# "Women don't need to be paid equally because money is more important to men."



## CaptainCool (Apr 9, 2012)

at least thats the reason why the governor of wisconsin repealed the "equal pay law": http://www.care2.com/causes/wiscons...-because-money-is-more-important-for-men.html
he might as well have pointed all women back to the kitchen...

so tell me, FAF. what is your opinion on this retarded individual who thinks that women dont deserve to be payed the same as men for the same amount of work?
i think this just proves yet again how ass-backwards conservatives really are. those are the people who hold back progress because of their obsolete values that they cling to like a bunch of scared babies.


----------



## Zydala (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

Wisconsin also has laws that basically punish single mothers and some representative (don't remember who) from there said that women should stay with their abusive husbands because maybe it can get better for them

So basically screw Wisconsin


----------



## Lunar (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

I feel like screaming.  Not screaming anything in particular, just "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAH"


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

I feel like flipping a table and then setting it on fire.


----------



## Tango (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

*Sees no problem with said governor's statements* :V


*hides*


----------



## Kaamos (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

they'd just waste it on shoes and shiny rocks anyway COLONVEE


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



CaptainCool said:


> at least thats the reason why the governor of wisconsin repealed the "equal pay law": http://www.care2.com/causes/wiscons...-because-money-is-more-important-for-men.html
> he might as well have pointed all women back to the kitchen...
> 
> so tell me, FAF. what is your opinion on this retarded individual who thinks that women dont deserve to be payed the same as men for the same amount of work?
> i think this just proves yet again how ass-backwards conservatives really are. those are the people who hold back progress because of their obsolete values that they cling to like a bunch of scared babies.


...the only mental image I can think of that can accurately describe the level of stupidity in repealing equal pay for women is a guy sawing a tree limb while he's sitting on it.


----------



## Tango (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Kaamos said:


> they'd just waste it on jewelry anyway SEMICOLONVEE




And shoes that they will wear maybe three times after buying them.


----------



## Metalmeerkat (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

Anything that gets me more money is fine by me. :v


----------



## Viridis (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



CaptainCool said:


> he might as well have pointed all women back to the kitchen...



What's wrong with that?  I need my sandwich!





Seriously, why would money be more important for us guys?  We probably spend much less of it.  If anything women with frivolous shopping habits should be earning more money, because they would need it, and it would increase more economic growth.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



viridis_coyote said:


> Seriously, why would money be more important for us guys?  We probably spend much less of it.  *If anything women with frivolous shopping habits *should be earning more money, because they would need it, and it would increase more economic growth.



If women are frivolous spenders, then men are all public masturbators...
Just sayin'. :V


----------



## Tango (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> If women are frivolous spenders, then men are all public masturbators...



And the down side of this fun activity is?


----------



## Ikrit (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

http://ragecomics.memebase.com/2011/09/20/rage-comics-so-i-heard-you-want-equal-rights/
relevent


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Tango_D said:


> And the down side of this fun activity is?



You get arrested and labeled as a sex offender.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

That's because women spend money on frivolous things like dresses, shoes, and tampons.

They don't spend it on what's really important in Wisconsin.

Cheese.

*GO PACKERS*


----------



## CaptainCool (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



CannonFodder said:


> ...the only mental image I can think of that can accurately describe the level of stupidity in repealing equal pay for women is a guy sawing a tree limb while he's sitting on it.



yup, i think that is rather fitting^^


----------



## Ad Hoc (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

He also signed a bunch of anti-abortion laws last Friday. They actually passed the assembly and senate months ago; he waited to sign them in on a major holiday weekend so no one would notice.

Damn my governor. He doesn't deserve to take office in a building with a bust of Robert Lafollette in it. Wisconsin is a very progressive state, historically! This is such an embarassment. 

At least the recall movement is going strong.


----------



## Lunar (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

But that comic implies that men have a choice to spend that kind of money.  What money are women gonna spend if they don't have it?  Credit cards will only get you so far and will only plunge the country into more economic turmoil when they can't pay their debts.


----------



## I Am That Is (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

For full-time, year-round workers, women are paid on average only 78 percent of what men are paid; for women of color, the gap is significantly wider. These wage gaps stubbornly remain despite the passage of the Equal Pay Act in 1963, and a variety of legislation prohibiting employment discrimination.
Women still are not receiving equal pay for equal work, let alone equal pay for work of equal value. This disparity not only affects women's spending power, it penalizes their retirement security by creating gaps in Social Security and pensions.


----------



## Tango (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> You get arrested and labeled as a sex offender.




I call that Saturday afternoon.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Tango_D said:


> I call that Saturday afternoon.



Thise little perimeter restrain bracelettes must be fun. How do you shower with them? :V


----------



## Metalmeerkat (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



I Am That Is said:


> For full-time, year-round workers, women are paid on average only 78 percent of what men are paid; for women of color, the gap is significantly wider. These wage gaps stubbornly remain despite the passage of the Equal Pay Act in 1963, and a variety of legislation prohibiting employment discrimination.
> Women still are not receiving equal pay for equal work, let alone equal pay for work of equal value. This disparity not only affects women's spending power, it penalizes their retirement security by creating gaps in Social Security and pensions.



If women wanted money, then they should have picked a better gender.


----------



## Tango (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Thise little perimeter restrain bracelettes must be fun. How do you shower with them? :V



Shower? What do you mean shower?


----------



## Ikrit (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

women have the power to destroy lives, all with the power of their voices!
and you complain about men having more rights?


----------



## LizardKing (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



CaptainCool said:


> ....this retarded *individual*...
> ...how ass-backwards *conservatives *really are...



>:[


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

There are also several variables that people have to take into consideration with the pay gap, such as Single women/men vs Single parents (men/women), and married couples. Single women and men tend to spend more than ones who have children.

But who are we kidding, statistics don't mean anything. :V



Tango_D said:


> Shower? What do you mean shower?



If we meet, I am bringing a hose and bleach.


----------



## Ikrit (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

i just notice a flaw in that link

it's god damn care2


----------



## Metalmeerkat (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Tango_D said:


> Shower? What do you mean shower?


Some weird ritual that involves getting baptised a couple times a week. Pay it no mind.


----------



## Dreaming (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

Oh America, you so crazy. 

...I can't really think of anything else to react with. Bleh, I'd like to say ''Only in America'', but I've seen equally batshit insane politics elsewhere.


----------



## Onnes (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

Nice to see that Walker is trying to ensure that he gets recalled.


----------



## Tango (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> If we meet, I am bringing a hose and bleach.



Why? I take nice, hot bubble baths with plenty of soap. Hey, I take may time and -enjoy- my grooming habits.

Just because my fursona is a fungus doesn't mean I smell like one.


----------



## CaptainCool (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Tango_D said:


> Just because my fursona is a fungus doesn't mean I smell like one.



fungi can smell pretty nice! especially in a pan with some butter, salt n pepper :9


----------



## Fay V (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

This reminds me of arguments made by dumbass college boys "hurr hurr Women don't need money cause we're the ones buying our girlfriends stuff. We're the ones that buy them drinks. If you want to make the same money then buy your own drinks"
It's the same idea that women only spend money of frivolous shit, that they're a bunch of fucking magpies that you have to catch and train to be a housewife. fuck that.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Tango_D said:


> Why? I take nice, hot bubble baths with plenty of soap. Hey, I take may time and -enjoy- my grooming habits.



You sound like a woman. Do you have a snatch or have the urge to dress like one? :V



> Just because my fursona is a fungus doesn't mean I smell like one.



Not all fungii smell like ass, mind you. Some of them smell wood-y...or tasty. :V


----------



## Tango (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> You sound like a woman. Do you have a snatch or have the urge to dress like one? :V



No

[/QUOTE]
Not all fungii smell like ass, mind you. Some of them smell wood-y...or tasty. :V[/QUOTE]

Only one way to find out.


----------



## Ikrit (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

tango

change your name to athlete's foot 

fucking do it


----------



## Dreaming (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Ikrit said:


> tango
> 
> change your name to athlete's foot
> 
> fucking do it


Yes! Then his catchphrase can be ''Something's afoot!''  :V 

Yeah we're going horribly off-topic now XD


----------



## Spatel (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Fay V said:


> This reminds me of arguments made by dumbass college boys "hurr hurr Women don't need money cause we're the ones buying our girlfriends stuff. We're the ones that buy them drinks. If you want to make the same money then buy your own drinks"
> It's the same idea that women only spend money of frivolous shit, that they're a bunch of fucking magpies that you have to catch and train to be a housewife. fuck that.



It is an incredibly condescending mentality. I have never met any woman like that.

Repealing the Equal Pay Act is incredibly stupid, and this sort of trend shows what happens when a country becomes complacent. You go so long with certain privileges you forget what it was like, back in the "good old days" before you had them, so the incentive to protect them decreases, and the incentive for change threatens keystone human rights protections like this.

I don't think the income gap is caused by sexism, however. I think it's caused by a lack of social mobility. If most of the top 1% of earners are men, and they control a disproportionately huge share of the nation's wealth, even if the middle classes and lower classes have closed the pay gap for all intents and purposes. How come we never see the "median income gap" instead of the "average income gap"?

The problem, in my opinion, is not that men are in a bro-club that gives each other patriarchal high-fives and raises and then bans women from the golf courses. The problem is that even though social attitudes towards gender have improved in the last 50 years, and most men see women as equals, our economy is very bad at creating opportunities for social advancement, and wealth tends to stay in the same hands. Wealth that was largely owned by upper-class men in the 1960s is still largely owned by men now, because it is self-preserving, and because many New Deal mechanisms to prevent the consolodation of wealth were repealed from the 80s onward, leading to the highest levels of inequality in this country since the 1920s.


----------



## Tango (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Ikrit said:


> tango
> 
> change your name to athlete's foot
> 
> fucking do it



Only Zeke or Fay have the  power to convince me to do that and there are -special- conditions that have to be met first.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

I have a vagina and can spit out someone's horrible existence who will then succeed then strike down on me with unequal rights- without women there wouldnt be men to discriminate against us. QUICK LADIES! PACK UP YOUR UNDERGARMENTS WE ARE GOING TO MARS!


----------



## Onnes (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Spatel said:


> I don't think the income gap is caused by sexism, however. I think it's caused by a lack of social mobility. If most of the top 1% of earners are men, and they control a disproportionately huge share of the nation's wealth, even if the middle classes and lower classes have closed the pay gap for all intents and purposes. How come we never see the "median income gap" instead of the "average income gap"?



Any serious study already uses the median when looking at wage gaps. Wikipedia actually has a remarkably sourced article on this for the US. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States) Whether or not an gap appears really depends, however, on what you decide to control for when comparing wages. If you do everything--demographics, education, experience, family status, occupation, and hours worked--then the wage gap largely disappears. However, it does not completely vanish and whatever remains is usually interpreted as being due to discrimination, as other possibilities have been eliminated. Of course, controlling for absolutely everything eliminates from consideration that discrimination could play a role in things like hours worked and occupational choice.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



dinosaurdammit said:


> I have a vagina and can spit out someone's horrible existence who will then succeed then strike down on me with unequal rights- without women there wouldnt be men to discriminate against us. QUICK LADIES! PACK UP YOUR UNDERGARMENTS WE ARE GOING TO MARS!



Don't you mean Venus? :V


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Don't you mean Venus? :V





pffft no. when the sun expands mars will be the new eden.


----------



## DevistatedDrone (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

Bigotry seems to be the only thing that Wisconsin has going for itself.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



DevistatedDrone said:


> Bigotry seems to be the only thing that Wisconsin has going for itself.



And Cheese. You forgot the Cheese.


----------



## Spatel (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



DevistatedDrone said:


> Bigotry seems to be the only thing that Wisconsin has going for itself.



Don't you think it's a bit outclassed by Florida, Arizona, Mississippi and so forth?


----------



## Metalmeerkat (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Onnes said:


> Any serious study already uses the median when looking at wage gaps. Wikipedia actually has a remarkably sourced article on this for the US. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States) Whether or not an gap appears really depends, however, on what you decide to control for when comparing wages. If you do everything--demographics, education, experience, family status, occupation, and hours worked--then the wage gap largely disappears. However, it does not completely vanish and whatever remains is usually interpreted as being due to discrimination, as other possibilities have been eliminated. Of course, controlling for absolutely everything eliminates from consideration that discrimination could play a role in things like hours worked and occupational choice.



My theory is that men earn more because we're too dumb to know when to take a break from working :v


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> And Cheese. You forgot the Cheese.



[yt]j9Rv7czl9cU[/yt]

Discount Double Checks are native to Wisconsin.


----------



## Mayfurr (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> And Cheese. You forgot the Cheese.



No. Because it's still _American_ cheese - or, based on my experience of the stuff, "dairy-based cheese substitute". Saying Wisconsin cheese is the best cheese in the USA is like saying someone is the most handsome man in the hospital burns unit...

American cheese bears as much relationship to _actual_ cheese as a packet of mixed nuts does to the Wisconsin legislature


----------



## Kahoku (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

One state at a time, this country is just turning to shit...and more religious.

Religiously shitty and sexist.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Mayfurr said:


> No. Because it's still _American_ cheese - or, based on my experience of the stuff, "dairy-based cheese substitute". Saying Wisconsin cheese is the best cheese in the USA is like saying someone is the most handsome man in the hospital burns unit...
> 
> American cheese bears as much relationship to _actual_ cheese as a packet of mixed nuts does to the Wisconsin legislature



Okay. :V


----------



## Lobar (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Fay V said:


> This reminds me of arguments made by dumbass college boys "hurr hurr Women don't need money cause we're the ones buying our girlfriends stuff. We're the ones that buy them drinks. If you want to make the same money then buy your own drinks"



Pffff.  Like they were even buying women drinks out of actual generosity rather than just hoping to get laid.



Mayfurr said:


> No. Because it's still _American_ cheese - or, based on my experience of the stuff, "dairy-based cheese substitute". Saying Wisconsin cheese is the best cheese in the USA is like saying someone is the most handsome man in the hospital burns unit...
> 
> American cheese bears as much relationship to _actual_ cheese as a packet of mixed nuts does to the Wisconsin legislature



Uh, just because the those shitty Kraft singles came to be branded as "American cheese" doesn't mean that's the _only_ kind of cheese we produce in America, or even the bulk of it.  I live up here in the Midwest and we have some very competent artisanal dairies around here. :<


----------



## Seian Verian (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Mayfurr said:


> American cheese bears as much relationship to _actual_ cheese as a packet of mixed nuts does to the Wisconsin legislature



...I dunno, I think you're giving the cheese a little too much credit. Put the mixed nuts and the legislature together, no one would ever tell the difference.


----------



## Metalmeerkat (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Lobar said:


> Pffff.  Like they were even buying women drinks out of actual generosity rather than just hoping to get laid.



Be a step ahead, buying them gummy worms is where it's at. Or jolly ranchers, but you can't eat them as fast after a shot.


----------



## Bipolar Bear (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

Guys, we're talking about a state where people think that Beethoven was a type of cake. I think we can safely say that Wisconsin is devoid of any and all rational, coherent and meaningful thought.


----------



## jcfynx (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

As a registered confurvative I am afraid I must take issue with you, dearest Thread.

It appears that many young democrats are prone to knee-jerk reactions, such as this one. There is, by no means, a _dearth of righteousness_ on the part of any individual or organization when a particular piece of legislature does not pass. This is true even in cases where the legislature promises to address a social issue. Statements here that you must be "retarded" or "hate women" only go to show your lack of political acumen. Will I have to explain, in detail, the number of reasons why someone would repeal a bill _other_ than that they are simply _hateful, wicked creatures?_

That the government must force itself on the private sector when it perceives a social problem is something it must _prove_ to be true. The onus is constantly on government to justify its every interference. It is arguable that the "wage gap" is due to issues of social justice at all. Women _do_ choose occupations that earn less money and require more education, on the whole. And they do _not_ enjoy activities such as negotiating for personal wages or competing with their peers to the same extent that men do. Men and women are different. They are not the same things. Their motivations are different. They will make decisions that are not the same.

People in a society can take care of themselves without having to run to the big stick of the law. Repealing a law doesn't mean that you disapprove of the principle behind it. Would Wisconsin Governor Walker like to see women making as much as men? I'm sure he has no basis to deny that would be a nice outcome. What you have all gotten into an uproar about is whether a law should enforce that. And not just any law; only this one, particular law.

The article linked in the references to a "war against women." What an audacious statement. I find it hard to believe that our collective consciousness imagines a villainous Republican in a suit rubbing his hands together and cackling at the thought of women suffering.

The liberal push for absolute equality is unattainable. The world will never be completely equal. Forcing such a thing is dreadfully inefficient. See: communism.

This is why I never vote for the liberals. They are often silly and wrong.


----------



## Lobar (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

do they have republicans in japan


----------



## Aleu (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



jcfynx said:


> As a registered confurvative I am afraid I must take issue with you, dearest Thread.
> 
> It appears that many young democrats are prone to knee-jerk reactions, such as this one. There is, by no means, a _dearth of righteousness_ on the part of any individual or organization when a particular piece of legislature does not pass. This is true even in cases where the legislature promises to address a social issue. Statements here that you must be "retarded" or "hate women" only go to show your lack of political acumen. Will I have to explain, in detail, the number of reasons why someone would repeal a bill _other_ than that they are simply _hateful, wicked creatures?_
> 
> ...



Sure, men and women are different but that doesn't mean they should be paid differently. Of course they generally choose different careers however we're talking about men and women in the same career. It's not simply the pay difference that makes people scream "war on women" but the other bills and statements essentially chipping at their rights. More specifically in regards to the bills trying to deter women from getting abortions and the fact that women pay more in health insurance than men and adding another bit of birth control not being covered by health insurance but pills like Viagra are.

We don't believe they're doing it for the sake of women suffering. They just have dated views on women.


----------



## Ikrit (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



jcfynx said:


> As a registered *confurvative* I am afraid I must take issue with you, dearest Thread.
> 
> .



stop that


----------



## jcfynx (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Aleu said:


> Sure, men and women are different but that doesn't mean they should be paid differently.



There is no "woman's payscale" that American companies refer to. Any two demographics of people are going to, on the whole, be paid varying amounts of money based on a number of factors. A simple logical rule to look out for here is "correlation does not imply causation." There is no implication of a conspiracy against women given the arguments and information presented in this debate. I could easily put together "evidence" of a "war against white people" or "war against the rich." That does not mean these concepts exist in reality.



Aleu said:


> other bills and statements essentially chipping at their rights. More specifically in regards to the bills trying to deter women from getting abortions



The specific rights of an unborn child are not concrete. Most anti-abortion arguments stem from a genuine belief that human value is ascribed before birth. This line of reasoning is not necessarily invalid.



Aleu said:


> and the fact that women pay more in health insurance than men and adding another bit of birth control not being covered by health insurance but pills like Viagra are.



Equal insurance premiums are not a right. Different groups of people cost different amounts to insure. One particular pill being favored over one other pill is not tantamount to a rights issue.



Aleu said:


> They just have dated views on women.



Be careful of casting everyone with an opinion you don't agree with as being en league with "them." "They" is a dangerous concept.



Ikrit said:


> stop that



I will when someone makes a debate thread worth reading on this forum.


----------



## moon-drummer (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

Why isn't Scott Walker running for president? I mean, seriously. He's the scariest Republican I know, and obviously has the balls to actually DO what it seems most Republicans secretly wish to do while in office. And he's doing as much as possible as fast as possible (I'd guess) on the off chance that he is thrown out of office. Because if he is, there's still all the legal processes to undo anything he did to the state laws and if he isn't, he's already made sweeping changes and will probably continue. It's like he's playing a huge game of chicken. "Don't like what I'm doing? Then come over here and stop me. Go ahead."


----------



## Aleu (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



jcfynx said:


> There is no "woman's payscale" that American companies refer to. Any two demographics of people are going to, on the whole, be paid varying amounts of money based on a number of factors. A simple logical rule to look out for here is "correlation does not imply causation." There is no implication of a conspiracy against women given the arguments and information presented in this debate. I could easily put together "evidence" of a "war against white people" or "war against the rich." That does not mean these concepts exist in reality.
> 
> The specific rights of an unborn child are not concrete. Most anti-abortion arguments stem from a genuine belief that human value is ascribed before birth. This line of reasoning is not necessarily invalid.
> 
> ...


You can deny that women's discrimination exists but that doesn't make it true.

_Roe vs Wade_ still applies. The movement of the anti-choice pretty much want to remove the choice of the woman, the person carrying the fetus. The rights of the fetus are concrete if people bothered to read the Constitution, more specifically the 14th Amendment.

When that one pill has absolutely squat to do with health while the other is? Why would insurance companies cover the one that doesn't have anything to do with health but not the other one?



moon-drummer said:


> Why isn't Scott Walker running for president? I mean, seriously. He's the scariest Republican I know, and obviously has the balls to actually DO what it seems most Republicans secretly wish to do while in office. And he's doing as much as possible as fast as possible (I'd guess) on the off chance that he is thrown out of office. Because if he is, there's still all the legal processes to undo anything he did to the state laws and if he isn't, he's already made sweeping changes and will probably continue. It's like he's playing a huge game of chicken. "Don't like what I'm doing? Then come over here and stop me. Go ahead."


We have enough psychos running for president. We don't need another.


----------



## jcfynx (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Aleu said:


> You can deny that women's discrimination exists but that doesn't make it true.



I don't believe I did that. No, I don't believe I did that at all. Yes, discrimination _happens_ towards any and all groups of _living humans._ Men, women, children, the olderly. It is inevitable.



Aleu said:


> _Roe vs Wade_ still applies. The movement of the anti-choice pretty much want to remove the choice of the woman



This term you use, "anti-choice," paints everyone whom disagrees with you as _hating choice._ That's more sinister than the truth, which falls between _loving fetuses_ or _loving Jesus._ 



Aleu said:


> The rights of the fetus are concrete if people bothered to read the Constitution, more specifically the 14th Amendment.



*"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."*

Given both the actual text of the amendment as well as the historical context in which it was written, it cannot be said with certainty that it either _confirms or denies_ that human life is endowed with rights before the moment of birth.

It can, however, be said with certainty that it in no way was intended to imply the legal status of unborn children, and any attempt to construe it as such is to take it out of its intention.



Aleu said:


> When that one pill has absolutely squat to do with health while the other is? Why would insurance companies cover the one that doesn't have anything to do with health but not the other one?



Viagra has everything to do with health. It covers a medical dysfunction. American insurance companies will not cover Viagra without a valid medical diagnosis.

Birth control is not generally prescribed for medical reasons. The preventative health benefits of birth control are considered secondary. Preventative medicines, such as flu shots, are generally not covered by American companies.

Viagra is birth control, and birth control is not Viagra. They are two fundamentally different medicines prescribed in two fundamentally different ways. It's easy to compare the two only if your standards of comparison are _they are both potentially related to sex._ That is all. Condoms are not covered for men, and birth control pills are not covered for women. This is not a rights issue.


----------



## Aleu (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



jcfynx said:


> I don't believe I did that. No, I don't believe I did that at all. Yes, discrimination _happens_ towards any and all groups of _living humans._ Men, women, children, the olderly. It is inevitable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Of course they're hating choice. They're certainly not pro-life because they generally don't give a damn about the kid after it's born. They're merely forcing THEIR views on other people.

It implies that unless you're born, you don't get rights. It's as simple as that. The fetus doesn't even have a damn social security number or certificate of birth and yet people whine about its rights.

Men take viagra so they can get it up. That's it. If a man can't get an erection it's not going to kill him. However, birth control isn't just for preventing birth. There are certain diseases a woman has where birth control controls. Even if you argue against that it's still financially idiotic to not cover $60/month but cover the pregnancy and birthing process and shelling out more money for the medical needs of the child.


----------



## Bipolar Bear (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Aleu said:


> We have enough psychos running for president. We don't need another.



Quick Question (Actually, its two): What's your opinion on Barack Obama? Do you think he's a pretty good president?


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Foxecality said:


> Quick Question (Actually, its two): What's your opinion on Barack Obama? *Do you think he's a pretty good president?*


He's average.


----------



## Bliss (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Lobar said:


> do they have republicans in japan


No, they have liberals.


----------



## Unsilenced (Apr 9, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Mayfurr said:


> No. Because it's still _American_ cheese - or, based on my experience of the stuff, "dairy-based cheese substitute". Saying Wisconsin cheese is the best cheese in the USA is like saying someone is the most handsome man in the hospital burns unit...
> 
> American cheese bears as much relationship to _actual_ cheese as a packet of *mixed nuts* does to the Wisconsin legislature



So it's 100% legit cheese is what you're saying?


----------



## Aleu (Apr 10, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Foxecality said:


> Quick Question (Actually, its two): What's your opinion on Barack Obama?


Meh


Foxecality said:


> Do you think he's a pretty good president?


He's better than the last one and the best of those that are running so far. Overall? Not even close to my preference.


----------



## Spatel (Apr 10, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



jcfynx said:


> The liberal push for absolute equality is unattainable. The world will never be completely equal. Forcing such a thing is dreadfully inefficient. See: communism.
> 
> This is why I never vote for the liberals. They are often silly and wrong.



Communism was a great idea, and arguably more efficient than capitalism. I am willing to debate that point in depth later. You have to be very careful about the way you frame 'efficiency'. It  took a 3rd world agrarian society into the space age in 30 years. 

It was less sustainable, I think you mean. Communist Russia may not be a shining example of human rights or economic sustainability, but when you consider Russia's situation in the last two decades, and how it's failed to thrive any better under a free market, the argument against Soviet-style 20th century communism becomes less cut and dried than American conservatives like to portray it.

The argument gets even tougher when you consider how much better Vietnam has fared than all the banana republics the US instituted regime changes in; not to mention they have a pretty good track record on environmentalism.


----------



## Tycho (Apr 10, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

let's dissect the fuck out of the equal pay issue

yeah

this should be fun

Women get pregnant.  Can of worms opened.

This means that they get paid maternity leaves.  (at least, they are SUPPOSED to get them.)

That means that the employer has to hire a temp while she's gone.

EDIT: apparently they don't have to pay women on maternity leave in the USA.  Um, that is not acceptable.  Revisiting my ideas on the matter.


----------



## Metalmeerkat (Apr 10, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



			
				jcfynx said:
			
		

> Be careful of casting everyone with an opinion you don't agree  with as being en league with "them." "They" is a dangerous concept.





			
				jcfynx said:
			
		

> This is why I never vote for the liberals. *They* are often silly and wrong.



Man, I love trolling soooooooo much. Specially when all I have to do ctrl-c ctrl-v. :v


----------



## Kahoku (Apr 10, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

Double toast, is bad post.


----------



## Kahoku (Apr 10, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Metalmeerkat said:


> Man, I love trolling soooooooo much. Specially when all I have to do ctrl-c ctrl-v. :v



Respect is being lost, I really advise not continuing it.

More on the topic:

      I was talking to some female co-workers just this morning about this  issue and they think its complete bullshit as well. They both believed  if anything should judge how much you get paid its how hard you work,  and what kind of work you do. Other than that sex should never have a  baring on what you get paid. There I feel better giving a better  response to this thread now, and what I posted before :


Kijha said:


> One state at a time, this country is just turning to shit...and more religious.
> 
> Religiously shitty and sexist.



I still stand by this, and really wish that those with a mind that believe in a religion(s) would stand up and shut this shit down. Imagine if the church came out and said, "We don't agree with what is being done to Women in the Workplace." IMAGINE that for a second, it be a shitstorm one, but also a redeeming factor as well.


----------



## Metalmeerkat (Apr 10, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Kijha said:


> Respect is being lost, I really advise not continuing it.
> 
> More on the topic:
> 
> ...



Since when is pointing out a contradiction - and poor logic - grounds for loosing respect? Not that I care for the non-existent amount that I have, but that just makes no sense. Just wanted to point a problem out without being confrontational.

And religion - or tradition - is merely an excuse for discrimination and bigotry. It all comes down to holding power over others, and it is religion and culture that are manipulated to justify it, not the other way around.


----------



## jcfynx (Apr 10, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Aleu said:


> Of course they're hating choice. They're certainly not pro-life because they generally don't give a damn about the kid after it's born.



No they don't.

Yes they do.



Aleu said:


> They're merely forcing THEIR views on other people.



The ability to advocate for legislature is a cornerstone of democracy. Welcome to civil society.



Aleu said:


> It implies that unless you're born, you don't get rights. It's as simple as that.



It does not say that. It guarantees anyone born on US soil is granted citizenship. It does not imply that that is the only way to become a US citizen. In fact, in practice, there are many ways to become a US citizen.



Aleu said:


> Men take viagra so they can get it up. That's it. If a man can't get an erection it's not going to kill him.



Erectile dysfunction is a medical condition. Most medical conditions are not fatal but are covered by insurance if they are detrimental to a person's functioning in essential parts of their lives.



Aleu said:


> it's still financially idiotic to not cover $60/month but cover the pregnancy and birthing process and shelling out more money for the medical needs of the child.



A key difference between insurance executives and unemployed furries is that one of these groups is good at business.



Metalmeerkat said:


> Man, I love trolling soooooooo much. Specially when all I have to do ctrl-c ctrl-v. :v



Where did the point go.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Apr 10, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

He can be glad there are only five women among Wisconsin's electorate. Wait...


----------



## Streetcircus (Apr 10, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

Well, I've only had two jobs in my life, and I can't say the women have ever put an equal effort into their work as the men in either of the jobs. Maybe I just have bad experiences, but the women I work with now can't physically do the same work; they take most breaks, take the most days off, call in the most, break the most stuff, and just aren't as valuable.

I wouldn't mind if my employer wasn't forced to give them equal pay just because they're women.


----------



## Spatel (Apr 10, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Streetcircus said:


> Well, I've only had two jobs in my life, and I can't say the women have ever put an equal effort into their work as the men in either of the jobs. Maybe I just have bad experiences, but the women I work with now can't physically do the same work; they take most breaks, take the most days off, call in the most, break the most stuff, and just aren't as valuable.
> 
> I wouldn't mind if my employer wasn't forced to give them equal pay just because they're women.



Maybe all of those girls had four jobs during the same time you had two.


----------



## Catilda Lily (Apr 10, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Streetcircus said:


> Well, I've only had two jobs in my life, and I can't say the women have ever put an equal effort into their work as the men in either of the jobs. Maybe I just have bad experiences, but the women I work with now can't physically do the same work; they take most breaks, take the most days off, call in the most, break the most stuff, and just aren't as valuable.
> 
> I wouldn't mind if my employer wasn't forced to give them equal pay just because they're women.


I'd say you have just had some bad examples. I know in the places I have worked they were surpirsed at how fast I finished things and actualy did them right.


----------



## Kahoku (Apr 10, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Metalmeerkat said:


> Since when is pointing out a contradiction - and poor logic - grounds for loosing respect? Not that I care for the non-existent amount that I have, but that just makes no sense. Just wanted to point a problem out without being confrontational.
> 
> And religion - or tradition - is merely an excuse for discrimination and bigotry. It all comes down to holding power over others, and it is religion and culture that are manipulated to justify it, not the other way around.



Meh any talk about trolling gives it more power than needed.
And aren't you at -15000 rep points from someone?


----------



## Ad Hoc (Apr 10, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

Thoughts: Obsolete or not, why get rid of the law?

The law existed for a reason. There was a point in time when women were arbitrarily paid less than men for doing the same work, despite equal qualifications/etc.,  This pay gap has gradually gotten smaller; it has arguably disappeared, with much of the apparent discrepancy being caused by cultural differences in educational preference, temperament, etc., This would make the law appear to be obsolete. However, society is ever-changing. All it would take is a cultural shift in the opposite direct and the gap could grow again. 

Even if the law were to remain obsolete well into the foreseeable future, it's not necessary to purge such laws from the books. Hell, there's an obsolete amendment in the US Constitution--I don't think anyone's had to make use of the Third Amendment in ages. Just because a law protects against a problem which is no longer relevant does not mean that it must be removed; if nothing else, it creates a precedent for the future and prevents whatever problem it was intended to combat from returning. Removal of the law only guarantees further difficulty for future generations should there be a cultural shift back toward arbitrarily lower wages for women. 

Furthermore, why is it that employers want the law removed if they claim that they no longer even think to break it? If the only reason the pay gap exists is because of things like differences in qualifications, they should be able to prove that in the event of litigation. The burden of proving the guilt of the defendant is always upon the plaintiff. 


Furthermore, Onnes's post earlier indicates that, yes, there still is some incidence of an arbitrary gender pay gap. (As in, one that is not based on differences in education, maternity leave, etc.,) So the law really isn't quite obsolete. Removing the law means that even if the affected individuals are able to prove that their pay difference is arbitrary--and they would have to, to in the case--they would still be unable to get reparations. That is an injustice.


----------



## Metalmeerkat (Apr 10, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



> Thoughts: Obsolete or not, why get rid of the law?


One must be careful about the law of unintended consequences.​


----------



## DefectiveSpoons (Apr 11, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

Women do not posses the physical ability to perform as effectively as men in certain professions. For instance, Anything construction related, anything physical in any way they physically cannot put out as much work as men. The Work to pay ratio would make no sense. The senator who said the OP's title is in fact a complete dumb fuck. 

But in certain professions there is no way a female should make as much as a male, They are not as genetically effective as males to perform certain tasks. Why do you think when we were merely cavemen/women the men did the hunting and the protecting and the females took care of the families and gathered food etc.

They're not genetically built for those tasks.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 11, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



DefectiveSpoons said:


> Women do not posses the physical ability to perform as effectively as men in certain professions. For instance, Anything construction related, anything physical in any way they physically cannot put out as much work as men. The Work to pay ratio would make no sense. The senator who said the OP's title is in fact a complete dumb fuck.
> 
> But in certain professions there is no way a female should make as much as a male, They are not as genetically effective as males to perform certain tasks. Why do you think when we were merely cavemen/women the men did the hunting and the protecting and the females took care of the families and gathered food etc.
> 
> They're not genetically built for those tasks.


I think my sister would disagree with you while performing a wrestling pile driver on you.


----------



## DefectiveSpoons (Apr 11, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



CannonFodder said:


> I think my sister would disagree with you while performing a wrestling pile driver on you.



I think that genetics and science would agree that the vast majority of females are biologically constructed to be the weaker sex and that because a single female might match a males strength is in no way proof that the female gender is equally as strong and/or effective at jobs that require physical strength.

ALSO

Why do you think females don't server in combat? Because men don't like to see females die herp derp derp. False, they aren't combat effective. Why send the gender whose majority is weaker into something that requires as much physical strength as possible.

That post was bad and you should feel bad.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Apr 11, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



DefectiveSpoons said:


> Women do not posses the physical ability to perform as effectively as men in certain professions. For instance, Anything construction related, anything physical in any way they physically cannot put out as much work as men. The Work to pay ratio would make no sense. The senator who said the OP's title is in fact a complete dumb fuck.
> 
> But in certain professions there is no way a female should make as much as a male, They are not as genetically effective as males to perform certain tasks. Why do you think when we were merely cavemen/women the men did the hunting and the protecting and the females took care of the families and gathered food etc.
> 
> They're not genetically built for those tasks.


Let's say that all of that is true. (Personally I think it's grossly oversimplified but I'll let someone else take a bite out of it.)

There's still no reason to remove the law. The idea is equal pay for equal work. If a woman is paid less not because specifically she's a woman but specifically because she works less, is less qualified, etc., then the employer should be able to prove that in the event of wage discrimination litigation and will not have to pay reparations.

Earlier I said, "The burden of proving the guilt of the defendant is always upon the plaintiff." In retrospect, that probably doesn't make a lick of sense to someone who doesn't have to work with legal terminology as much as I do. Basically, if a woman decides to sue her employer for wage discrimination, she's going to have to prove that it was because of sexism rather than because of her work ethic, qualifications, etc., She's not going to be able to just show the judge her pay stub and her male coworker's pay stub and immediately get reparations from that, she's going to have to actually prove that the difference is arbitrary. If the employer can show that she works less hours, takes more sick days, can't/doesn't do the tasks that other workers do, etc., she's not going to have a leg to stand on and the employer will pay nothing. 

But there are instances when the difference is truly arbitrary, where is truly is equal work for unequal pay. Removal of the law only means that individuals in those situations will be unable to seek justice.



EDIT:


DefectiveSpoons said:


> Why do you think females don't server in  combat? Because men don't like to see females die herp derp derp. False,  they aren't combat effective. Why send the gender whose majority is  weaker into something that requires as much physical strength as  possible.


Ahahaha what? Go talk to Commie Bat about that. Russia's army has been  gender integrated forever and they do quite well for it. (They've also turned out  fine female soldiers like Lyudmila Pavlichenko.)


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 11, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



DefectiveSpoons said:


> Why do you think females don't server in combat? Because men don't like to see females die herp derp derp. False, they aren't combat effective. Why send the gender whose majority is weaker into something that requires as much physical strength as possible.
> 
> That post was bad and you should feel bad.



I dunno man, I know some females that have served in combat, unfortunately  they aren't in the US.

This morning, I also saw some women doing construction on the roads in my neighborhood.

In certain professions where Men and Women have the same level of education and same level of work, women are often paid less. An example would be Librarian Branch managers.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 11, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



DefectiveSpoons said:


> I think that genetics and science would agree that the vast majority of females are biologically constructed to be the weaker sex and that because a single female might match a males strength is in no way proof that the female gender is equally as strong and/or effective at jobs that require physical strength.
> 
> ALSO
> 
> ...


*[CITATION NEEDED]*
Do you have any scientifically backed evidence to support your claims?


----------



## DefectiveSpoons (Apr 11, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> I dunno man, I know some females that have served in combat, unfortunately  they aren't in the US.
> 
> This morning, I also saw some women doing construction on the roads in my neighborhood.
> 
> In certain professions where Men and Women have the same level of education and same level of work, women are often paid less. An example would be Librarian Branch managers.



Agree'd, Notice how above I never said they should be paid less specifically because they are female, but if you can't do the same amount of work as a male, then you do not earn his pay. That's the only way it makes sense.

With that said, If you can match his workload then you should obviously be paid the same.



Ad Hoc said:


> Let's say that all of that is true. (Personally I  think it's grossly oversimplified but I'll let someone else take a bite  out of it.)
> 
> There's still no reason to remove the law. The idea is equal pay for  equal work. If a woman is paid less not because specifically she's a  woman but specifically because she works less, is less qualified, etc.,  then the employer should be able to prove that in the event of wage  discrimination litigation and will not have to pay reparations.
> 
> ...




tl;dr for this early in the morning, but first off, I don't give a shit about that senator and that law, In fact I hardly even read through this thread and paid no attention to the law because it has nothing to do what I was posting about, I posted to make the point that if you can't match a mans work load then you shouldn't be paid the same. But, If you can, and you do consistently, you should absolutely be paid the same, any other way makes no sense and is completely fucking retarded. Also, You shouldn't be immediately at a disadvantage, it only makes sense to give someone the benefit of the doubt and then lower their pay if they don't perform.

That would be the equivalent of saying "You're both carrying 20 pound rocks at the same speed, with the same amount of effort but I'm going to pay one of you less because you happen to have a vagina."

Make sense?


----------



## Ad Hoc (Apr 11, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



DefectiveSpoons said:


> snip'd for space


Considering that the law's repeal is the primary topic of this thread, I think you might have made your ambivalence toward it more clear in your first post. Perhaps it was just an early-morning omission, I suppose we all have them. But I see that we are basically in agreement (in regards to equal pay for equal work), so that is good to hear. Cheers eh.


----------



## DefectiveSpoons (Apr 11, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



CannonFodder said:


> *[CITATION NEEDED]*
> Do you have any scientifically backed evidence to support your claims?



Dude the immensity of the fuck I don't give about this topic and/or it's contents is astounding, Google it. You want a basic form of proof? Take a step outside, walk around a major city and tell me that the average male isn't stronger then the average female.

Also, If you want actual proof, take a look at the differences in anatomy, Larger muscle mass, Women's ligaments are looser to account for childbirth thus they cannot support as much muscle.

For fucks sake, I stated this isn't true in every case but if you spent more then 30 seconds outside it should be vastly apparent that the majority of males could kick the living shit out of the majority of females on the street. Unless you have the body type of an anorexic midget who lives off of wheat thins and oxygen.


----------



## DefectiveSpoons (Apr 11, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Ad Hoc said:


> Considering that the law's repeal is the primary topic of this thread, I think you might have made your ambivalence toward it more clear in your first post. Perhaps it was just an early-morning omission, I suppose we all have them. But I see that we are basically in agreement (in regards to equal pay for equal work), so that is good to hear. Cheers eh.



Yeah I've been up for like 36 hours, probably should have made that apparent lol but yeah I agree with what you're saying. Cheers


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 11, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



DefectiveSpoons said:


> Dude the immensity of the fuck I don't give about this topic and/or it's contents is astounding, Google it. You want a basic form of proof? Take a step outside, walk around a major city and tell me that the average male isn't stronger then the average female.
> 
> Also, If you want actual proof, take a look at the differences in anatomy, Larger muscle mass, Women's ligaments are looser to account for childbirth thus they cannot support as much muscle.
> 
> For fucks sake, I stated this isn't true in every case but if you spent more then 30 seconds outside it should be vastly apparent that any male could kick the living shit out of the majority of females on the street. Unless you have the body type of an anorexic midget who lives off of wheat thins and oxygen.




We're the extended discussion of the furry fandom. Get used to trying to back up what you say with links or else your argument will devolve into bullshittery.

And also, I've been beating up boys and men for the majority of my life for sport (martial arts hyuck :V), so the argument of "Boys can kick girl's asses" is a flimsy argument at best.


----------



## DefectiveSpoons (Apr 11, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> We're the extended discussion of the furry fandom. Get used to trying to back up what you say with links or else it'll devolve to heresay.
> 
> And also, I've been beating up boys and men for the majority of my life for sport (martial arts hyuck :V), so the argument of "Boys can kick girl's asses" is a flimsy argument at best.



I'm speaking specifically in averages, now if the average of all females had been studying the martial arts for their entire lives your point would be relevant, as it stands it is not.

An average male with no martial arts background would win a battle with an average female with no martial arts background. Anyone who has been outside should be able to tell the immense difference in muscle mass and potential strength between the two genders averages.

The only way my argument doesn't make sense is if I'm generalizing and saying that in every case in existence men would win, which obviously isn't true and is almost physically impossible. Speaking in averages is the only way this can make any resemblance of sense. In the end all it comes down to is the average anatomy of a male vs. the average anatomy of a female.


----------



## jcfynx (Apr 11, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

Let me solve this for you, Internet. I happen to agree with our good Wisconsin governor on the point that monetary compensation is a greater factor for men than for women. To point, surveys of men and women in the workplace have largely shown that women place more value than men on the quality of their work environment as well as their relationships with co-workers, as well as other non-financial benefits. They are also less likely to change their place of work for greater compensation. Also there are other reasons I can think of.



Ad Hoc said:


> Thoughts: Obsolete or not, why get rid of the law?



There is a fundamental and material cost to upholding any law, both in its actual administration as well as in the inefficiency brought about by any outside regulation. It is also worth noting that in the case of this law, fradulent cases are frequently brought against employers, increasing the cost of doing business as well as disincentivising the hiring of women, whom are already seen as potential future harassment or discrimination lawsuits by many such employers.



Ad Hoc said:


> (The law appears to be) obsolete. However, society is ever-changing. All it would take is a cultural shift in the opposite direct and the gap could grow again..whatever problem it was intended to combat (could return.)



In such case as a shift in circumstances occurs, it would be prudent to draft a new law to address those circumstances in a manner most appropriate to the needs of that time. Old laws address old issues in old ways.



Ad Hoc said:


> Furthermore, why is it that employers want the law removed if they claim that they no longer even think to break it? If the only reason the pay gap exists is because of things like differences in qualifications, they should be able to prove that in the event of litigation. The burden of proving the guilt of the defendant is always upon the plaintiff.



Litigation is extremely expensive, both in the cost of your legal defense and the opportunity cost of your highest-paid executives taking time off from work. That's not to mention the damage to your company's reputation for being involved in a discrimination lawsuit in the first place.



Ad Hoc said:


> There still is some incidence of an arbitrary gender pay gap.



Women are willing to work for less money. That is not an instance of an arbitrary gender pay gap. If they market themselves as competetively as men have in the past, they will be able to find a place in the job market where their compensation equals that of their male counterparts.



Ad Hoc said:


> The idea is equal pay for equal work.



Different employees are paid differing amounts for their time and skill sets. Government-enforced equality of compensation is a communist concept. I can pay Steve more than I pay John because I like him more, or because he is a gadfly who harangues my foes. Women are largely different than men and it only makes sense that they are, on the whole, compensated in different ways.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 11, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



DefectiveSpoons said:


> An average male with no martial arts background would win a battle with an average female with no martial arts background. Anyone who has been outside should be able to tell the immense difference in muscle mass and potential strength between the two genders averages.



I just have to link this for humor. :V


----------



## Spatel (Apr 11, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



DefectiveSpoons said:


> An average male with no martial arts background would win a battle with an average female with no martial arts background. Anyone who has been outside should be able to tell the immense difference in muscle mass and potential strength between the two genders averages.
> 
> The only way my argument doesn't make sense is if I'm generalizing and saying that in every case in existence men would win, which obviously isn't true and is almost physically impossible. Speaking in averages is the only way this can make any resemblance of sense. In the end all it comes down to is the average anatomy of a male vs. the average anatomy of a female.



Your argument doesn't make sense on the grounds that the *vast majority of jobs don't require the maximum amount of physical strength olympic athletes are capable of*, so nothing you're saying matters at all. Our extra strength as males is mostly useless in the job market, unless you plan on working on an oil rig, a fishing trawler, or the military. And yes, men are more suitable to the front lines. Women would be great as tank operators and sub crewmembers though, because they're smaller. There's actually some utility for having women in the military. They're also good for building certain types of industrial machines for the same reason--they can squeeze into tighter spaces to work. Unfortunately that is the reason child labor exists in some countries, but it show that there is a need for that kind of specialty.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Apr 11, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



jcfynx said:


> There is a fundamental and material cost to upholding any law, both in its actual administration as well as in the inefficiency brought about by any outside regulation. It is also worth noting that in the case of this law, fradulent cases are frequently brought against employers, increasing the cost of doing business as well as disincentivising the hiring of women, whom are already seen as potential future harassment or discrimination lawsuits by many such employers.


It's been said over and over again in this thread that there's no arbitary pay gap for the law to be used against (because the existing gap is non-arbitrary); if so, the only  cost of keeping the law is a little extra paper and ink for the law  books. As for the second part, I'm going to need a citation on the incidence of fraud. Unless the incidence is overwhelming, it doesn't justify the repeal of the law. Any law can be misused--if a burglar breaks into my house and is injured because of building code violations, he or she can sue me, but that's not a reason to get rid of building code law. It is only when the law is overwhelmingly misused that it needs to be repealed; often simply altering the law would also suffice.



jcfynx said:


> In such case as a shift in circumstances occurs, it would be prudent to draft a new law to address those circumstances in a manner most appropriate to the needs of that time. Old laws address old issues in old ways.


I wish that you had not gutted my post to hunt and pick for easy sentences to respond to. In this instance you outright changed the wording of my argument, which can very well change the meaning of it, albeit subtly. (There's a reason we cannot do it at all in court reporting!) Isolating particular sentences itself can change the meaning even without direct alterations, since many arguments are interconnected and build off of each other. *You are my friend* and I love you, _this criticism does not reflect a change in that_, but that's extraordinarily poor form. It creates very little incentive to respond to you not because of the strength of your argument, but because of the underhandedness of its application. Although we all sometimes cut out bits of our opponents' arguments for space or irrelevance, if you're responding to less than half of my post, if you are actually changing the wording, you're doing it wrong. 

You left out my assertion that keeping the law in place creates a precedent which may remove the problem from returning altogether. It is much like keeping the Third Amendment in the US Constitution--just because it is not contemporarily relevant (and that's arguable) does not mean it's not good to keep around for future generations. If it needs to be changed to address some issue particular to the future, change it then, but it's absolute removal only guarantees a more uphill battle should the problem return. 



jcfynx said:


> Litigation is extremely expensive, both in the cost of your legal defense and the opportunity cost of your highest-paid executives taking time off from work. That's not to mention the damage to your company's reputation for being involved in a discrimination lawsuit in the first place.


Again, citation needed on how often the litigation is fraudulent and unnecessary. If an employer hasn't put in place an arbitrary gender pay gap, they should have nothing to fear. If a woman tries to create a false discrimination case, she's out legal fees and takes a reputation hit, too. 



jcfynx said:


> Women are willing to work for less money. That is not an instance of an arbitrary gender pay gap. If they market themselves as competetively as men have in the past, they will be able to find a place in the job market where their compensation equals that of their male counterparts.
> 
> Different employees are paid differing amounts for their time and skill sets. Government-enforced equality of compensation is a communist concept. I can pay Steve more than I pay John because I like him more, or because he is a gadfly who harangues my foes. Women are largely different than men and it only makes sense that they are, on the whole, compensated in different ways.


I'm not sure if you quite understood what I meant by "equal pay *for* *equal work*." If two people with the same qualifications and seniority do the same type and amount of work, they should be compensated the same. I don't much care if that's a "communist" concept--and I think you're using the wrong word there, that's most definitely equal pay for unequal work--it's a damn good concept. There is a historic tendency to pay women less pay for truly equal work for no reason other than that they are women, see _Schultz v. Wheaton Glass Co._ and _Corning Glass v. Brennan_, and that is unjust.

You keep saying that women don't want equal pay. If women are genuinely willing to work for less, the law should be even  less threatening to employers, because then obviously women wouldn't  seek reparations for unequal pay. Now, that's playing with your words--you're actually saying that women and other minorities should fight for equality themselves without any help from the government. However, this is dreadfully inefficient. The cultural and economic barriers to this are a vast set of discussions unto themselves. Let's just look at facts: A huge majority of women and other minority group members never managed to achieve economic and cultural equality purely through employer-employee communication in all of recorded human history, a span of about 5,000-10,000 years. It took the Civil Rights Act only about 50 years to almost wipe out the pay gap. (And that pay gap really did used to have a wholly arbitrary basis, again see _Schultz v. Wheaton Glass Co._) While other factors were at play, so much for government inefficiency!


----------



## Metalmeerkat (Apr 11, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



CannonFodder said:


> *[CITATION NEEDED]*
> Do you have any scientifically backed evidence to support your claims?



It is pretty well established that human males have better muscle recovery and growth rates. A lot of it due elevated levels of testosterone (an anabolic steroid), which plays a very important role in muscle tissue healing, development, and growth.

Not that I think that has or should an overall impact on wage gaps.


----------



## Mayfurr (Apr 11, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Ad Hoc said:


> I'm not sure if you quite understood what I meant by "equal pay *for* *equal work*." If two people with the same qualifications and seniority do the same type and amount of work, they should be compensated the same.



This. What is so hard to understand about "equal pay for equal work"? And why should it be such an issue?


----------



## jcfynx (Apr 11, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Ad Hoc said:


> the only  cost of keeping the (sic) law is a little extra paper and ink for the law  books. As for the second part, I'm going to need a citation on the incidence of fraud. Unless the incidence is overwhelming, it doesn't justify the repeal of the law. Any law can be misused--if a burglar breaks into my house and is injured because of building code violations, he or she can sue me, but that's not a reason to get rid of building code law.



Every law has a cost to maintain. You may not see it, but it is expensive to have laws even if they are not laws that are being used. Leaving a law on the books largely serves to leave open a door to misuse. Any and all government regulation can and will be abused and will create market disturbance. It requires material justification to leave any law on the books. Fraud happens. And when there is not visible fraud, there is always misuse and misinterpretation.



Ad Hoc said:


> I wish that you had not gutted my post to hunt and pick for easy sentences to respond to.



I wish I had a pretty, pretty pony.



Ad Hoc said:


> you...changed...my...extraordinarily poor form...it creates...incentive to respond to you...because of the strength of your argument



Thank you. I do try.



Ad Hoc said:


> You left out my assertion that keeping the law in place creates a precedent which may remove the problem from returning altogether. It is much like keeping the Third Amendment in the US Constitution--just because it is not contemporarily relevant (and that's arguable) does not mean it's not good to keep around for future generations. If it needs to be changed to address some issue particular to the future, change it then, but it's absolute removal only guarantees a more uphill battle should the problem return.



In this example, you compare two items which are fundamentally different. In the first, the US Constitution states that soldiers may not be quartered in a private citizen's home. This is a broad and fundamental limitation to the power of the government. There should never be reason to updated this until we, as a species, shed our human bodies and join each other in harmony as light energy. The item in question in this thread is a very specific set of interventions regarding a specific issue. In your argument you refer to the former's continued existence as a justification for the continuation of other, specific legislation that no longer serves its purpose. The value of such legislation decays much more rapidly, to the point in which it will eventually become counterproductive. As it stands, the law presently requires employers to pay women more than said women, themselves, are demanding. This hurts employers, distorts the market, and provides an additional disincentive to hire women for positions of responsibility.

Additionally, expedience of process is not (at least, not admittedly) a concern of the domain of legislation.



Ad Hoc said:


> Again, citation needed on how often the litigation is fraudulent and unnecessary.



If we could catch the people who were defrauding us, we would not need to worry about it any longer. Suffice to say that giving a large group of people the power to file suit over purely circumstancial evidence lends itself easily to abuse.



Ad Hoc said:


> If an employer hasn't put in place an arbitrary gender pay gap, they should have nothing to fear. If a woman tries to create a false discrimination case, she's out legal fees and takes a reputation hit, too.



Gender pay gaps exist for a number of reasons. The same as there are pay gaps between introverts and extroverts. And pretty people and ugly people. Motivated people and lazy people. It is nearly impossible to prove objectively that a pay gap is arbitrary. Women are different than men and act differently. Hiring practices generally dictate you do not pay someone more than they demand. Women don't demand as much financial compensation and they are less likely to negotiate for a raise; when they do, they tend to negotiate for less. Employers are not at fault for this behavior.



Ad Hoc said:


> I'm not sure if you quite understood what I meant by "equal pay *for* *equal work*." If two people with the same qualifications and seniority do the same type and amount of work, they should be compensated the same.



At present, employers have the right to set wages for different employees in the same position for any reason other than explicit discrimination. It appears you're advocating for a government mandate to cement wages at a particular level. A business person would argue that this would not be in the best interest of anyone.



Ad Hoc said:


> You keep saying that women don't want equal pay. If women are genuinely willing to work for less, the law should be even less threatening to employers, because then obviously women wouldn't seek reparations for unequal pay.



Tangental. Women don't tend to talk about how much compensation they receive at work, but that doesn't make them any less litigious than the average American. The motivations behind someone who files a pay discrimination lawsuit are different than their motivations in the workplace.



Ad Hoc said:


> .Now, that's playing with your words--you're actually saying that women and other minorities should fight for equality themselves without any help from the government. However, this is dreadfully inefficient. The cultural and economic barriers to this are a vast set of discussions unto themselves. Let's just look at facts: A huge majority of women and other minority group members never managed to achieve economic and cultural equality purely through employer-employee communication in all of recorded human history, a span of about 5,000-10,000 years. It took the Civil Rights Act only about 50 years to almost wipe out the pay gap. (And that pay gap really did used to have a wholly arbitrary basis, again see _Schultz v. Wheaton Glass Co._) While other factors were at play, so much for government inefficiency!



Government never was good at advocating for anyone. Government can only force people to play by their rules. Discrimination against many groups in the United States has been on such a steep decline over the past six decades for a number of reasons; be careful not to ascribe too much credit to any particular piece of government legislation rather than dozens of other factors. Anti-discrimination laws attack only the branches of the problem, not the root of them. In this case, the root of the problem was that women had not been not seen as being as valuable as men in the workplace. This is due in part to a history of having provided little of value to the workforce for many thousands of years. There were very few women doctors, scholars, or business persons. They were not lawyers in Roman times or politicians in the 19th century. They did not generally seek to or see it as something they desired to do. If anything, society has done well to accept them in traditional male positions over such a small amount of time. I would feel it prudent to give more credit to the women who made it possible than to a law.

But that's just me.



Mayfurr said:


> This. What is so hard to understand about "equal pay for equal work"? And why should it be such an issue?



Because it's wrong.


----------



## Wreth (Apr 11, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

Maybe if women had equal pay then money wouldn't be more important for men.

à² _à² 

If people think it's unfair that men are expected to pay for drinks and meals and stuff, then surely giving women the same pay as men would mean they'd be more able to pay for things themselves. Deeeerp.


----------



## Spatel (Apr 11, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

In our generation, in cities, single women do make more than men. So if you're dating a girl, paying is actually quite generous. If you include married women the trend disappears though. Once they get married and have kids their careers go by the wayside. 

What this suggests is that women who wait till their 30s to have kids (at the risk of not being able to have kids at all), have some advantages against men in the workforce, probably due to their higher college graduation rates. Women who get married soon have difficulty balancing family life with a career, and they tend to take on more household responsibilities than men will in those arrangements.


----------



## Mayfurr (Apr 12, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



jcfynx said:


> At present, employers have the right to set wages for different employees in the same position for any reason other than explicit discrimination.



I would consider setting a different wage for the same work solely on the basis of what is between your legs as "explicit discrimination". Same as if the sole criteria was ethnic origin, skin colour, religious belief, political belief or nationality. 

Please explain your justification as why an employer is justified in paying two people doing the same job with the same skills in the same time different wages where the only difference is one has XX chromosomes and the other has XY chromosomes.


----------



## Metalmeerkat (Apr 12, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

Differences in Supply/demand? idk


----------



## Commiecomrade (Apr 12, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Lunar said:


> I feel like screaming.  Not screaming anything in particular, just "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAH"


"AAAAAAAAAAAAAAH" like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoGb2_E-eg8

I agree with you.

NSFW on title.


----------



## Zenia (Apr 12, 2012)

People should be paid based on their skill level and competence, not their genitals.

I am skilled as a seamstress. Without me in the shop, it would die. I am integral. I am paid $13/h which is a few bucks above minimum wage in my province. The only male that works in the shop gets $15/h but he has 45 years of experience (I have 22) and can do the things that are a little too hard for me, so it is fair.


----------



## jcfynx (Apr 13, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Mayfurr said:


> Please explain your justification as why an employer is justified in paying two people doing the same job with the same skills in the same time different wages where the only difference is one has XX chromosomes and the other has XY chromosomes.



Any two given people with the same position at the same company are paid two different wages. 

That is a fundamental quality of paying wages to people.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Apr 13, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



jcfynx said:


> Any two given people with the same position at the same company are paid two different wages.
> 
> That is a fundamental quality of paying wages to people.


Yes, but because one has been working for longer or is more skilled.

Any time else and it's idiotic.


----------



## jcfynx (Apr 13, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



Commiecomrade said:


> Yes, but because one has been working for longer or is more skilled.
> 
> Any time else and it's idiotic.



You assume that ability to perform is the only factor that should determine wages. In a free market system, wage-earners negotiate for their compensation individually. There are many factors which determine the outcome of any negotiation.

Employment does not seem to be a subject in which you are well-versed.


----------



## LouyieBlu (Apr 14, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



I Am That Is said:


> For full-time, year-round workers, women are paid on average only 78 percent of what men are paid; for women of color, the gap is significantly wider. These wage gaps stubbornly remain despite the passage of the Equal Pay Act in 1963, and a variety of legislation prohibiting employment discrimination.
> Women still are not receiving equal pay for equal work, let alone equal pay for work of equal value. This disparity not only affects women's spending power, it penalizes their retirement security by creating gaps in Social Security and pensions.



Okay one, i had to reply to this specific comment because of your name. i KNOW THAT REFERENCE. One of the best seris evar! First time i read the first one, I cried when the old mouse died...lol its been awhile, i forgot his name. Also sad brain Jaques died.... 

More on topic: This a touchy subject because it involves ,both genders and potical parties, so please keep my views in mind, but also say your opinion.

Ok, so yes this clearly a backwards going law proposal, it is quite insulting. But hopeful it will be rejected.
Its quite unfair, one gender is just as capable as the other, although that is subjective, at first it should be generally applied.
Its like when women starting to join combat rolls in the army, conservatives didnt want that, 'oohhh no I dont like change!'
Short: The law is not worth two shits...sigh the governments can be stupid sometimes.

Although the whole thing about women buying more shiny stuff then men, is a stereotypical generalization. True, women can sometimes develop  shopping habits, even addictions more than men, but it does not apply to all women, another subjective...subject? No more like situation.

Its late im sorryies with hugs for typing stuff that might only make sense to me.
Edit: I just noticed all my mis derps....screw it there staying there!


----------



## Mayfurr (Apr 14, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*



jcfynx said:


> You assume that ability to perform is the only factor that should determine wages. In a free market system, wage-earners negotiate for their compensation individually. There are many factors which determine the outcome of any negotiation.



So in your world it would be perfectly ethical and reasonable for Person A, who has exactly the same skills, experience and work productivity as Person B, to be paid more than Person B for any one (or more) of the following reasons:

* Person A happens to be a relative of the boss.
* Person A is having sex with the boss (either willingly, or though coercion) in return for higher pay.
* Person B is black.
* Person B is Japanese.
* Person A is Albanian.
* Person B is Muslim.
* Person B is female.
* Person A happens to be a drinking buddy of the boss.
* Person A is dating one of the boss's children.

Ethics, have you heard of them?


----------



## jcfynx (Apr 14, 2012)

*Re: "Women don't need to be payed equally because money is more important for men."*

* Yes
* No
* No
* No
* No
* No
* Yes
* Yes

I hope that clears things up for you.

After all, I'm here to educate.


----------



## Xaerun (Apr 14, 2012)

Don't bother, May.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 14, 2012)

Women should be paid equally to men. Women are capable of working just as hard as men, they are also capable of doing a "mans" job like building or a mechanic. 

Speaking of building our local doctors clinic has just had some huge work carried out with the building of a nice new extension and a revamp of the existing building. anyway the site foreman  was a woman. 

I don't see why companies can be picky about who they employ. If I was running a business it wouldn't bother me if they were male, female, transgender, gay, straight, bisexual, of some religious faith, tall, short, black, white, asian...All I'd care about is that they can do the job they are applying for.


----------



## jcfynx (Apr 14, 2012)

Xaerun said:


> Don't bother, May.



If your idea of trolling is making reasonable arguments and being v polite also then I am the king of troll castle.


----------



## Mayfurr (Apr 15, 2012)

jcfynx said:


> If your idea of trolling is making reasonable arguments and being v polite also then I am the king of troll castle.



You failed at "reasonable arguments" - all you've made is an assertion that nepotism is a valid business practice with nothing to back it up.

So tell us, _"I'm here to educate"_, why is paying someone more for the same job because they're sucking up to the boss or because they're related to the boss ethical, but doing the same based on their ethnicity or nationality is not ethical?


----------



## Bipolar Bear (Apr 15, 2012)

Guys. We're arguing over something that doesn't affect any of you.


----------



## Ruby Dragon (Apr 15, 2012)

Okay, that is just so much stupidity it is incomprehensible. Saying they would just buy shiny jewels with it is just god damn ridiculous. They have to buy groceries, which can cost 80 dollars for an average family PER TRIP. 

I just... am lost for words.


----------



## jcfynx (Apr 15, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> You failed at "reasonable arguments"



Well at least I am v polite. ;w;



Mayfurr said:


> - all you've made is an assertion that nepotism is a valid business practice with nothing to back it up.
> 
> So tell us, _"I'm here to educate"_, why is paying someone more for the same job because they're sucking up to the boss or because they're related to the boss ethical, but doing the same based on their ethnicity or nationality is not ethical?



Paying someone more because you like them more may not be sound business sense, but it is hard to argue that it is unethical excepting in such cases as it violates someone's rights or the agreed-upon rules of an organization. In a family-run business, for example, it should be apparent to everyone that members of the family will hold particular positions. 

You are correct that favor due to ethnicity or nationality is discrimination in the same as favor along other characteristics. Western society holds that discrimination along particular lines, such as gender or race, is unacceptable. However, discrimination because of appearance, social graces, or your personal connection to someone is not. There is therefore no precedent for declaring such discrimination unethical.

I would add, as well, that the failure of a party to negotiate on their own behalf for financial compensation does not imply a lack of ethics on the part of the wage-setting party. As previously stated, many factors will influence the outcome of a negotiation, and it's difficult to rule out the role of cultural norms that gender or racial, and other roles will play in the interactions of such negotation. If a woman is less likely to be assertive, which is more likely the case with women than with men, the wage she will receive is likely to be somewhat less than if she were more assertive.


----------



## Mojotaian (Apr 16, 2012)

Why are people making the rules always F****** idiots..?


----------

