Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Nas wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Nas wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Nas wrote:
"It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure or hours worked per week. When such relevant factors are considered, the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing."
This is what you posted. It literally says there is a gap.
Yeah, and who knows what might account for said statistically insignificant "gap"? Would you feel better if women made a fraction of a cent more? Because I'm sure we're headed there.
Here you go again trying to shift the debate instead of just admitting that you were wrong. How about them making the same as men? No one has argued they should make more. You've argued that there was no gap but even the article you posted acknowledges that a gap exists.
I just read that entire article and it made me sick.
I posted it. I know what it said. There could be any number of things that account for a statistically insignificant "gap" in wages between the sexes. or do you expect that woman and men are always going to receive the exact same pay? That's kind of silly, not to mention impossible. And when women are on the plus side, which is bound to happen, you- and a million other "feminists"- won't be going around talking about a wage gap at all or you'll still be lying about 77 cents.
Also, I'm sorry that a woman having an opinion different than yours and backing it up with real facts and research "makes you sick".
There is a gap between 2-23%. I know a woman wrote it and her excuse making still made me sick. This isn't 1956.
The gap isn't between 2% and 23% and even if it is, that's not the 77% that "feminists" including the next president constantly say it is. What does "it's not 1956" even mean? That in 2016 lies are okay if they push some agenda you support? Finally, Christina Hoff Sommers isn't some fire-breathing right-wing lunatic. She's a classical liberal feminist. I'm sorry you have an issue with a strong woman not named Hillary speaking her mind.
You know sometimes I think you just want to argue and you aren't even sure what you're arguing.
Women have said they make $.77 for every $1 a man makes for doing the same job. I've heard others say that it is about $.90 and today I saw SomeGuy and Christina Sommers say it's $.98. That means women make anywhere from 2% to 23% less than men for doing the same job. You say there is no gap (even though you posted an article acknowledging a gap) and then you come back and say a 2% gap is insignificant.
If we use the median income of $53k and deduct 2% from it that would be a little more than $1k a year less that a woman would make. I imagine that you wouldn't want to lose $1k a year and I don't blame you.
I don't know Christina Sommers. She could be my grandmother or 1 of my daughters and my opinion of that article would not change. She didn't really provide facts. She dismissed serious issues because she believed the numbers were off.
A study of 2 large college campuses said 2/5 of women are sexually assaulted in college. Because the study didn't include things she considered to be important she dismissed it. Who gives a fuck if it's 1 out of 10 or 1 out of 100 (she didn't use those numbers) we should all be able to agree that it's too high.
She looked at ER visits by women and dismissed the statistic because of the formula used. Even though she acknowledged that 500,000 women go to the ER every year because of domestic violence.
Then she dismissed sex trafficking because she believed it was hundreds and not thousands and boys are likely included in the hundreds.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
