Exposing Planned Parenthood

[hazlnut]

That's what they consider a woman's choice...

You play you pay, as they say. Keep you're legs closed sl*t!

So, it's the impoverished child's fault the mother got pregnant and couldn't provide??

 

[hazlnut]

Honestly it is like they want to cut their nose off in spite of their face. Cutting funding only hurts both sides on this issue the thing is that one side seems to get it and others simply don't.

I think they wore out the Acorn boogey man, and need a new thing to hate and be scared of...

Planned Parenthood prevents more abortions that all the Christian fringe-righties put together...

 

[SheWolf]

So, it's the impoverished child's fault the mother got pregnant and couldn't provide??

No it's all the woman's fault, never the man's. The child is entirely innocent, unless it becomes a sl*t like it's mother...

 

[SheWolf]

I'd like to know when sexism ended. Can anybody tell me?

LOL

 

[Kali]

They care more about making sure a woman can't practice her reproductive rights than they care about her access to healthcare... it's bs. They don't care about the women at all when they are making policies.

Sadly? I am finding that a lot of them are not down with any type of public healthcare. Guess they support DEATH after all, huh?

 

[hazlnut]

No it's all the woman's fault, never the man's. The child is entirely innocent, unless it becomes a sl*t like it's mother...

So, you're Okay with providing welfare for the innocent children?

Oh, and only 'sluts' get pregnant? All those underage incest and rape victims were asking for it, right?

 

[Kali]

I'd like to know when sexism ended. Can anybody tell me?

LOL

Well it ended when a woman got the right to vote dont ya know?:roll:

*Being sarcastic in case some of those think it is true takes me serious.. lol *

 

[SheWolf]

So, you're Okay with providing welfare for the innocent children?

Oh, and only 'sluts' get pregnant? All those underage incest and rape victims were asking for it, right?

I guessing if the mom doesn't work, the child isn't entitled to welfare in the pro life/Conservative utopia. The child should get a job and work to support itself, once all the disastrous business regulations are stripped... you know, those pesky Child Labor Laws. Giving the child welfare might make it feel entitled, and we can't have a child feeling entitled to anything in America.

 

[SheWolf]

Well it ended when a woman got the right to vote dont ya know?:roll:

*Being sarcastic in case some of those think it is true takes me serious.. lol *

I have put up with blatant sexism before... It was somebody I know from NYC. Some of the crap he said kind of reminded me of main character from the movie American Psycho. In fact, those serial killings in Long Island made me think of him... but he isn't a cop and never was a cop. That alone makes me feel safe to say, it's not him...

 

[Barbbtx]

If pro lifers put half as much effort into helping children already born, as they do demonizing PP and marching on DC to end abortion...

That's like demonizing someone for donating to animal shelters because people are starving in Africa. You can't dictate what people should feel passionate about. Although liberals sure try. I'd like to know how someone could feel so passionate about making sure unborn babies continue to be killed.

 

[Barbbtx]

Abby Johnson has been shown to be liar who made up her background story about working for PP.

Abby Johnson’s Story Doesn’t Hold Water

:lamo:lamo Feminists for Choice!

 

[Barbbtx]

Since the main job of PP is provide contraceptives, it's strange the fiscal tea baggers want to defund that... doing so would mean more children living in poverty, welfare, etc.

I didn't know a sleazy corrupt org like PP was the only place people could get condoms etc. Since they make most their money on abortions, I'd be afraid they'd give me defective condoms.

 

[Kali]

I guessing if the mom doesn't work, the child isn't entitled to welfare in the pro life/Conservative utopia. The child should get a job and work to support itself, once all the disastrous business regulations are stripped... you know, those pesky Child Labor Laws. Giving the child welfare might make it feel entitled, and we can't have a child feeling entitled to anything in America.

Job? Forget jobs! We need to make these kids do some serious sweat shop type Slave labor. Make em earn their bread and that dry milk mix. And shoes? Forget that! We have paper bags and duct tape for a reason. :roll:

*Sarcasm for those that may take me serious. *

 

[Barbbtx]

They care more about making sure a woman can't practice her reproductive rights than they care about her access to healthcare... it's bs. They don't care about the women at all when they are making policies.

Call it what it is. A woman's right to an abortion. reproductive rights.:roll:

 

[cpwill]

Abby Johnson has been shown to be liar who made up her background story about working for PP.

Abby Johnson’s Story Doesn’t Hold Water

According to Texas Monthly, portions of Abby Johnson’s story may have been fabricated to cover up the real reason for her departure from Planned Parenthood – slipping job performance.

The rollout of Abby Johnson as a culture-war celebrity got off to a rocky start. In early November, the online magazine Salon reported that on September 27, the day after Johnson says she witnessed the ultrasound-guided abortion and had her epiphany, she appeared as a guest on the Bryan public radio program Fair and Feminist to discuss her work at the clinic. In the hour-long interview, Johnson gives an enthusiastic defense of the clinic and ridicules the 40 Days for Life protest. She doesn’t sound like someone who’d had a life-changing experience the previous day or who had soured on her employer’s mission . . .

because the next day she wasn't a completely changed person? :roll: reaching. when you're the professional spokesman for group X, you've rehashed and given the arguments for X so many times that it's habit.

:roll: but no. because she's human, and reflects, and changes as she grows and learns over time, she must be lying :roll: okay.


you'll note they don't challenge the part about being told to increase abortions. just go straight into an ad hominem fallacy.

 

[cpwill]

It does hold water... Like I said before, how many times have you been asked in a job interview if you have children?

:shrug: it was i think the second question i got after "are you married" when i moved over and started working where I am at today.

And btw.. your comment itself reflects institutionalized sexism.

"women tend to spend less time working and more time taking care of their kids. that's fine, but they shouldn't complain that they then get paid less;"

Women tend to work less to take care of their kids? Only women, why is that? Why don't men work less?

:roll: and all sex is rape, right?

women work less and take care of children more generally because that is what they prefer to do, and that is generally how couples break down the respective roles. you can bitch and moan all you like about people's individual choices when it comes to child-raising, but it was their choice that they made, not their employers.

This is the same exact sexism Palin faced as a mother... Men aren't expected to spend time with the children or tend to the children, as your comment indicates.

generally not as much as the mother; that's how most families do it, yes. but that's their choice. it's not a "lower task" for a mother to raise children, and your assumption that the women who choose to do so are somehow degrading themselves is insulting and itself bigoted.

The traditional male role is to work and provide. House husband is not a phrase common in America, and where that phrase is more common, the income gap isn't as wide BTW.

well... duh? where both genders equally take themselves partially (or wholly) out of the workforce to provide childcare, of course the effects will be felt more equally by both genders.

incidentally, do you feel that it is sexist in those relationships for the woman to expect the man to stay home, cook, clean, and look after the kids while she goes and has a career?

In patriarchal society women are expected to do housework and care for babies, and your comment indicates that you think a woman should do it, not the men

you're not so much a "jump to conclusions" kinda person as you are a "start from there" kinda person, huh?

It's a woman's choice, not a man's choice as you said and it's ironic coming from somebody opposed to reproductive choice.

i'm not against the right to choose whether or not one wants to reproduce. i'm against the "right" to decide after the fact that you made a mistake and kill your children. I think an unborn baby is still a baby; that's what it comes down to for me (and my wife, incidentally), not some notion of restricting the freedom of women. in fact i wish both sexes were equally restricted and free in this regard, as currently they are not. it takes two to tango, and both should be held equally responsible for the child should one result.

Whenever a child is sick, a woman is more likely to stay home than the man now, because she makes less money... because we always have made less money

because the mother in question took time off when the kids were little, and wants to be off in time to meet the bus every day, so on and so forth. being a mother depresses your wage earning ability - at the very least you lose a few months of growth and training and experience that men never do; and you are a risk to the company of more in the future. that's why single women outperform single men. that's not sexist or moral or imorral, it's just plain old economic fact. trying to force economics to bend to your particular moral stance doesn't work, and the people generally harmed are those you are intending to help.

Because she makes less money, it's more economical for her to miss work for any reason if one has to miss work (sick child, flat tire, car trouble, high fuel prices, etc). It's a self sustaining cycle. Saying a woman's work is less valuable has always hindered gender equality, and therefore, it's institutionalized sexism.

i don't think anyone is saying a woman's work is less valuable; i think it's often less available.

It does hold water.... I don't know how you can sexism doesn't exist, unless you in a coma when Palin was running for VP..

sexism exists, absolutely. but i don't see it as a general force in our job market. you could probably find isolated incidents of it, just as you could of anti-male sexism, racism, etc; but any economic entity that put into place a sexist policy would quickly find itself at a disadvantage to it's competitors.

 

[cpwill]

just came back from cooking dinner, washing the dishes, and feeding the baby to see that shewolf.... still hasn't explained why I am so guilty of sexism for pointing out economic reality...

 

[Boo Radley]

A sourceless blog? Personal unbacked anecdotes? Why should I believe any of that?

Because it says what CP and others want said. That will always be enough. Sadly. :coffeepap

 

[Paschendale]

just came back from cooking dinner, washing the dishes, and feeding the baby to see that shewolf.... still hasn't explained why I am so guilty of sexism for pointing out economic reality...

Congratz, you're pulling your weight. The fact that you seem to want a pat on the back for doing work that you consider beneath you (women's work) shows the sexism.

 

[SheWolf]

:roll: and all sex is rape, right?

WTF... Talk about ridiculous assumptions. No, I don't think all rape is sex.

You must hate feminists or discussing sexism, right? Women talking about sexism and it's existence is absurd, bitching, and moaning?

You're coming off really insulting and dismissive IMO...

women work less and take care of children more generally because that is what they prefer to do, and that is generally how couples break down the respective roles. you can bitch and moan all you like about people's individual choices when it comes to child-raising, but it was their choice that they made, not their employers.

You're lecturing is unnecessary. I don't have a problem with people making individual choices, and I generally don't because I am a Libertarian. I have a problem with you saying it's always a woman's choice. It's simply a tradition, and it even causes reverse sexism in family courts... Woman are usually always rewarded children in divorce, that's a judges choice. You can't argue that that's a woman's choice. Men have to fight harder for full custody of their children, but generally, since men are the providers and women the caregivers... our courts are slanted towards giving the woman the children and making the father pay child support (provide). Woman are assumed the better parent to care for the children and men the better parent to provide, because it's been the tradition long before women had rights. Those gender biased assumptions and roles still exist. Now just because society is still biased towards women and men being caregivers and providers, you're trying to say it's ALWAYS a choice just because women have rights now.

I'd call that an argument of convenience..

generally not as much as the mother; that's how most families do it, yes. but that's their choice. it's not a "lower task" for a mother to raise children, and your assumption that the women who choose to do so are somehow degrading themselves is insulting and itself bigoted.

Again, stop your lecturing and making assumptions. Taking care of children is not a lowly task. I never said that... You're the one arguing that taking care of children is an economic lowly duty that women choice to do, therefore they are worth less in the job market...

I don't think raising children is economically lowly or lowly in any fashion. Taking care of children and raising them to be good citizens is one of the most important jobs in the world. Why the hell do only women CHOICE to do it? A man can do it just as well, if he were willing, but they aren't, nor are judges willing to reward them full custody of their children as often as they do women.

I even mentioned "housewife shaming" before, which I personally have a problem with. Women shouldn't feel shamed because they choice to be housewives. There are even feminist housewives.

Feminist Housewives Online
Feminist Housewives Reclaim the Kitchen | Gender | AlterNet
Being a Feminist Housewife


I know plenty of women who made the choice to be housewives, so you can shove your blind assumptions and accusations up your @ss.

incidentally, do you feel that it is sexist in those relationships for the woman to expect the man to stay home, cook, clean, and look after the kids while she goes and has a career?

I never said that is sexist for women to stay home and do it. I explained why it's institutionalized and why it's sexist... because women have been paid less and their work valued less traditionally. It's sexist to expect women to be paid less because they are mothers, as your initial comment indicated. It's sexist to not be willing to do those things as a man.

you're not so much a "jump to conclusions" kinda person as you are a "start from there" kinda person, huh?

Well, now you know how it feels.... You use the word choice, but I have explained why, women make that choice more than men make that choice...

because the mother in question took time off when the kids were little, and wants to be off in time to meet the bus every day, so on and so forth. being a mother depresses your wage earning ability - at the very least you lose a few months of growth and training and experience that men never do; and you are a risk to the company of more in the future.

And again, in you're little world, it's only women who choice to do those things and 100% of the time... Women always choice to take care of children. Women always choice to stay home and put the kids on the bus. Men don't choice to .

Again, you say, "being a mother depresses your wage earning," but not being a father.... To me, I can spot that you have gender biased views as to what parenting means for a woman and for a man. What does "being a father" actually mean to you? Working and providing? Playing sports with the kids after he is done working?

... and that's a modern choice, for both genders, you say?

that's why single women outperform single men. that's not sexist or moral or imorral, it's just plain old economic fact. trying to force economics to bend to your particular moral stance doesn't work, and the people generally harmed are those you are intending to help.

Exactly how am I hurting anybody with my posts? We are taking about sexism in economics in an abortion thread, and you're pro life and happen to be the one arguing that single women deserve to be paid less because they give birth (you don't give them a choice in that dept) and they decide to raise the baby.

Between 2006 and 2008, 32.7% of women between 25 and 34 had a bachelor's degree or higher, compared with 25.8% of men, according to the Census.

The statistics are slanted because more women go to college than men... Educated women make more than the blue collar working males, however, they are still not paid equally when compared to the educated males in their own professions and these women are childless. Women are paid less than men, even BEFORE they have children.

The housewives I know are all educated and married to educated men... so yes, there was an economic incentive for them to choice to be the dominate caregiver. If the woman made a lot more money than her husband in the beginning, he may have been the one to stay home more often. If they made the same amount of money, and there was little to no wage gap, then I'd be likely to side with your argument that it's a choice and that there are no other institutionalize factors influencing that choice.


While these particular women earn more than their male peers, women on the whole haven't reached equal status in any particular job or education level. For instance, women with a bachelor's degree had median earnings of $39,571 between 2006 and 2008, compared with $59,079 for men at the same education level, according to the Census.

Young, Single Women Earn More Than Male Peers - WSJ.com

i don't think anyone is saying a woman's work is less valuable; i think it's often less available.

The market values a woman's work as being less valuable...

sexism exists, absolutely. but i don't see it as a general force in our job market. you could probably find isolated incidents of it, just as you could of anti-male sexism, racism, etc; but any economic entity that put into place a sexist policy would quickly find itself at a disadvantage to it's competitors.

I have heard Rand Paul argue that racism put companies at an economic disadvantage and they would desegregate themselves, but that argument is BS and I could explain why, but not in this thread. That would go off topic.

 

[SheWolf]

Again, this caregiver/provider institution is same kind of sexism Palin faced.

If Palin would have said she can provide just as well as a man and her husband could love and care for a child just as well as a woman, and she was no worse a parent than every other male president and VP parent before her... I would have had respect and admiration for her.

I wouldn't have liked her policies anymore, but that would have make me turn my head and stand with her in some ways.

I would have loved to see a woman on the right address this issue so much, because the right has Hillary and most feminists are left... But Palin didn't do it, and I often think the right would have been uncomfortable with it... especially the religious groups. It's the whole Adam Eve thing, gender roles, homosexuality, and family tradition stuff... However, I did enjoy seeing Rush, Bill, and others try to talk like they were feminists and against sexism while it lasted.

 

[cpwill]

Congratz, you're pulling your weight. The fact that you seem to want a pat on the back for doing work that you consider beneath you (women's work) shows the sexism.

:lamo you really didn't get it. shewolf was accusing me of being the kind of guy who would think that somehow I was "above" working for the family because that sort of thing is "low" which translates to "womens work".

anyone who thinks they are "above" any kind of work has alot more problems than sexism.

 

[cpwill]

WTF... Talk about ridiculous assumptions. No, I don't think all rape is sex.

gosh so ridiculous. who would make such an absurd claim?

You must hate feminists or discussing sexism, right? Women talking about sexism and it's existence is absurd, bitching, and moaning?

i think often it is bitching and moaning. "oh woe is me, it's so unfair, life is so hard, i face so many obstacles being a woman..." :roll: i have low tolerance for American citizens of any stripe claiming that life has somehow handed them a short stick. but everyone wants to be a victim.

as for discussing it, obviously i don't hate discussing it, as here I am doing so. I just find it's claims to be rather ludicrous.

You're coming off really insulting and dismissive IMO...

well understand that i'm not dismissing you because you're a woman - i'm disimissing your arguments because they are wrong.

You're lecturing is unnecessary. I don't have a problem with people making individual choices, and I generally don't because I am a Libertarian

if that is true, then you should know better. in the competition of the free market, any business who pursues a hiring or payscale policy that is racist, sexist, ethnicist, religiousist, etc; is choosing to reduce it's economic output relative to costs. If Business A decides to pay it's women 4/5ths of what it pays it's men who are just as productive, then the women whose labor is worth more than that will go work at Business B, who will immediately see an increase in efficiency and production, and will proceed tp take A's market share. the free market is a swift and ruthless eliminater of businesses who put into place policies that do not seek to maximize economic efficiency.

I have a problem with you saying it's always a woman's choice

then you should be happy that I have not; you are projecting an attitude and set of assumptions onto me that do not fit. I use the phrases "mostly" and "generally" a lot, and I think that does fit.

. It's simply a tradition

which is not wrong. there is nothing wrong with tradition, my wife and I are both very happy with traditional roles and we enjoy the "traditional" aspects of them. Tradition is a variety of things - not just the 'democracy of the dead' but the combined experience of those who have existed before you - the manners in which your society has discovered through long trial and error work best. it is that which chucks tradition overboard that must justify itself, not those who choose to remain within it.

it even causes reverse sexism in family courts... Woman are usually always rewarded children in divorce, that's a judges choice. You can't argue that that's a woman's choice. Men have to fight harder for full custody of their children, but generally, since men are the providers and women the caregivers... our courts are slanted towards giving the woman the children and making the father pay child support (provide). Woman are assumed the better parent to care for the children and men the better parent to provide, because it's been the tradition long before women had rights. Those gender biased assumptions and roles still exist. Now just because society is still biased towards women and men being caregivers and providers, you're trying to say it's ALWAYS a choice just because women have rights now.

you are trying to draw a similarity here which does not exist. the government does not have the automatic and instant feedback mechanism that a business operating in the market does. it is therefore simple and easy (even perhaps easier) for a government to pursue a sexist/racist/whathaveyou model than a business, which faces potential death if it tries to do so. If you want to argue that women in public service are earning less than men in public service who work the same jobs, same hours, etc; then that is a charge that could hold water and - if there is evidence - should be looked into.

Again, stop your lecturing and making assumptions. Taking care of children is not a lowly task. I never said that... You're the one arguing that taking care of children is an economic lowly duty that women choice to do, therefore they are worth less in the job market...

you are mistaken. i am saying that taking care of children reduces your worth in the job market; nowhere do I say that it is lowly. on the contrary, the most important function of society is the proper care and raising of children.

Why the hell do only women CHOICE to do it? A man can do it just as well, if he were willing

a man might in comparison to a woman. but generally i think that women are better suited to it, which is probably why most couples end up having the wife take the lead in that regard. Women tend to have higher "EQ"'s, and a stronger desire to do so, both of which are critical.

I even mentioned "housewife shaming" before, which I personally have a problem with. Women shouldn't feel shamed because they choice to be housewives.

amen. it is a shame that people think that their choice to place that before an income-generating career somehow means they are being lowered, either by themselves or by society and employers in general.

I never said that is sexist for women to stay home and do it. I explained why it's institutionalized and why it's sexist..

so it's not sexist. it's just institutionalized sexism. right. got it.


wait, wait, no, i lost it. something cannot both be sexist and not sexist. either women staying home to raise kids is "just tradition" and "sexism" or it's not.

it seems you are not fully sure what you believe here.

It's sexist to expect women to be paid less because they are mothers, as your initial comment indicated.

no it's not. their being mothers means that their work will be more limited than (for example) single childless women. women who are mothers tend to work fewer hours, need more flexible schedules, and generally seek out safer rather than higher income employment. their labor can be depended upon less in future planning. there are a whole host of solid, economic reasons why the labor of someone who chooses to be a mother is worth less than soemone who chooses not to be.

It's sexist to not be willing to do those things as a man.

is it sexist not to be willing to do those things as a woman? or is it merely the individual being selfish, if that is what their family needs?

Well, now you know how it feels.... You use the word choice, but I have explained why, women make that choice more than men make that choice...

no you haven't. you've claimed it was institutionalized sexism before claiming it wasn't sexism. you seem to have this loose concept of "tradition" floating around, but you don't appear to have a solid definition of it, or how it functions, nor do you seem to allow for the possibility that women tend to be more emotionally attached to their children, especially when young (carrying and giving birth to them will do that). you present a two-dimensional world in which people who make Decision A only make it for Reason B unless of course they don't, but they are..... you completely fail to take into account the myriad complexities of human beings and their interactions.

And again, in you're little world, it's only women who choice to do those things and 100% of the time... Women always choice to take care of children. Women always choice to stay home and put the kids on the bus. Men don't choice to .

generally, that is correct.

Again, you say, "being a mother depresses your wage earning," but not being a father....

being a father does too, just less so. the less demands a family places on you, the more demands your work can, which tends to increase your compensation. women tend more to take a central role in the family, which is why mothers labor tend to becomes more depressed as far as pay goes.

To me, I can spot that you have gender biased views as to what parenting means for a woman and for a man. What does "being a father" actually mean to you? Working and providing? Playing sports with the kids after he is done working?

:shrug: playing with the kids is definitely part of it; but if you mean to ask is being a father different than being a mother, then my answer would be generally yes. my job is to teach my boys how to be good men; and it's an example that I can set in ways my wife never can. if we hae a daughter, then my job is to teach her what she should expect from the men in her life; not a little by the example of how i treat her mother. boys who are raised without solid male role models in their lives tend to fail at lifes' challenges at extraordinarily high rates; whether the measurement is crime, scholastic failing, low income.... girls who are raised without solid male role models tend to become desperate for male attention, and often become sexualized in order to achieve it; they are more likely to become attached to abusive men, and more likely to have children out of wedlock, which creates a self-perpetuating cycle. we are currently a society in short supply of solid male role models, and it shows in the tearing in the fabric of society.

... and that's a modern choice, for both genders, you say?

i couldn't care less what is "modern". i care most for what provides for the best care and raising of children.

Exactly how am I hurting anybody with my posts?

sorry; i failed to be specific enough in my post here. I was switching more to a general "you" as in "when you do x you get y" rather than "when you, shewolf, do x...."

my apologies.

 

[cpwill]

We are taking about sexism in economics in an abortion thread, and you're pro life and happen to be the one arguing that single women deserve to be paid less because they give birth (you don't give them a choice in that dept) and they decide to raise the baby.

they do. it's one of lifes' great tragedies, but their work is simply worth less than a woman without children or a woman with children who is able to depend upon others to help raise them. that's why i'm such a fan of marriage as a solution to so many of our societies problems. something like 3/4ths of child poverty could be solved just by having the childrens' mothers marry their fathers. we have denigrated marriage in general and the role of the father in particular in our society, and we are now reaping the costs of it.

The statistics are slanted because more women go to college than men... Educated women make more than the blue collar working males, however, they are still not paid equally when compared to the educated males in their own professions and these women are childless. Women are paid less than men, even BEFORE they have children.

The housewives I know are all educated and married to educated men... so yes, there was an economic incentive for them to choice to be the dominate caregiver. If the woman made a lot more money than her husband in the beginning, he may have been the one to stay home more often. If they made the same amount of money, and there was little to no wage gap, then I'd be likely to side with your argument that it's a choice and that there are no other institutionalize factors influencing that choice.


While these particular women earn more than their male peers, women on the whole haven't reached equal status in any particular job or education level. For instance, women with a bachelor's degree had median earnings of $39,571 between 2006 and 2008, compared with $59,079 for men at the same education level, according to the Census.

Young, Single Women Earn More Than Male Peers - WSJ.com

look at the comparison the article cites and the comparison you claim from it. the article points out that educated men earn more than educated women, but you claim that educated women who are childless in the same job earn less than educated men who are childless. you have added in some information not in the study you cite. why do women who are educated earn less than men who are educated before children?

...Choice of occupation also plays an important role in earnings. While feminists suggest that women are coerced into lower-paying job sectors, most women know that something else is often at work. Women gravitate toward jobs with fewer risks, more comfortable conditions, regular hours, more personal fulfillment and greater flexibility. Simply put, many women—not all, but enough to have a big impact on the statistics—are willing to trade higher pay for other desirable job characteristics.

Men, by contrast, often take on jobs that involve physical labor, outdoor work, overnight shifts and dangerous conditions (which is also why men suffer the overwhelming majority of injuries and deaths at the workplace). They put up with these unpleasant factors so that they can earn more.

Recent studies have shown that the wage gap shrinks—or even reverses—when relevant factors are taken into account and comparisons are made between men and women in similar circumstances. In a 2010 study of single, childless urban workers between the ages of 22 and 30, the research firm Reach Advisors found that women earned an average of 8% more than their male counterparts. Given that women are outpacing men in educational attainment, and that our economy is increasingly geared toward knowledge-based jobs, it makes sense that women's earnings are going up compared to men's....

The market values a woman's work as being less valuable...

only when it is so. when the woman's work is more valuable, then it is valued more. which is i suppose why women in that actual direct-comparison group earned 8% more than men.

I have heard Rand Paul argue that racism put companies at an economic disadvantage and they would desegregate themselves, but that argument is BS and I could explain why, but not in this thread. That would go off topic.

i'm more than happy to have that discussion with you elsewhere, as he is absolutely correct. the economist Thomas Sowell in particular has done some excellent work in this field, demonstrating how even at the height of apartheid, when it was criminal to do so, companies would often illegally hire and promote blacks in order to remain economically competitive. the same set of economic realities apply no less to women.

 

[SheWolf]

:lamo you really didn't get it. shewolf was accusing me of being the kind of guy who would think that somehow I was "above" working for the family because that sort of thing is "low" which translates to "womens work".

anyone who thinks they are "above" any kind of work has alot more problems than sexism.

I didn't assume any such thing about you....