does do alot to help these mothers.

I have yet to see a pro choice group help these mothers who find themselves in trouble, except to tell them that their only choice is to murder the own child. And than after the murder is done, where are these feminest? They are no where to be found, but the pro-life and the Catholic church is there to help the mother even after the abortion.

 

[st_lucy]

probably because let’s face it, men are not NOT! natural leaders of everything, they are flawed, and only recently do we have women in positions of legislative authority and religious authority who can remind men that you can’t make women financially unequal in society and expect them to birth their children when the males who impregnated them have run off and shirked their responsibility. Here’s another “vocation”- track down the “fathers” of these unwed mothers and have them pay the expenses of the mother and child for a lifetime!

I am sorry but I find that the Feminest movement like to make our men think that they cannot lead, and unforniatly we are seeing now that the men are now begining to believe these horrible lies. Yes you will have those dead beat men, but I also see alot of dead beat women.

It really makes me sad to see our generation fall pry to the feminest who like to twist the truth of our sexuality.

 

[heavenly]

Thanks for mentioning the maternity homes to me, that’s a good start, but I think it’s never been enough. I think that anyone who is truly pro life should offer to take the woman into their homes until the woman can support herself financially. It seems like “rescue the fetus” and dump the woman back into the world with no way to support the child, towards whom she may have complex feelings, and then expect the child to thrive- unfortunately they end up in bad straits many times. How many on this forum would give some of your incomes to mothers who, with your counselling to not abort, are penniless and probably husbandless, forever.?? Like put your money where your mouth is, something like Jesus told the Pharisees.

On leadership…you say men don’t lead because they now believe that they can’t lead, and it’s all feminists’ fault. Where are those men who ran off leaving their pregnant girlfriends with an impossible choice? Do you truly admire any male leaders and what do they do all day? To tell you the truth, I don’t think that either males or females are suited to be leaders and leadership through history has been a destructive force, why are people so attached to it, with some authoritarian psychological needs. Leadership is a discredited concept.

 

[heavenly]

I am sorry but I don’t understand your phrase " the truth of our sexuality", what is that that feminists are distorting. Language is imperfect, most of us have trouible understanding each others words, that I why I ask. Whatever your opinion is, I respect it.

 

[st_lucy]

Thanks for mentioning the maternity homes to me, that’s a good start, but I think it’s never been enough. I think that anyone who is truly pro life should offer to take the woman into their homes until the woman can support herself financially. It seems like “rescue the fetus” and dump the woman back into the world with no way to support the child, towards whom she may have complex feelings, and then expect the child to thrive- unfortunately they end up in bad straits many times. How many on this forum would give some of your incomes to mothers who, with your counselling to not abort, are penniless and probably husbandless, forever.?? Like put your money where your mouth is, something like Jesus told the Pharisees.

On leadership…you say men don’t lead because they now believe that they can’t lead, and it’s all feminists’ fault. Where are those men who ran off leaving their pregnant girlfriends with an impossible choice? Do you truly admire any male leaders and what do they do all day? To tell you the truth, I don’t think that either males or females are suited to be leaders and leadership through history has been a destructive force, why are people so attached to it, with some authoritarian psychological needs. Leadership is a discredited concept.

Actually the maternity home my family volunteers for allows the women to stay there for as long as she wishes. We help find the mothers work. We have counseling. There is one mother who has been at ours for three years now. Her daughter is a favorite of mine and everyone else’s. This maturity home was started with the money of those who are pro life. The home runs solely on the charity of the community, and is doing quit will. When something is need it is put in the church bulletins and house cleaning is mostly done by volunteers. The home was donated by a group of nuns who moved out so that there would be more room for the mothers. I am not sure what else you are expecting but that is a whole lot more than the pro choice people would ever do.

I am sorry you feel that men are so bad. But I can vouch for the men in my life. My grandfather who is (was just passed away) the center of my family, showed us what a real man does; take care of his family, and be a leader. My brothers who took good care of their sisters and their mother after our father left us. My husband who is an excellent provider and protector. My wonderful son who I have ever bit of confidence will grow up to imitate his father. It is sad that you can only focus on the negative. There were many women leaders who have only lead our world to grave destruction. Sanger comes to mind.

 

[Catholig]

Here’s what I would like to see, after women who do not want their unborn child, agree to giving birth. I would like to see families unrelated to the woman, that is the community, house the woman and pay all of her expenses before and after the birth, If she has the child and decides to keep it, without a partner ( marriage), then the community should pay all of her expenses for getting a sufficient education and job training, so that she, alone in the world, can prevent her child from living in abject poverty. Abject
poverty is what happens to these children and all the related issues that accompany it. It’s basically a sentence to hell for these women, and a smiliar sentence for a child who knows he was not wanted. How is it that everyone forgets about the woman and her child post-birth? And since women’s status and wages only recently improved in this era of history, thanks to discrimination, only middle class women can survive well after giving birth, and even then, struggle.
If we care so much about life, then why don’t we see Catholic men coming forward and offering to marry these women and support them- there’s a vocation! And where are the nunneries like those back in previous centuries that took in thse women and their children- there’s a message, that we care about you, you will not be out on the street!
Anyone howling that “feminism” leads to heresy ought to put their
money and their house open to these women, not just rant and judge, and then look the other way. If women were deprived of professions and earning capacity for so long, we are then obligated to support them fully , so that they can choose to keep a pregnancy without the spector of a horrible life afterwards. If you subscribe to the" positive" side of feminism, which is supporting a woman’s right to support herself financially, then you are obligated to support the victims of discrimination so that they do not terminate a pregnancy. Why hasn’t this happened already? probably because let’s face it, men are not NOT! natural leaders of everything, they are flawed, and only recently do we have women in positions of legislative authority and religious authority who can remind men that you can’t make women financially unequal in society and expect them to birth their children when the males who impregnated them have run off and shirked their responsibility. Here’s another “vocation”- track down the “fathers” of these unwed mothers and have them pay the expenses of the mother and child for a lifetime!

Heavenly,

I feel that your whole argument can be summed up in the sentence which I bolded. It states that every pro-life person is responsible for paying all of the woman’s expenses and personally changing each woman’s mind - and that to pursue an actual ban on abortion instead is wrong. As someone else said on this forum, I don’t want less abortions, I want zero abortions. I’m all for helping women, however I feel that your argument basically says that you either pay for the women’s expenses or she’ll have an abortion - which is tantamount to blackmail. I probably would help if someone asked me for help, but you shouldn’t make it the “community’s responsibility” - that’s communism.

As for catholic men marrying unwed mothers, simply because they are unwed mothers, again I don’t agree. I think to help these women is a good thing, but to marry someone simply because she had a child out of wedlock - ??? It just doesn’t sound right. And to make a man feel that its his responsibility to do this, just because he is pro-life - again how is that justified??? That’s not the basis of a stable marriage. That’s not going to make him or her happy. That’s just an unrealistic proposition, which is really insensitive.

Catholig

 

[1ke]

Heavenly,

I feel that your whole argument can be summed up in the sentence which I bolded.

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”.)

 

[blessedtoo]

I would like to see families unrelated to the woman, that is the community, house the woman and pay all of her expenses before and after the birth, If she has the child and decides to keep it, without a partner ( marriage),

This is already being done in all states. Catholic and Christian charitable organizations are the second largest providers of these services, after the state itself. And since WE the people comprise the community, I would say “good job”!

then the community should pay all of her expenses for getting a sufficient education and job training, so that she, alone in the world, can prevent her child from living in abject poverty. Abject poverty is what happens to these children and all the related issues that accompany it.

So the community is responsible for the irresponsibility of the woman? I’m sorry, but paying all of her expenses is not, IMO, a service to the woman. People do not learn responsibility by having things handed to them. Again, society does provide services for anyone struggling to get ahead and women who find themselves in this position have many opportunities to get funding for education and job training. And again, it’s on the tax payer dime so the community is contributing. It is not an ideal situation, but why should society reward someone for their poor choices? No one has to live in abject poverty. While it is extremely difficult to raise a child alone, it can be done. I did it and I know countless others who have as well.

It’s basically a sentence to hell for these women, and a smiliar sentence for a child who knows he was not wanted.

Sorry. It’s a “sentence to hell?” How is the gift of a child and the vocation to care for him/her a sentence to hell? A mother who has chosen to have her child rather than abort it is obviously making the statement that the child was wanted. Do you have any idea how many children in this world are born to parents who are not ready?

How is it that everyone forgets about the woman and her child post-birth? And since women’s status and wages only recently improved in this era of history, thanks to discrimination, only middle class women can survive well after giving birth, and even then, struggle.

I suggest that when trying to make an arguement, you avoid using vast generalizations like those above. You also seem to be completely disregarding the fact that many young women in this situation have families that are more than happy to help. One of my co-workers is about to become a grandmother because her 14 year old daughter got pregnant. The entire family has rallied in support of this girl and she will most likely have all the help she needs. While I understand that this is not the case for everyone, it certainly does occur.
continued…

 

[blessedtoo]

If we care so much about life, then why don’t we see Catholic men coming forward and offering to marry these women and support them- there’s a vocation! And where are the nunneries like those back in previous centuries that took in thse women and their children- there’s a message, that we care about you, you will not be out on the street!

Yes, well the feminist movement was completely successful in convincing men that they are no longer needed, thank you very much! Women are more than capable of taking care of themsevles. In addition, since abortion has become all about the woman’s “choice”, men are free to flee when a woman decides to keep her baby. After all, it’s her choice, not his.

If women were deprived of professions and earning capacity for so long, we are then obligated to support them fully , so that they can choose to keep a pregnancy without the spector of a horrible life afterwards.

Women have been in the work force since WWII. That’s 60 years. I think they have more than made up for the alleged “discrimination”.

If you subscribe to the" positive" side of feminism, which is supporting a woman’s right to support herself financially, then you are obligated to support the victims of discrimination so that they do not terminate a pregnancy.

First: you have a very naive and misguided idea of feminism. And I would argue that there is no “positive” side of the deal. The feminist interest in insuring that woman have an equal opportunity in the work force stemmed from their concept that they must support themselves so they can live without men. Healthy, huh?
And are you implying that a woman who becomes pregnant out of wedlock is a “victim”? If a woman chooses to engage in behaviors that will result in a pregnancy she is not ready for, how does that obligate the community? Where does personal responsibility factor in?

probably because let’s face it, men are not NOT! natural leaders of everything, they are flawed, and only recently do we have women in positions of legislative authority and religious authority who can remind men that you can’t make women financially unequal in society and expect them to birth their children when the males who impregnated them have run off and shirked their responsibility.

And aren’t we so blessed to have such women as Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Diane Fienstein in political positions that can impact women? Aren’t we fortunate that the feminist presence in the Church has led to dissent among Catholics on abortion, women’s ordination, and homosexual “rights”?

 

[Aleii]

Women have been in the work force since WWII. That’s 60 years. I think they have more than made up for the alleged “discrimination”.

How have they more than made up for past discrimination?

*“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/publications_fact_pay.html

First: you have a very naive and misguided idea of feminism. And I would argue that there is no “positive” side of the deal. The feminist interest in insuring that woman have an equal opportunity in the work force stemmed from their concept that they must support themselves so they can live without men. Healthy, huh?

Not all women have the luxury of having a man that makes a lot of money to support her and the children. Growing up, my best friend’s dad developed a brain tumor and died while we were still in grammar school. Women need to have the ability to enter the workforce and make enough money to support their family. Are you really going to argue that its a negative that her mother had the ability to provide for the family when the dad became disabled and died?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The work force? Except for a relatively brief period for the wealthy and urbanized Western society Caucasian women (mainly from the Victorian era through today), women were ‘in the work force’. Everybody was. . .or they died. In the period above, poorer women, women of color, immigrant women and rural women were ‘in the work force’ in order to support themselves and their families as well.

The so-called ideal of ‘mom at home with kids while dad works outside’ was, while not exactly a myth, certainly not the norm. Through media propagation of this ‘status’, and the word-of-mouth or anecdotal experiences of women (ourselves, our parents and possibly grandparents) we may have known, or experienced, one or two generations where for a brief time the ‘ideal’ occurred or was presented to us as ‘normative’, but many of us had that ideal personally shattered (by being nonwhite, or having the male breadwinner abandon, divorce or die leaving the mother to work outside the home, etc).

However, even the ‘ideal’ style was blasted as ‘repressive’ by the 1970s feminist leaders. In the early 1970s among urban white middle class and wealthy women, the number of women with children under 18 who stayed home with them was something like 75%. By the early 1990s, due to the constant mantra of ‘you need to be something more than just a housewife or baby maker’, the number of women, even among those who were middle class and urban white, was closer to 75% who worked outside the home.

So it goes. On the one hand, some whine that having a child as a single parent condemns one to poverty as the mother is ‘forced’ to abandon the ideal of being home with the child (so-called norm) and to ‘have’ to work to support the child.
These same whiners for the last 30 years have been telling women who have the opportunity to stay home (as there is another worker in the family) with the children to 'get out there and ‘be something’.

So, it’s all right to work so long as one doesn’t ‘have to work’ just to ‘get by’, but in order to either get ‘fun money’ or to ‘advance one’s career and self-esteem’.

I think the posters have been right. It’s not about the child, it is not about the mother, it’s all ‘the money’. It’s all about entitlement and victimization and double standards and manipulation.

Look, my dad died when I was 12 and my mother ‘had to’ go to work. And I had to support my young children when their father decided he wanted ‘something different’ (though I was lucky enough to be able to work from home and be available for them too). So it isn’t that I don’t understand or appreciate difficulties; I still have to pinch pennies, but life is more than some ‘quality’ and we are entitled to the pursuit of happiness, not the guarantee of happiness.

 

[blessedtoo]

How have they more than made up for past discrimination?

From your link:

On average, a white man with a college diploma earned $65,000 in 2001, while a white female college graduate earned 40 percent less and similarly educated black and Hispanic men earned 30 percent less.

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.

Nearly 16 percent of men age 15 and older who worked full time in 2001 earned at least $75,000 a year, compared with 6 percent of women. About 20 percent of men earned between $50,000 to $75,000, compared to 12 percent of women.

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.

Due to pay inequity, women lose over $100 billion annually in wages. According to a recent study by the Institute of Women’s Policy Research, a 25-year old woman who works full time year round for 40 years will earn $523,000 less than the average 25-year old man, if the current wage gap continues unchanged.

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.

Growing up, my best friend’s dad developed a brain tumor and died while we were still in grammar school. Women need to have the ability to enter the workforce and make enough money to support their family. Are you really going to argue that its a negative that her mother had the ability to provide for the family when the dad became disabled and died?

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.