Shared publicly  - 
Tomorrow, Congress will vote on the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would give employees better tools and support to claim equal pay for equal work.   #EqualPay  More info:
Thelonious Mac's profile photoThomas Lessman's profile photoRalph Gauthier's profile photoJoseph Patrick (Joe)'s profile photo
my Senator knows how I feel about this....gender, except as a necessity (rare) should never be an issue on pay or workplace environments. Good Luck to the PFA
AAUW is advocating for passage. A big step needed towards gender equity. Thanks for posting.
The House will mess this up some how
we will have to wait for Romney to show why it is counter-productive for women to get equal pay, and for Donald Trump to verify their birth certificates, before the law can take effect.
This is absurd. Men are paid better because they work longer hours and thus have more experience which results in a higher paycheck.
oof.....another misogynist has deceased wife used to say, "When men can squirt a watermelon out their ass, and then cherish that watermelon, THEN I will listen to them about the role of women"!
Its not. The market dictates the price. If it really were so that woman were paid less, well don't employers hire them? I mean every business-owner wants to cut prices as much as possible. 
@ Alexa No but that just proves my point. For an business-owner  its more risky to contract a woman. Therefore the market dictates a lower wage.  If you increase the price by regulation you going to make it even harder for woman to make that first time job and thus gain experience. 
This doesn't seem to be for the same exact position but an average. 
not quite, +Will Kriski the proposed law states that an employer will have to explain any discrepancies between pay, on any similar job duty, are NOT gender related.
@ Miroslaw. 
It is simple economics. Nothing misogynistic. Every businessmen seeks to increase his profits as much as possible. Why did Steve Jobs moved the production of his products to China? 
He is doing this to get votes. Very similar to the gay marriage approval. Don't fall for this... read up on the NDAA and see what Obama is in favor of
@ Alexa
Regulation is a burden for every business-owner and it hinders new players in the market. Because its easier for the insiders to understand them. 
Men and Women are not equal. period. They are by definition different.
all things being equal . pay should be equal. that's a no brainer Now I am going to make a couple wild generalizations...Women are more emotional creatures then men are. A woman is more likely to act out of emotion than her male counterpart. Women are more likely to be primary care givers to their children then their male counterparts.
So when you look at the pay statistics these general differences contribute to the disparity in pay. 
Just sayin, it's not black and white... but that's a whole other stereotype isn't it? 
Stereotypes without data sure are fun! I remember a few from a famous play....

NO.10: I don't understand you people. How can you believe this kid is innocent? Look, you know how those
people lie. l don't have to tell you. They don't know what the truth is. And lemme tell you, they— (NO.5 gets up 
from table, turns his back to it, and goes to window.)—don't need any real big reason to kill someone either.
You know, they get drunk, and bang, someone's lying in the gutter. Nobody's blaming them. That's how they 
are. You know what I mean? Violent!

[NO.9 gets up and does the same. He is followed by NO.11]

NO.10: Human life don't mean as much to them as it does to us. Hey, where are you going? Look, these people
are drinking and fighting all the time, and if somebody gets killed, so somebody gets killed. They don't care.
Oh, sure, there are some good things about them, too. Look, I'm the first to say that.

[NO. 8 gets up, and then NO. 2 and NO. 6 follow him to the window.]

NO.10: I've known a few who were pretty decent, but that's the exception. Most of them; it's like they have no 
feelings. They can do anything. What's going on here?

[The foreman gets up and goes to the windows, followed by NO. 7 and NO. 12:]

NO.10:.1'm speaking my piece, and you listen to me! They're no good. There's not a one of ‘em who's any 
good. We better watch out. Take it from me. This kid on trial....

[NO. 3 sits at table toying with the knife, and NO. 4 gets up and starts for the window. All have their backs to 

NO.10: Well, don't you know about them? Listen to me! What are you doing? I'm trying to tell you
+Ronnie Marler that is only by YOUR definition. In truth, the ONLY difference is in the plumbing. I have worked for both male and female supervisors, and find that the females tend to have better "people friendly" attitudes. Like , "How can we do this better" as opposed to "Dammit, do it better!"
The market place should decide pay rates, not some bureaucrat.
+Glenard Munson thank you for making my point. you just pointed out men and women are different "females tend to have better people friendly attitudes"
LOL at people who believe "The Market" can fix everything.

"The Market" didn't fix Civil Rights in the 60s and it won't fix this. People make decisions. People make change. People fix problems. Not the market.
+Patrick Borghese that's rich; so why is the immigration and flow of population so strictly controlled? Open the borders and then tell me about the mighty market and its decisive powers.
+Ricky Partridge  Don't get me wrong, I am not saying there isn't pay disparity. But I am saying the differences between men and women do not stop at their genitals.
@ RIcky

You are so right. The market can not fix things! Expect for food, clothes, vacation-tickets, Mobile phones, tablets, , cheap internet, Television service, cars, housing, books, computers, shoes,  cosmetics, plastic surgery. Internet broad-band etc etc.
+Christopher DH …oh yes, and this is why there are multiple incompatible mobile radio standards in one country (U.S.) and only one in Europe. Oh wait.
+Preston McDonald Yes! But markets correct themselves. Or do you think that (unelected) bureaucrats are better in doing that job? 
I can't force anyone to vote or not vote for someone else even if it's for a warmonger or a racist, neither do I have to be equally charitable or friendly toward all sexes, races, or creeds. People have opinions, many wrong/unjust, and it would be impossible to truly legislate discrimination. Instead of the facade of equality that government anti-discrimination promotes, why not allow businesses to be run how their owners want them to be run and let customers decide who succeeds and fails? If the market doesn't punish racists and misogynists, what does that say about us, the consumers and voters of this country? 
Regardless of desire/idea behind this bill all I really see coming out of this is people accepting a job for a lower rate just to get the position and then complaining to the government about gender inequality.   I know I am underpaid compared to my coworker and two of them are females.... Does this bill work both ways can I complain until the company is forced to give me more money.  
Because he doesn't have a stable argument.

I think it's cute that he thinks the market controls food production.
He just wants you to present NEW arguments that haven't already been debunked.
Regulations do not exist to punish business. they exist has a reaction to bad business practices like; child labour, unsafe working conditions, pollution, the use of toxic materials, sexism, racism, the great deppresion, etc., etc., ......
It sounds like you +Christopher DH  are using "the free market" has an excuse to dicriminate.
That's the Mafia's excuse, "It's just business", Bang.  
+Preston McDonald  The Church also didn't want to hear that the earth turned around the sun,  but that does it make is less valid.  In a debate you always have to be open to other arguments. 
...unless they are the same invalid arguments as before.
+Joe Beam 
And don't you think that people can decide that on their own. If a had to work in a polluted workplace I would end the Job on my own. I do need need bureaucrats to decide for me. 
+Christopher DH So, you would quit the only job you have access to? The only thing keeping food on your table and the lights on? What would you do, then? Certainly not Unemployment...
nick t
When woman work longer hours they will get the same pay since men tend to work longer hours.
+nick t Where have you been? Just like everyone else who makes these claims, you're going to have to back that up with data. No one else has, maybe you have the magic!
+Christopher DH  You'd choose poverty and homelessness? For you AND your family? Rather than have the government regulate a safe work environment?

I call bullshit.
Im surprised the Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks of the world havent jumped all over this being "socialism" the argument that Women do not deserve equal pay for equal work is the same song and dance of the 1950s mentality, so let me ask you what about the women who decide to focus on work and dont have children? How is this fair to them? Thats right it isnt. Seems you tea partiers who are getting all self righteous could have your theories of economics ripped out from under you by a fifth grader. Lol morons!
+Christopher DH Yeahhh no markets don't correct themselves. We had a 100% purely free market hundreds and thousands of years ago. As a result of the markets, we got Governments.

We need a stable balance between market power, government power, and individual power to keep each other in check.
Your not hearing me +Christopher DH , if the free market actually worked the way you said it does, we wouldn't have laws and regulations for business. The market didn't correct for child labour, pollution, etc, etc,... So government stepped in. Regulations are a reaction. The bad business practices came first. 
+nick t you do realise that you actually should be paid for the extra work you do outside your regular working hours, right?

(Also: working longer does not mean working more and definitely does not mean working more efficiently; there are physiological reasons why the working hours are reasonably limited to ~40h per week.)
+Christopher DH Yep... the problem is the mindset that one of the three is the problem. There's nothing wrong with Government, The Market, or the Individual in isolation -- just with imbalances which occur between them.

In proper balance, the Government would prosper by collecting revenue from the individual to provide as easy access to the Market as possible. The market would prosper by having better choice in individuals as well as a stronger middle class to make use of the economy. The individual would prosper by having the more access and more choice in how to engage with the market.
Yes +Christopher DH  plastic surgery is well regulated too. I hope you are enjoying the clean air and water that the free market did not bring you.
+Christopher DH ah, that's grand, but you might want to actually make a point.

(And before you do, think a bit about less simple cases: how about sclerosis multiplex, allergy, asthma or type 1 diabetes? How about a heart attack that will leave you for a week on an intensive care ward? How about a complex bone fractures or, generally, less obvious traumas? Do you know how much do those cost? I do.)
+Mirosław Baran   

Yes, they are indeed more complex. But let the market handle it. They will come up with something.  
+Christopher DH ah, you're an exquisite troll. I bow before you, sir.

(And no, there's no way pure market approach could solve any universal healthcare issues or provide for universal education.)
+Ricky Partridge You're missing the point. It's easy to point to anti-discrimination laws and call it progress when your only alternative is the state-sponsored segregation of the 1960's. Our culture has changed over the past 50 years, to the point where an openly racist business would have a difficult time surviving unless in rural, racist communities. You may say that such societal change is only possible with government intervention but if the government's general stance on gay rights and drugs is a clue, I would argue that government is better at retarding positive social change rather than advancing it. To address your strawman, anarchy does not respect individual property rights and our system is clearly and almost entirely based on individual property rights. When it comes to regulating for economic "externalities", it is important not to forget the property rights that are violated but almost always ignored; a poorly executed system is not necessarily a poorly designed one (except for the obvious lack of feedback loop for execution).
Is it currently legal to pay someone less based on gender?
+Mirosław Baran

Don't make personal attacks. I disagree with you but that does not make you bad person.

Of course it can. Do you think that people would suddenly lose interest in education or healthcare if the government would disappear? 
racism in the usa is a minority it does not exsist if racism is such  a big issue how did Obama get elected? the blacks in this country are the minority whites voted in obama (and very stupid whites at that)
I just 'love' the fact that there needs to be a vote on this. Wtf? Pay'em the same damnit! 
+Joe Beam So I take it you have no response to "Do you think that people would suddenly lose interest in education or healthcare if the government would disappear? ".
+Thomas Schmid The question is whether the government has the right to basically audit every company and "ensure" that the company is paying off of merit rather than race, sex, or sexual orientation. The problem is that discrimination, nepotism and non-merit based pay exist beyond just race, sex, or sexual orientation. So rather than trying to chase a perfect hiring environment, why not allow companies to hire how they please and let their productivity and public relations determine their success?
No, women deserve less pay and must serve their superiors, men. Of course, I'm totally kidding.
Reading a few earlier comments after posting my own, I can only shake my head! Some of you obviously did not read the part that says "equal pay for equal work".
Why is there a debate? Whoever thinks someone (man,woman, gay, black, white, yellow,...) should get paid less for equal work performed than someone else needs to crawl back underneath the rock you crawled out of. PERIOD! That's all
I will say. 
+Antonio Pontarelli they might have interest, most of them won't stand a chance to act on that interest, as it will be outside of their reach; it's amazing how quickly people do forget about their history.

Regarding the dreaded regulation issue; I don't see why we shouldn't regulate; see, I'm not really interested in making entrepreneurs' life easier and I don't see why I should. I'm more interested in having the society working smoother.
+Antonio Pontarelli how would you determine if a company hired like they pleased or not?
Regardless, really sounds like opening pandoras box to me.
I'm sure the IRS can figure out a way to check whether an employer adheres to whatever standard is set. 
Does Fed Gov have power for force me to pay a female lawn care specialist the same as a male lawn care specialist?
I don't think so?
Obama teaching Constitution law: a joke then and now.
How about we start with his own administration?
"Let's make a law to enforce a law!" +Gordon Medley presented a valid question, is it presently legal (or illegal) for pay to differ based upon gender?

According to the last census (not sure where exactly I read this) but whites are the new minority. The opposite may have been true four years ago. But really? Come on... we all know everyone voted for who was promising them more money in the pocket book... and without caring where the money came from.

Is it a good bill? Sure.

I am curious why the White House (and Congress) waited so long to take action. Someplace out there is an intern who was asked to find something positive to boost the election season.
The appellation "Paycheck Fairness Act" suggest the concept of, well, fairness. If so, then I suggest that government or quasi-government should endure the same consequences as the private sector. For example, when the private sector recognizes (or perceives) a need for reduction, then indeed terminations follow. Why not the same for government?
+Henry Arnn  All the variables you listed plus about 10 more have been calculated into the equation, and women STILL end up lower than men in pay around 10-15%.  I believe Rachel Maddow broke it down better than anyone I've seen so far.
+Mirosław Baran And it's amazing to me that people think that we'll suddenly revert to the 19th century without the government, as if employers will spontaneously no longer need skilled, healthy workers and the Internet will crumble and be forgotten. To say that libertarian policy is the cause for the humanity's historical hardships is disingenuous as best. 

You'd be right if all regulation made society smoother, but it doesn't. It certainly makes life smoother for corporations that have the capital and connections to follow regulations, but many times, regulations are very real barriers to entry for competing entrepreneurs. Whenever you curse at the monopoly or duopoly of your local cable service and wish there was a alternative, be sure to thank regulation. But either way... I'm curious as to how you think regulating entrepreneurs makes society smoother; if they're following property laws and providing a good/service that customers value, is society not more wealthy for it?
wow...and I'm sure adding more complexity and cost to payroll is what our economy needs. I guess I'll have another round of lay offs to look forward too. 
I am curious what sort of tools these are. Enforcement tools? How do you determine the gap sufficient for legal action?
+Jen Peters Your claim seems to be challenged by the familiar refrain "get a government job, you can never get fired."
Highest corporate profits ever recorded... but oh no we can't pay the women of America fair wages! That would cause the sun to explode!
Women get paid less because their clothes cost less... NOT.  It is up to abt seventy-five cents for each dollar a man makes now. In many cases, single mothers earning less mean children suffering: unconscionable. 
In an election year you can expect a lot of smoke-screens to be put out to give people something to focus on so they will fail to see the importants things that are being hidden.
Will legislation actually be effective? Maybe it would be more productive just to eliminate the pronouns he, and she. 
Yeah! I want the same pay as the CEO of, say, Google, or Wells Fargo. Imagine getting equal pay - a cashier pulling a million dollar salary. The economy would collapse. 
I bet a bunch of dudes will get a pay cut now
Big O passed a similar piece of legislation as soon as he was inaugurated, didn't he?  That one allowed women who continually worked for disparate pay to sue companies for 20 years worth of retroactive "fair pay".  The average pay across the board may be lower for women, but that's mainly because many women a) choose jobs that pay less, like teaching, b) choose to take care of their children instead of advancing their careers, or c) don't ask for enough money.  There are many fields where women make more than men, but you never hear men complaining about "pay disparity".  It's politically advantageous to balk about pay disparity when women are seemingly at a disadvantage, but not if the tables are turned.  Regulations like this make it riskier to hire women, and WILL push some of them out of the workforce, though the degree to which that will happen is uncertain.    If BO actually gave a hoot about the level of pay among women, he'd be focused on getting out of the way so the economy can improve.
Consider for a moment the ways in which women are socialized to "choose" careers like teaching...
Just what we need the nanny state stepping to solve all our problems, like the stimulus solved the economic downturn.....oh that I think about it what is the ROI if this bill?
From what I'm hearing, Nancy Pelosi should be voting "No."
Holy shit, really James Howards? Women don't 'ask for enough money'? You are a goose of the first order and completely out of touch with what is going on out in the real world. Turn off your computerm walk outside and talk to a working woman - see what she thinks about your reasons why women get paid less.
So silly.
Abolish the minimum wage. Abolish unions. Government does not create jobs.
I was listening to a talk radio show the other day. They had some female professor/author on the show. Apparently she had proven that women being paid less is a myth. Im not being a troll, and she made a good point. That the numbers are skewed because they just straight out average the numbers. They dont take into account the different professions or education levels. And they compare apples to oranges basically
+Isaac Elisaldez - Thanks for saying it. I'm not convinced the "unequal wage" phenomenon is anything more than comparing apples and oranges. Compare similar workers with similar experience, you get the same wages. 

In other words, this sort of law has the potential to be an unjust travesty that would FLIP salaries in favor of women. Equal pay is great - superior pay is not. That swings both ways, +Gina Trapani . We need to be careful about what the unintended consequences of laws like this are.
+Tim Piatek so you're worrying that a law designed to make for existing discrimination might – and this is a highly theoretical assumption – tip the scales a bit to the side of the women. And that it would be a terrible injustice. So cry me a river, you could man up and live with it after decades of systemic discrimination against women – even if you find yourselves in this highly improbable position.

(Ah, and yours is an overly emotional approach. Stop obsessing about what-ifs, you need to start thinking less hysterically and more in a rational manner.)
The article makes it sound like businesses are presumed guilty and must prove they are not. Does the actual bill do the same?
Statistics make it look like businesses are presumed guilty.
I haven't found any information about how it would actually work. Do you go to every woman in the company and tell them "Hey the new guy is a better negotiator than you were, so we're bumping up your salary in order to hire him?" Do you have to offer men similar pay to other men? What about industries where women are paid more then men on average?
We may not have actual equal pay, but don't we already have laws requiring it?  Why do we need more?
One more step to a socialist economy where big brother does all the hiring and firing.  Oh I'm sorry there would be no firing.
+Michael Moffit No, no, no.

Ok, new rule: You (and by you I mean anyone reading this) are not allowed to make any comment, positive or negative, about Socialism until you LEARN WHAT IT IS.  Communism is a as-of-yet unrealized form of government.  Socialism is an economic system.  They are NOT THE SAME THING and you CANNOT USE THE TERMS INTERCHANGEABLY.

Here, educate yourself fool:

Notice how all of these contries are democratic states with private corporations that make metric boatloads of cash and have as much freedom of religion/speech/etc as we do, YET somehow they still have better educational systems, more high speed internet, less unemployment and near-zero poverty?  That is, notice how they're just like America from a GOVERNMENTAL perspective, but from an ECONOMIC perspective they are handing our ass to us in small brown paper bags?

That's because they figured out what our dumbshit Adam-Smith-loving capitalist selves are too blinded by the piles of debt all around us to see: Socialism is a VASTLY superior economic system to Capitalism, always has been, and always will be.

Now go sit in the corner and re-read your 7th grade history book.  It was in there, idiot.  You were just too busy quarterbacking/cheerleading/whatevering to notice it.
The intention is honorable but the technique is ineffective. There are better ways to get these results without the further eroding of civil liberties through government intrusion into the public sector.
As usual, the law of unintended consequences is gonna have one big massive field day with this one.

Speaking as a person who has hired women many times, I simply cannot believe that anyone thinks, "oh boy, it's a woman, I only have to pay her 80%." 

After this passes, and I assume it will, I think you will find that if the same methods are used to gather data that we will find nothing has changed and then people will have to truly ask why instead of tossing out more bad legislation. Then when the actual truth comes out, will we accept it? 

A bit of science instead of the politics:
I'm a conservative, not a big Ron Paul fan. Sorry don't know how to respond properly with the google+ app. I like government but it needs to stay "of the people and by the people" that's all. We just need to be careful we don't break other stuff when we're trying to fix things with lots of laws. Good intention just a bad technique in my opinion (which is all that it is).
How is it "misogyny" for Christopher to speak common-sense truth? I see a bunch of irrationally hateful misandrists who seem to want to take their "damn-the-man!" frustrations out on anyone who dares point out any possible legitimate reasons for any perceived pay disparity. Here's a clue for u all: when women are willing to work as long of hours, under the same conditions, doing the same hard work AND have as much experience, THEN there is no reason why a woman should be paid less than a man with equal experience, etc. otherwise, there is NO reason a company would rather pay more for someone who has less experience, won't be able to work the hours the company needs from them, etc.

This bill, in effect, says that no matter how much harder a man will work, no matter how much he is required to take time away from his family, a woman will still get paid just as much even if she won't work the hours required by the employer. How is that fair?
+Thomas Lessman That's not true. The point is that women doing the same work are, in some companies, systematically underpaid, passed over for promotions, and their complaints are ignored. Here's a very recent and high-profile example. And even with such blatant violations, no criminal case has been made. She has to pursue this in civil court. Whatever laws & enforcement we have now, it's not enough. (edit: fixed URL)
What happens when you remove the politics and emotion from the question of whether women are being discriminated against? You get reality without myth. Unfortunately, reality is not good for getting votes. Myth, on the other hand, is a powerful platform upon which to build consensus. Works rather well in religion also.
LOLOL +Joshua Megnauth no SIR, it is obviously YOU who are ignorant of the Feminist movement & what it stands for. Don't be a moron and try to convince me that what they call it isn't really what they mean. IF THEY MEANT EQUAL THEN THEY WOULD BE CALLED EGALITARIANS, NOT FEMINISTS. Unless you are willing to give masculinists the same consideration. I seriously doubt you have that level of integrity, especially after seeing the ignorant personal attacks that you and a few nice examples of femiboys have been leveling against Christopher H (whom, I might add, has demonstrated a remarkable patience & thick skin in this conversation).
Ok +Sean Palmer , so why does she not persue criminal charged? From what YOU start saying here, she should be able to file a lawsuit based on gender discrimination. Why should we open up an entire can of pandoras worms in a box because SOME employers have possibly broken a few existing laws?

There are roughly equal number of men & women at my job. All except for one of the women make more than I do. Even tho we all do the same work. Except Im newer, so I get worse hours. So do I get to cry about discrimination, demand more money & better hours?

Because I've NEVER worked a job where a woman started at the same time I did, in the same position doing the same work, without both of us getting the same pay. In fact, I've often been required to be available for more flexible hours in order to cover for certain female employees who kept needing or wanting to take time off.

So don't presume to lecture me about inequality, gender fairness, or how feminists are supposedly for equal even tho they only speak up for women's rights.


Cities Where Women Outearn Male Counterparts

Atlanta, GA 121%
Memphis, TN-AR-MS 119%
New York City-Northeastern NJ 117%
Sacramento, CA 116%
San Diego, CA 115%
Miami-Hialeah, FL 114%
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 114%
Raleigh-Durham, NC 114%
Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA 112%
Phoenix, AZ 112%
Richmond-Petersburg, VA 112%
San Francisco-Oakland-Vallejo, CA 111%
Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN 111%
Oklahoma City, OK 110%
Riverside-San Bernardino, CA 109%
Salt Lake City, UT 109%
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 108%
St. Louis, MO-IL 108%
Kansas City, MO-KS 108%
Columbus, OH 107%
Washington, DC-MD-VA 106%
San Antonio, TX 106%
Milwaukee, WI 106%
Jacksonville, FL 106%
San Jose, CA 105%
Houston-Brazoria, TX 104%
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 104%
Portland, OR-WA 104%
Cleveland, OH 104%
Orlando, FL 104%
Las Vegas, NV 104%
Austin, TX 104%
Providence-Fall River-Pawtucket, MA-RI 104%
Nashville, TN 104%
Louisville, KY-IN 104%
Birmingham, AL 104%
Chicago, IL 103%
Norfolk-VA Beach-Newport News, VA 102%
Philadelphia, PA-NJ 101%
Boston, MA-NH 100%
Detroit, MI 100%
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 100%
Baltimore, MD 100%
Denver-Boulder, CO 100%
Pittsburgh, PA 100%
Indianapolis, IN 100%
Hartford-Bristol-Middleton-New Britain, CT 100%
Seattle-Everett, WA 96%
New Orleans, LA 93%
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 92%
+Joshua Megnauth dude, I dont care how many time-wasting books u want me to buy & read. Im an egalitarian, and have spent plenty of time "in the trenches" getting attacked by feminists of all ages, for my efforts to advocate Men's issues, as well as my work in helping non-custodial parents fight parental segregation in family courts. So u can quote whatever biased studies, recommend books written by man-hating authors, and talk down to me until u are blue in the face. It still doesn't change the FACT that u are wrong, feminism isn't as innocent as u claim, and feminists are NOT for equality any more than masculinists are.
+Joshua Megnauth dude, I dont care how many time-wasting books u want me to buy & read. Im an egalitarian, and have spent plenty of time "in the trenches" getting attacked by feminists of all ages, for my efforts to advocate Men's issues, as well as my work in helping non-custodial parents fight parental segregation in family courts. So u can quote whatever biased studies, recommend books written by man-hating authors, and talk down to me until u are blue in the face. It still doesn't change the FACT that u are wrong, feminism isn't as innocent as u claim, and feminists are NOT for equality any more than masculinists are.
So do u want to try again?
+Joshua Megnauth  Heh. Well I am not an egalitarian. I know that there is no such thing as equality, and I know that attempts to legislate egalitarianism will only eventually result in us all wearing the same unisex grey suits, marching in unison, and saluting the supreme leader. It's happened too many times in the past.

+Joshua Megnauth , on equal pay, I just don't see a problem. We are looking at all women and all men and comparing their salaries and coming up with a discrepancy. Yet if a man and a woman take exactly the same path, produce the same results, acquire the same skills, make the same decisions, they won't wind up with differing salaries.

Ultimately the feminist movement has been successful, but women still make different decisions over the course of a career than men do. You cannot legislate this away. If you look at it collectively it appears something nefarious is going on. So when you report the statistics, feminists see it as a call to arms. 

Women also do not work as much as men, and you're right, this is due to caring for children. What law can change this? No law. Nor should it.

We need to compile a much more comprehensive set of statistics and at the very least draw correlations between life decisions and pay.

Then, instead of blaming genitalia, we should simply produce a document that says these decisions will cost you in your career. If you want to raise children and have a career, you can, but it will cost you, if you are the primary child care giver. It's YOUR decision. If money is all that is important to you, be aware you may not wish to have children. It is not the responsibility of the state, nor the "collective" to compensate you for such decisions. You are responsible for your decisions and there are trade offs. Is it worth 20 or 30 cents on the dollar to raise children? Is it worth 20 or 30 cents on the dollar to not be an engineer or computer scientist? 

I have hired women. Many times. I don't sit there and think, "Gee, I only have to pay her 77% of what I would have to pay a man" and I don't believe any man hiring a woman does these days. I don't think about the possibility of pregnancy, etc. Basically you're freaking happy to find anyone that can do what you want them to!

I respectfully submit that the pay discrepancy is a result of freedom. Freedom means choices, and choices have consequences. I've made choices that led to less pay in my career. As a black person I've been fortunate enough to work in a post 80s world where in my humble opinion the only thing that has ever held me back are my own decisions. 
+Joshua Megnauth no, in other words I have an actual life that extends beyond just sitting around online, spitting out meaningless statistics based in dubious studies funded by your feminimasters to push hateful feminist agendas with goals that are anything but equal. So fact that, feminiboy.
Wait, so does this mean I would get a pay RAISE, since I don't make as much as certain women who work in my department doing the same job I do? What about porn stars, does this mean that make porn stars might finally make as much as female porn stars (since they are still in the same line of work). Or is this law just another one of those feminilaws that is supposed to be equally applied, yet somehow only applies to women?
Right, so in the words of a true misogynist like +Joshua Megnauth, women are incapable of making "correct career choices", are unable to compete in sports without extra encouragement, and unable to succeed in life without some sort of government interference to protect them from themselves.

Welcome to the "new world" philosophy of pseudo-feminist wannabes, where treating a woman as an equal is considered worse than being condstescending & talking down to them like they are too dumb to make their own decisions.

YOU, +Joshua Megnauth , are the one of the most blatant examples of a true misogynist, that I've ever seen. And even better yet, you are so smug in your holier-than-thou beliefs that you can't see just how stupid and inept you say women are. Believe this Joshua, women are every bit as smart and intelligent as men are, and every bit as dumb and ignorant too. It's a HUMAN thing, NOT a gender issue.
+Joshua Megnauth "...Actually, we're not. We're looking at various categories and finding similar results. There's a lack of women in high end jobs, to the point where articles speaking about the lack of women in technology, game development or FIRE industries pops up on various scholarly sources. Libertarians, Marxists and Anarchists blame the government, Marxists and Anarchists also blame businesses and culture, Democrats blame Republicans and Republicans don't care. Even when women are hired, their pay rate is still lower in comparison to men...."

And you believe this is due to an actual effort on the part of men?
I will submit that I do not understand feminism based on my similar experience that precious few people understand the TRUE nature of racism and civil rights movement. Nonetheless I consider much of the rhetoric of radical feminism to be "blame men" oriented.

Listen to Sheryl Sandberg, COO of FaceBook. She speaks in terms of training men as if they were animals. She says things like women should mary women if possible. If not, find a man you can train properly, or find a good man. Her tongue may be implanted in her cheek, but not to firmly. She goes on about wanting a world where half the businesses are run by women and half run by men. To me that's just silly.  My guess is that in the not too distant future you will find more women than men running businesses. It just happens. 

I consider many of her statements to be offensive, and others utterly stupid. Yet I'll be the first one standing up to protect her right to say them, and no one can disagree that historically blaming men was absolutely appropriate. I do not believe it is now, any more than I believe that black people should still be blaming white people for our failings. Though many, in my experience, still do.

What I am specifically addressing here and now is the issue of equal pay. First, I do not believe that the measured pay gap is based on any form of gender discrimination. That's why I want to see all factors, not just gender measured. I believe women make different decisions, not inferior decisions, but decisions that result in pay discrepancies. The largest decision being children. The decision to have and raise children is part of a free society. All of our life decisions are. It is not the responsibility of an employer to compensate for those. 

Consider that the salary gap between black men and white men is 74.5% and growing from what I understand. I know that from the moment we (black people) are born our home experiences are different. Generally speaking education is not, shall we say, as aggressively pushed and pursued as it is in similar white households. I could write a dissertation on the differences I've seen. Some of the most involved black parents pay for private schools, but don't take an active role in the education process and planning. No amount of legislation is going to change this. If someone passed another law stating that equal pay must be maintained across races specifically, it would just be another stigma that black people would have to deal with. If you look at the education situation, when we do actually graduate from high school and we do actually make it through college, we don't tend to go into the harder subjects like engineering, science, technology, etc. We choose business, sociology, easy things to get a degree in. 

Consequently I don't believe the pay gap is due to discrimination. Produce a pay gap chart that shows nothing but black men with Masters Degrees in Computer science vs white men with Masters Degrees in Computer Science, and then lets have a look. All black men vs. all white men is meaningless. All black people vs. All white people more so. 

Show me a 74.5% gap between white men with MS degrees in computer science and black men with MS degrees in computer science, and I'll say, "WTF?" Even then I would say, let's look deeper at this data. Certain schools might be more valuable. Certain curriculums. Written and spoken language skills. Extracurricular activities. All sorts of factors might come into play. Maybe, a fraction of a percent is discrimination. I would take the differences I found between black and white MS CS folks and, as I indicated earlier, produce a document that says... there are decisions you might make to increase your earning power, or that might decrease your earning power. 

I went to Cal State Northridge, for instance. I know that the guy with the MIT BS CS is going to make more than I am. I have to prove myself. Heck, considering the odds, I'm thrilled to be in the game! 

So if the equal pay in the workplace legislation passes, I have the option of taking my employer to task over the pay discrepancy. Waste of her time, waste of my time, waste of money. Now she has to sit down and document why I'm inferior to a coworker(s). Oh joy. 

Legislatively, as far as equal rights, we've done well in this country. Now it's time to work out the kinks. Piling up more legislation won't help, but working to shift cultural influences on kids from reality TV to education will help. It's easy to toss out a law and say, "employers you fix it." It's harder to ask what's really going on and address it.

Also, I would appreciate it if you could recommend a good text on feminism. If my understanding is limited, and it is, I would like to understand it from your perspective better. I would be happy to discuss feminism from my point of view, in which I agree with my libertarian counterparts mentioned above, but with the caveat that as long as people understand the consequences, what the tradeoffs are, then it's fine with me. 
Saw this elsewhere on G+...

"A history professor brought his 6-year-old son, Billy, to work one day, and they toured the campus together.

They went to the Math department, and Billy asked the professor: 'What's 2+2?' The professor told him: '2+2 is 4, Billy.'

Then they went to the Engineering department, and Billy asked the Engineering professor: 'What's 2+2?' The professor told him: '2+2 is 4, Billy.'

And, finally, they went to the Statistics department, and Billy asked the Statistics professor: 'What's 2+2?' The professor asked: 'What would you like it to be, Billy?'"
Ok. We're moving closer together here.

"...Thomas may whine that government is horrible and minorities or women have equal rights and should just work harder, but it's difficult to fight against the cultural hegemony that aggrandises and promotes gender determinism...."   

I don't believe that there is a cultural hegemony. I believe that in our society there are clear paths to success. I believe that we have subcultures that don't necessarily embrace those paths. The result is subcultures that seem to be marginalized by some hegemony. We like to point the finger at white men, and it is my observation that this is at the very least, unfair. 

Growing up black in America, in south central Los Angeles, I made decisions. I avoided drugs, gangs, etc. I didn't need anyone to point out that drugs and violence were a losing proposition. Everyone was poor. Nonetheless there was opportunity everywhere and the people growing up around me, with me, largely chose to ignore it. We had the culture we created. We had/have the environment we created. We could have chosen education as the holy grail, but we didn't. This is the responsibility of the so called "community" not some cultural hegemony. If anything, the schools were crap. Teachers basically phoned it in. There were good teachers, some incredible, but most, meh. Going to school for me was a matter of survival as much as education. Still, no one prevented me from learning. There were times when my grades sucked because it was just too dangerous and crazy to go to school, but I pulled a Bradbury and hung out at the library all day. During the summer, I'd get dropped off there in the morning and picked up in the evening. 

It's choices. I can't tell you why we make the choices we do.

Concerning gender identity...

There is a woman who publishes a website called "The Pioneer Woman." She's an educated woman who accidentally fell in love with a "Cowboy type" as she puts it, and now lives in the middle of nowhere on a working cattle ranch. I cannot explain it, but I get much joy from that website. 

Anyway, take a look at this specific post:  I found it very interesting. 

I always used to wonder if I had a child, would I wind up send her to an insane asylum by trying to squelch the natural "girlness" in her. I.e. "No honey, really, I swear, this is Barbie's dream data storage facility." Or "This really is Skipper's cool new beach bunker and projectile launcher." 

I know when growing up, they couldn't have given my sister a truck to play with to save their lives. She was a "girl." Girls and boys are different. Very very different. People are free to choose their paths.

Ask Mr. Shawna Rochelle Kimbrell, first black female fighter pilot. She was allowed to dream that dream. I was not. She was born to immigrant parents, and that same old story is there. They pushed education. I tell you, I look at her and I get an actual sense of pride, not pride in a black person, or woman, but human being, because she and her parents figured it out. 

I think if we want to change things we need to stop glamorizing the things we do in this country, and glamorize education, hard work, excellence, what it means to be American (because we've forgotten), because people like  Kimbrell are damn few as they say. 
Excuse me +Thelonious Mac, but when in ANY of my comments did I make any statements that "it's horrible that women & minorities have equal rights"?  Here's a hint: I never did say that; YOU are attributing +Joshua Megnauth's words to me, and that's not right at all. I'm a firm believer in equality b/c I believe we are all equally human. In fact, your first few posts were very much in alignment with my beliefs, though it seems you have started to drift towards Joshua's side of the argument (against your own experiences) based on who-knows-what reasons. Here's another hint: just because I strongly dislike feminists who use flawed studies to push a gender war, doesn't mean I dislike women. So again Thelonius, I do suggest that you properly attribute hateful stupidity to the proper people, and don't take someone else's words as proof for my beliefs.
Wow +Joshua Megnauth, do you blow your mother with that mouth? Calling me an "uneducated, loquacious airhead" because I disagree with your obviously biased opinion? Seriously dude, being such a well-leashed boy won't get you laid any easier, at least not by women who turned off by squishy & spineless toyboys. But it does show everyone just how desperate you are for female attention. Here's a hint for you, dickless for brains: learn to practice the tolerance of diversity that you preach - otherwise you prove yourself a hypocrite. And a free bit of reality check: no matter how you spin the facts, and no matter how many biased studies you quote, from however many dubious groups that receive funding based on how much they can distort the facts, it still doesn't change the reality of life. Even when you are showing how "educated" you think you are (compared to real life knowledge that wasn't drummed into your too0thick head at a quaint feminist "re-education center" in women's issues class.
I've always been for equal pay for equal work but this is just going to have Republicans rolling and thrashing in the isles and foaming at the mouth. Love it. :)
Obama only did that, because the she/he was born a woman. Although women deserve equal pay, don't count on it happening until a republican president is in the White House.

Add a comment...