# James Green Argues Against Equal Pay



## Haskell (Feb 19, 2017)

Utah Republican argues against equal pay for women: It?s ?bad for families? and society 

What are your thoughts about the article of James Green's thoughts?


----------



## ams (Feb 19, 2017)

What do I think about discrimination? I'd say I'm generally against it.


----------



## Corrie (Feb 19, 2017)

You don't get paid the same cause of your gender? 

That is and always has been bull.


----------



## Haskell (Feb 19, 2017)

ams said:


> What do I think about discrimination? I'd say I'm generally against it.



I don't think he's being sexist. I think he is being a traditionalist.


----------



## Bowie (Feb 19, 2017)

It used to be a tradition to have black people work as slaves. If everyone started trying to preserve tradition, the world would be a very scary place.


----------



## Haskell (Feb 19, 2017)

Bowie said:


> It used to be a tradition to have black people work as slaves. If everyone started trying to preserve tradition, the world would be a very scary place.



His point is substantiated but not the right point.


----------



## toadsworthy (Feb 19, 2017)

he is equating equal pay for genders as paying men less... which is a very backwards and selfish way to look at this. Then he just spiraled out of control from there.

Pay people for the work they do, not their gender, ethnicity, or race. However in our society today, a lot of these different genders, races, and ethnicities don't get the same opportunities and thats what we need to fix somehow. Let's start by accepting that NOTHING can be derived just by looking at a person. Second we need to acknowledge the cultural differences between people and how that may affect their perception of society.


----------



## Mink777 (Feb 19, 2017)

Here we go again...


----------



## Haskell (Feb 19, 2017)

Alien51 said:


> Here we go again...



Yup. Current events ma' dude.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Feb 19, 2017)

That's not true. I would pay men and women equally if they had the same job at the same level of productivity, and it wouldn't be bad for families or society.

Plus, if both men and women get paid equally, that would mean more wealth for families. I don't see why that's bad, but I do see why that's good.


----------



## LambdaDelta (Feb 19, 2017)

Raskell said:


> I don't think he's being sexist. I think he is being a traditionalist.



traditionalistic sexism is still sexism


----------



## Haskell (Feb 19, 2017)

I'm not saying I agree with this dude. Just want to make that clear.


----------



## moonford (Feb 19, 2017)

Raskell said:


> I'm not saying I agree with this dude. Just want to make that clear.



You seem like you're defending him though.


----------



## Haskell (Feb 19, 2017)

Whiteflamingo said:


> You seem like you're defending him though.



I can see where he's coming from. I don't agree with it though.

You do the same, you get paid the same. Simple.


----------



## Butasquash (Feb 19, 2017)

What do I think? I think: 
Ruh Roh! Even this place is not safe from politic discussion.

Seriously though, why can't we all see one another as the same? Cuz we are indeed all the same. And better yet, pay everyone the same regardless of occupation.


----------



## Haskell (Feb 19, 2017)

Butasquash said:


> regardless of occupation.



This I don't agree with. A brain surgeon getting paid less than someone who flips a burger...


----------



## N e s s (Feb 19, 2017)

Raskell said:


> This I don't agree with. A brain surgeon getting paid less than someone who flips a burger...



Yeah you right, salary should be different among occupations.


----------



## nintendofan85 (Feb 19, 2017)

I wholeheartedly disagree.


----------



## toadsworthy (Feb 19, 2017)

Salary should surely be dependent on occupation... if you think doctors go through all that school to be so highly trained in several aspects of science and medicine to be payed the same as a mechanic, uh you are crazy. Not to mention the quality of certain services and products, or how frequent you provide a service.... there are a lot of factors that go into salary so, it would be impossible to pay everyone the same.


----------



## Locket (Feb 19, 2017)

mormons

I personally think that if we can find the right balance, then it will work wonderfully. It's also better for poorer families, because that means more money for the household.


----------



## Haskell (Feb 19, 2017)

Since men have dominated the workforce for a long time... it is common for people of authority to say "women will get paid the same if they do as good as a job". I agree with what they're saying, but it is pompous.


----------



## Tao (Feb 19, 2017)

Butasquash said:


> Seriously though, why can't we all see one another as the same? Cuz we are indeed all the same. And better yet, *pay everyone the same regardless of occupation.*



Anybody who put any sort of financial/time investment into their career is going to feel pretty stupid when they could have just flipped burgers at McDonalds for the same pay.

We're not all the same, which is why doctors earn way more than me, and I'm fine with that...You can question their pay if you want to, but I think I'll let the people who may one day be routing around my chest with a scalpel be paid whatever they want. They earned it.


----------



## Haskell (Feb 19, 2017)

What's jacked up is how government officials are paid over the line. If we use some of the amount that government officials are paid occupations such as being a soldier and a teacher will be more likeable.


----------



## LinkToTheWorld (Feb 20, 2017)

Butasquash said:


> What do I think? I think:
> Ruh Roh! Even this place is not safe from politic discussion.
> 
> Seriously though, why can't we all see one another as the same? Cuz we are indeed all the same. And better yet, pay everyone the same regardless of occupation.



Paying everybody the same regardless of occupation would be equally unfair and quite ridiculous. 
I didn't put years in at university to get paid the same as somebody who got expelled from school and works in an unskilled job. 
Thats one example of when pay should most definitely vary


----------



## visibleghost (Feb 20, 2017)

Raskell said:


> I don't think he's being sexist. I think he is being a traditionalist.



 ... which is sexist .

- - - Post Merge - - -



Raskell said:


> Since men have dominated the workforce for a long time... it is common for people of authority to say "women will get paid the same if they do as good as a job". I agree with what they're saying, but it is pompous.



that kinda assumes that men do a good job by default. these ppl of authority need to shut up


----------



## Haskell (Feb 20, 2017)

visibleghost said:


> that kinda assumes that men do a good job by default. these ppl of authority need to shut up



Well, obviously the men who have dominated the workforce the past decades are doing a good job because if they weren't... they would have gotten fired and stopped dominating the workforce.

- - - Post Merge - - -



visibleghost said:


> ... which is sexist .



There's a difference between being traditionalist and sexist. You have to be open-minded.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Feb 20, 2017)

Raskell said:


> There's a difference between being traditionalist and sexist. You have to be open-minded.



The problem with being open-minded in general is that it has caused just as much harm as being close-minded. Either way, we should deviate from the extremes.


----------



## Haskell (Feb 20, 2017)

Apple2012 said:


> The problem with being open-minded in general is that it has caused just as much harm as being close-minded. Either way, we should deviate from the extremes.



I disagree. Being open-minded is much better than being closed-minded.


----------



## N e s s (Feb 20, 2017)

Raskell said:


> There's a difference between being traditionalist and sexist. You have to be open-minded.



Then what is that difference?


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Feb 21, 2017)

N e s s said:


> Then what is that difference?



The difference between sexism and traditionalist is like the difference between apples and oranges. Although there are some things in common, they don't even compare. Some traditions are sexist, as I don't see how paying women the same wage per hour is bad for society, but most traditions aren't that bad. Point is, there are some traditions that can be harmful, but traditionalism and sexism don't compare.


----------



## visibleghost (Feb 21, 2017)

Raskell said:


> Well, obviously the men who have dominated the workforce the past decades are doing a good job because if they weren't... they would have gotten fired and stopped dominating the workforce.
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> ...



some parts of being traditional are definitely discriminating tho.,.. you can be a traditionalist and sexist and this might be both. the idea that women should stay at home and take care of the family because they are women is sexist. thinking women should be paid less than men because they are women is sexist.


----------



## Waluigi (Feb 21, 2017)

If a man and a woman do the same job, they earn the same. Nothing should stop that


----------



## Soda Fox (Feb 21, 2017)

Waluigi said:


> If a man and a woman do the same job, they earn the same. Nothing should stop that



What if the man has more experience and is producing more/making more sales/getting better results,  etc?

I think there should be incentive to do your job well and have a lot of experience in the field. Of course I think this should apply equally to men and women. If the woman is doing better than her male counter part she should get paid more.


----------



## forestyne (Feb 21, 2017)

why does another political thread exist


----------



## Corrie (Feb 21, 2017)

Soda Fox said:


> What if the man has more experience and is producing more/making more sales/getting better results,  etc?
> 
> I think there should be incentive to do your job well and have a lot of experience in the field. Of course I think this should apply equally to men and women. If the woman is doing better than her male counter part she should get paid more.



Exactly. Gender should have nothing to do with how much someone gets paid. It should be based on your skill level.


----------



## Haskell (Feb 21, 2017)

forestyne said:


> why does another political thread exist



Don't like it, don't click on it. lol

- - - Post Merge - - -



Corrie said:


> Exactly. Gender should have nothing to do with how much someone gets paid. It should be based on your skill level.



I feel like the gender wage gap is to a lesser important, drastic extent than it is publicized. 

It's an unsubstantiated opinion though. I haven't looked into it much. Just watched a few videos, read a few articles, et cetera.


----------



## tumut (Feb 22, 2017)

Raskell said:


> Don't like it, don't click on it. lol
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> ...


Saem...I agre w you ver much...equal rights not that big a deal

like lmao equal pay? go back 2 tumblr dumb sjw

- - - Post Merge - - -

i'm a traditionalist ^_^


----------



## toadsworthy (Feb 22, 2017)

I think people fail to realize that the wage gap isn't something that people knowingly do. Employers don't say, "hey this is a woman I bet I can get by with paying her less." These things happen subconciously. Microaggressions towards women like this are what we need to stop


----------



## lostineverfreeforest (Feb 22, 2017)

I always wondered if women are paid less why doesn't everyone just hire women instead?


----------



## Soda Fox (Feb 22, 2017)

toadsworthy said:


> I think people fail to realize that the wage gap isn't something that people knowingly do. Employers don't say, "hey this is a woman I bet I can get by with paying her less." These things happen subconciously. Microaggressions towards women like this are what we need to stop



I kind of disagree with you. I think women get paid a little less because in general men are more sales/production driven. Not always but usually. Additionally women take more time off (because of babies/family requirements) While men typically continue to work. Again this is not always true but in a general I think that's usually the case. 

I say all this as a sales/production driven woman who does not take time off unless I'm required to take a mandatory vacation, or I have a death in the family. I'm up for a raise soon and I have no doubt I'll get a larger raise than my male counter part who has to take time off for his sick children. My male counter part only makes more than me because I've worked here for 6 months and he's worked here for 5 years.


----------



## toadsworthy (Feb 22, 2017)

Soda Fox said:


> I kind of disagree with you. I think women get paid a little less because in general men are more sales/production driven. Not always but usually. Additionally women take more time off (because of babies/family requirements) While men typically continue to work. Again this is not always true but in a general I think that's usually the case.
> 
> I say all this as a sales/production driven woman who does not take time off unless I'm required to take a mandatory vacation, or I have a death in the family. I'm up for a raise soon and I have no doubt I'll get a larger raise than my male counter part who has to take time off for his sick children. My male counter part only makes more than me because I've worked here for 6 months and he's worked here for 5 years.



Ok well that is something nailed down with facts and reports. In other salary based careers, women just naturally get less because subconsciously that stereotype, that even you have, has become so mainstream it invades our actions without even us knowing. Also men are usually the ones in higher positions, which comes back to the discussion about equal opportunity


----------



## Soda Fox (Feb 22, 2017)

toadsworthy said:


> Ok well that is something nailed down with facts and reports. In other salary based careers, women just naturally get less because subconsciously that stereotype, that even you have, has become so mainstream it invades our actions without even us knowing. Also men are usually the ones in higher positions, which comes back to the discussion about equal opportunity



I'm not arguing the facts. I'm arguing the why. It's probably a mix of both. I prefer to have the mindset that there are less microagressions towards me and that my skill and experience determine my pay. It gives me a better sense of control to think this way, which improves my mood and work ethic and allows me to work to the best of my ability.  If I'm being discriminated against, I'm going to prove those people wrong rather than complain. But that's just me. I'm just offering a different view on the matter and people can believe what they want to believe.


----------



## toadsworthy (Feb 22, 2017)

Soda Fox said:


> I'm not arguing the facts. I'm arguing the why. It's probably a mix of both. I prefer to have the mindset that there are less microagressions towards me and that my skill and experience determine my pay. It gives me a better sense of control to think this way, which improves my mood and work ethic and allows me to work to the best of my ability.  If I'm being discriminated against, I'm going to prove those people wrong rather than complain. But that's just me. I'm just offering a different view on the matter and people can believe what they want to believe.



It definitely is a mix of both. Just like the examples you are giving, there are instances where undeniably women and men get their rightful pay increases and salary based on reports of hours/sales. I work as a server, you can't apply the wage gap to a situation like that, because pay is based on how much someone works and gets tipped. However, the point I'm making (and I'm not saying you are not understanding or devaluing it) is that in careers where salary is not determined by sales/hours whatever, there is a clear gap. women getting paid 70 cents to every dollar a man makes for the same job. Its not something that can fully be explained, but its something that IS there.

Its fine that you choose to think there are not a lot of micro aggressions in your workplace, and I hope there isn't. However, the fact that you need to think that is really the problem, our culture needs to work to a place that can accept all types of people without these micro aggressions.

I'm currently in a multi-cultural counseling class, and we talk about this like every time (micro aggressions that is). Its made me more aware of the ones people have done to me, and strangely it empowers me. I would never change the things people judge me for, and they come off as the ignorant ones. We shouldn't think were "complaining" when we stick up for things in our lives we either can't change or our preferences and I think its poignant to at least recognize the ignorance coming from other people and to address it in a civil way. Letting people do these micro aggressions eventually leads to the cultural clashes we are experiencing (at least in america) today, like the black lives matter and ban against muslims.


----------



## Soda Fox (Feb 23, 2017)

toadsworthy said:


> It definitely is a mix of both. Just like the examples you are giving, there are instances where undeniably women and men get their rightful pay increases and salary based on reports of hours/sales. I work as a server, you can't apply the wage gap to a situation like that, because pay is based on how much someone works and gets tipped. However, the point I'm making (and I'm not saying you are not understanding or devaluing it) is that in careers where salary is not determined by sales/hours whatever, there is a clear gap. women getting paid 70 cents to every dollar a man makes for the same job. Its not something that can fully be explained, but its something that IS there.
> 
> Its fine that you choose to think there are not a lot of micro aggressions in your workplace, and I hope there isn't. However, the fact that you need to think that is really the problem, our culture needs to work to a place that can accept all types of people without these micro aggressions.
> 
> I'm currently in a multi-cultural counseling class, and we talk about this like every time (micro aggressions that is). Its made me more aware of the ones people have done to me, and strangely it empowers me. I would never change the things people judge me for, and they come off as the ignorant ones. We shouldn't think were "complaining" when we stick up for things in our lives we either can't change or our preferences and I think its poignant to at least recognize the ignorance coming from other people and to address it in a civil way. Letting people do these micro aggressions eventually leads to the cultural clashes we are experiencing (at least in america) today, like the black lives matter and ban against muslims.



I want to start off by reiterating what I told you in the PM.  I'm enjoying this debate with you so I'm going to continue.

I'll quickly address my view on the "Muslim ban" and BLM.  From what I've read the ban isn't on Muslims, it's on certain countries, which is well within the President's power to do.  The countries happen to be primarily Muslim dominant, but there are plenty more countries which are Muslim dominant that are not banned.  From what I understand, the reason for the ban was because the countries listed don't have procedures in place to verify its citizens and are known for giving out fake identification.  Of course I don't have all the intelligence and only know what I've been researching myself, but the amount of Muslim dominated countries that are not banned leads me to conclude the reason must be something other than because those countries are Muslim dominated.

For Black Lives Matter I think they initially had a really strong message and I would have supported them if I didn't think they went overboard.  I still support the ones in the group who want to protest peacefully and don't chant "What do we want - dead cops", but I can't support those who want to kill others to make a point.

However this conversation is in regards to the gender wage gap.  Again, I acknowledge there is one.  And yes I think we should teach and be aware of underlying sexism, but for me the problem starts, again, when people take that ideology too far or think it's the main reason when we just don't know what the true problem is.  So I believe we should teach awareness of micro-aggressions against women in the work place and to be cognizant of it but we should also reiterate that part of the reason there is a wage gap could be from women traditionally taking more time off of work to be mothers and the potential difference in productivity between individuals.  I absolutely think everyone should be taught to how to keep track of how they're doing at work and if possible compare their productivity to that of their colleagues so they can make informed decisions on how they confront their HR department/a lawyer regarding potential sexism in the work place.

Another part of the problem is that it's taboo to talk about salary in the workplace.  Not talking about our salaries with our colleagues only works out well for the company - and talking about it could help reveal the true underlying reason for the wage gap since we can assess the salaries on an individual level.  If slacker Joe who sells 3 apples a week is making more money than Sally who sells 5 apples a week we will know it's sexism.  However if Joe is making more money but selling 10 apples and Sally's only selling 5 then we know it's a matter of productivity.  As it is now we only know that Joe is making more money than Sally on average.


----------



## toadsworthy (Feb 23, 2017)

Soda Fox said:


> SNIP


It's considered taboo to talk about salary because we tend to believe that if I go talk to my boss about my salary he is going to look down upon me, and who is more likely to go talk about their salary? Women and people who feel slighted that white men are making more money than them. something that is there, its been researched. A valid thing to talk about right? well then they go talk to their bosses who write them off as "complaining" or say those people are being racist or sexist themselves... and that negatively impacts their view of them furthering the differences in cultures. So my point is that the situations and things we "know" about the wage gap and business (like taboo to talk about salary) is already conditioned to be against the minorities. We need equal opportunity for people in order to fix this, but people arent willing to fully and consciously commit to it, because they are stuck in the traditionalist viewpoint about black people, hispanic people, and women. There are strides for it though. Like now giving men time off from work for new born babies just like women. Which again we shouldn't be not hiring or demeaning a woman in the workplace on the chance she may take time off to have a child. She should get paid for her work and not for time off, obviously, but there is so much subconscious negative effects on women in the workplace based on it, based on a natural thing that no woman can control. You can say "pbth, sorry thats life, you gotta have the babies" but like thats not how it should be...

I'm not knocking your production example too, I very much understand that if someone has more sales they should make more money based on that. But preset salaries based on how much someone gets per sale can be debated.

But still the muslim ban is a white man deciding that those countries (based on the actions of a few) and their people are not fit to come into America. Everyone in those countries are not angry towards america. and people in other countries can still launch terrorist attacks. He is passing wide judgement on people of certain countries, and its not how someone who runs a country should be making decisions.

Black lives matter is a result of years of people trying to fit into a "white world" and then experiencing racial bias together on a bigger scale. Its actually a stage in the minority/people of color's development of cultural identity. These people have felt rejection from the world that I could never imagine because I am a white male in the US. I am not justifying what they are doing because I too hate violence, but I can understand how with the history of african americans and current events why they could be so angry.


----------



## Soda Fox (Feb 23, 2017)

toadsworthy said:


> Too long didn't quote



I have to go to work but I still have some things I want to debate with you.  I work early tomorrow so I don't know how long it's going to be.  If I take longer than the weekend I'll move this conversation to PM if you don't have a problem with that.  We are getting a bit off topic with parts of our responses so it will be nice to have our own platform where we can deviate as we need to.


----------



## piichinu (Feb 23, 2017)

Dixx said:


> Saem...I agre w you ver much...equal rights not that big a deal
> 
> like lmao equal pay? go back 2 tumblr dumb sjw
> 
> ...



yeah this pretty much, i don't know how else to word it lol


----------



## Soda Fox (Feb 23, 2017)

@toadsworthy

I think we had a bit of a misunderstanding.  I don't expect people to talk to their boss immediately about their pay.  I would only encourage them to do so if they're already talking raises and the like.  They definitely shouldn't talk to people who have some sort of control over them at first.  I'm talking about how it's taboo even among equal colleagues to discuss pay.  I definitely think that should be encouraged and never be a disciplinary offence like it can be now.  Talking among colleagues of equal rank and ensuring through conversation that everyone is earning their fair share hurts the company, not the employees.  If I learned talking to a colleague that was producing more than me that they are earning less due to their skin color/sexual orientation/gender I would definitely defend that person and offer to strike and show my support against a biased company/boss.  Or the person in question would know they're being treated unfairly and be able to confront their boss/HR/a lawyer about the discrimination against them.

For the ban, I want to say again that I think it's well within a country leader's right to ban any country they feel necessary.  It's not always morally right but I think if there are good reasons in place, for example if the ban truly is due to the lack of vetting the country that's being banned does on its citizens, there isn't much reason for an uproar.  If we decided to ban Russians from coming to the US until we figure out whatever happened this election* I don't think there would be a problem with that either.  It's true that we shouldn't condemn an entire country based on a few bad apples but the ban isn't supposed to be permanent and is only serving until we can get proper vetting of those who come into our country so that the good ones can come here and the bad apples can stay out.  Since I work in a bank I'll relate it to a bank robbery - after a robbery the bank closes its doors for the day to gather evidence, figure out what happened, and make a plan.  Even good people can't go into a bank after a robbery.  Just because they aren't allowed inside right now doesn't mean we think they're all potential criminals.

**again this is based on my research of the situation and the conclusions I've reached based on the countries that are banned, the countries that are not, etc.  Like I said before, the ban is on very few countries and there are many more with similar ideologies that aren't banned, so there must be something to it other than just a dislike of the people there.  And my guess is that the reason for the ban must be more similar to the issue of proper vetting and identification.

I entirely agree with your last paragraph.  I think the best thing we can do is encourage people to look out for each other and not hurt each other, lend an ear and let others vent to us, fight for their rights when they need us to, let them stand for themselves when they want to, and hope for the best.  This isn't just towards any one group of course, this can be for any group, any individual, etc.


----------



## toadsworthy (Feb 23, 2017)

@Soda Fox

unfortunately people rarely do stick up if they were to find out a discrepancy based on culture, ethnicity, gender, etc. And in these conversations around the office people hear others say "I think i'm getting paid less because I'm a woman" and chuck it up to that person complaining, making a big deal, the boss wouldn't do that, or just passively let it go by. And in these situations, there are zero or fudged reports to back up claims. Corruption is stupid I hate people lol, and there is a lot of that in the world right now unfortunately, mostly for selfish purposes.

I like your bank robbery example, but if someone says "I saw the bank robber, he was a black man wearing a red shirt" you don't persecute all the black man in the city who are wearing red shirts. Just like while yes, people from those countries may have been involved in recent events, you can't block off a whole country because of it. It shows a lack of full comprehension of this thought process from the high government officials and xenophobia which is not good for where our American Culture needs to be progressing in these times. We don't need a relapse on rights for all types of people feeling left out in some ways, we need progression to accepting all types of people because that is what makes America great. We were founded on people who were escaping the tyranny of the British at the time (based on religion, you know the deal), but then destroyed the lives of those we encountered.... 

I love your response in the last paragraph



			
				Soda Fox said:
			
		

> I entirely agree with your last paragraph. I think the best thing we can do is encourage people to look out for each other and not hurt each other, lend an ear and let others vent to us, fight for their rights when they need us to, let them stand for themselves when they want to, and hope for the best. This isn't just towards any one group of course, this can be for any group, any individual, etc.


The world needs a lot more of this, but unfortunately I think people are too ignorant to begin to want to try to understand a fraction of what you and I have politely discussed.


----------



## Soda Fox (Feb 23, 2017)

@toadsworthy 

I've gotten to the point where I agree entirely with you about everything except* (auto correct error) I have a few points I'd still like to debate regarding the travel ban but that's off topic for this thread. I'll either make a new thread soon or just pm you. I think the forum is getting sick of political threads. However I also think we argue respectfully and can pose a good example for others. I'll think it over and be in touch.


----------



## Butasquash (Mar 11, 2017)

Raskell said:


> This I don't agree with. A brain surgeon getting paid less than someone who flips a burger...





N e s s said:


> Yeah you right, salary should be different among occupations.



Sorry for the late reply. I am really not in the mood to argue and you are clearly not thinking outside the box. Anyways! People don't realize how money can affect us all. Now, if every job were to pay the exact same (a very fair and great pay) then we should all be able to choose a job that we truly love and therefore do a better job. I can't keep track of HOW MANY TIMES I have heard people say "I always wanted to be x...but it doesn't pay well or my parents think it's not a successful job." and then you have people who take a job that has great pay but THEY CLEARLY HATE IT. If there's one way to ruin a life, it's to be forced into something you don't like...over and over and over again. I've seen TEACHERS, NURSES, BURGER FLIPPERS and all walks of life who hate their jobs, it doesn't just affect them but US as well. I've seen teachers mentally screw up their students, nurses who beat the elderly for pissing in their bed and burger flippers who intentionally put their pubes in the food they serve to others. And don't insult burger flippers. There are people who are dedicated Spongebob squarepantses. The thing is, if EVERYONE had the job they truly loved, and put their heart and soul into it, don't you dare tell me they deserve less or more than everyone else. Now, people who do a half ass job and sit on their butt instead of working half the time, those people can go to hell. Screw them. But that wouldn't be a problem if every job was obtainable and we could all live our dreams.


----------



## Weiland (Mar 11, 2017)

Okay this is just downright dumb. This is being traditionalist, like (I'm assuming; haven't read the thread yet), said in this post. Also, if the world were traditionalist, black Americans and Aboriginals/Torres Strait Islanders would still be slaves. FFS.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Butasquash said:


> Sorry for the late reply. I am really not in the mood to argue and you are clearly not thinking outside the box. Anyways! People don't realize how money can affect us all. Now, if every job were to pay the exact same (a very fair and great pay) then we should all be able to choose a job that we truly love and therefore do a better job. I can't keep track of HOW MANY TIMES I have heard people say "I always wanted to be x...but it doesn't pay well or my parents think it's not a successful job." and then you have people who take a job that has great pay but THEY CLEARLY HATE IT. If there's one way to ruin a life, it's to be forced into something you don't like...over and over and over again. I've seen TEACHERS, NURSES, BURGER FLIPPERS and all walks of life who hate their jobs, it doesn't just affect them but US as well. I've seen teachers mentally screw up their students, nurses who beat the elderly for pissing in their bed and burger flippers who intentionally put their pubes in the food they serve to others. And don't insult burger flippers. There are people who are dedicated Spongebob squarepantses. The thing is, if EVERYONE had the job they truly loved, and put their heart and soul into it, don't you dare tell me they deserve less or more than everyone else. Now, people who do a half ass job and sit on their butt instead of working half the time, those people can go to hell. Screw them. But that wouldn't be a problem if every job was obtainable and we could all live our dreams.



Communists tried this. It failed terribly because of the fact that some people had to do the crappy jobs (like cleaning poop and room service) instead of doing the good jobs like being an entrepreneur or something else they enjoy.


----------



## Tao (Mar 11, 2017)

Butasquash said:


> Sorry for the late reply. I am really not in the mood to argue and you are clearly not thinking outside the box. Anyways! People don't realize how money can affect us all. Now, if every job were to pay the exact same (a very fair and great pay) then we should all be able to choose a job that we truly love and therefore do a better job. I can't keep track of HOW MANY TIMES I have heard people say "I always wanted to be x...but it doesn't pay well or my parents think it's not a successful job." and then you have people who take a job that has great pay but THEY CLEARLY HATE IT. If there's one way to ruin a life, it's to be forced into something you don't like...over and over and over again. I've seen TEACHERS, NURSES, BURGER FLIPPERS and all walks of life who hate their jobs, it doesn't just affect them but US as well. I've seen teachers mentally screw up their students, nurses who beat the elderly for pissing in their bed and burger flippers who intentionally put their pubes in the food they serve to others. And don't insult burger flippers. There are people who are dedicated Spongebob squarepantses. The thing is, if EVERYONE had the job they truly loved, and put their heart and soul into it, don't you dare tell me they deserve less or more than everyone else. Now, people who do a half ass job and sit on their butt instead of working half the time, those people can go to hell. Screw them. But that wouldn't be a problem if every job was obtainable and we could all live our dreams.




...If everybody had the one job they wanted then society would crumble as nobody is there to do the crap jobs nobody wants to do. It's simply not possible for what you're saying to be a thing...

There's also a limited number of jobs, there's not enough vacancy's and simply no need for x amount of 'job'. Jobs exist because somebody wants somebody to do something, so in order for everybody to have their dream job there would need to be enough people willing to pay all those people to do that thing. 

And getting back to an earlier point: do you think a person who wants to be a doctor is going to love their job when it's the reason they've lost so much time preparing for it and got themselves into massive debt whilst the pimpled teen at Burger King is debt free on the same pay check in his new Bugatti? 


You're also disregarding the people who enjoy their jobs because of financial incentive. My job description is 'unimpressive' at best, but I like my job and I'm good at it, and financial incentive is a huge reason for that. A static 'equal' paycheck only takes job satisfaction from people like myself and gives it to others. You're not fixing a problem, you're just putting it somewhere else...And from an employers perspective, are they going to reward and give incentive for people to perform well, or are they going to enable people to do the absolute bare minimum?




Butasquash said:


> The thing is, if EVERYONE had the job they truly loved, and put their heart and soul into it, don't you dare tell me they deserve less or more than everyone else.



I dare: If they're not good at it, they don't deserve to be paid as much as somebody who is.

I don't care if the most enthusiastic home decorator in the world turned up to my house, a massive infectious smile on his face as he's doing the one job in the world he wants to do, absolutely over the moon that I've asked him to make my walls blue,  literally his life ambition...If he colored the walls using crayons and accidentally killed the cat, he's not getting paid and doesn't deserve to. 

Fite mi


----------



## N e s s (Mar 11, 2017)

and so the song and dance continues yet again


----------



## Haskell (Mar 11, 2017)

N e s s said:


> and so the song and dance continues yet again



I don't know why this thread got revived. .-.


----------



## N e s s (Mar 11, 2017)

Butasquash said:


> Sorry for the late reply. I am really not in the mood to argue and you are clearly not thinking outside the box. Anyways! People don't realize how money can affect us all. Now, if every job were to pay the exact same (a very fair and great pay) then we should all be able to choose a job that we truly love and therefore do a better job. I can't keep track of HOW MANY TIMES I have heard people say "I always wanted to be x...but it doesn't pay well or my parents think it's not a successful job." and then you have people who take a job that has great pay but THEY CLEARLY HATE IT. If there's one way to ruin a life, it's to be forced into something you don't like...over and over and over again. I've seen TEACHERS, NURSES, BURGER FLIPPERS and all walks of life who hate their jobs, it doesn't just affect them but US as well. I've seen teachers mentally screw up their students, nurses who beat the elderly for pissing in their bed and burger flippers who intentionally put their pubes in the food they serve to others. And don't insult burger flippers. There are people who are dedicated Spongebob squarepantses. The thing is, if EVERYONE had the job they truly loved, and put their heart and soul into it, don't you dare tell me they deserve less or more than everyone else. Now, people who do a half ass job and sit on their butt instead of working half the time, those people can go to hell. Screw them. But that wouldn't be a problem if every job was obtainable and we could all live our dreams.



Buddy, I'm really not sure what point you're getting at here. What I was talking about was how somebody who spends 8 years in medical school shouldn't get paid as much as someone who works at McDonalds. Not only that, its kinda dumb for someone to choose to go to college and learn about the career they want to pursue only for them to hate it. Thats what changing your major is for, you have 4 years to decide whether its really something you like.

Heck, I want to be a photographer and that doesn't pay very well either but I really don't care. Its my dream and passion, and I want to do it. It doesn't even have to be my main job during my middle aged years, it could just be something I do for extra money when I'm retired.

Plus, if you think everyone should be paid the same what would the minimum wage even be? 10 dollars per hour, 100 dollars per hour? That would NOT help the economy one bit. Theres so many holes and flaws to what you're suggesting here that would just make our society collapse.


----------



## ApolloJusticeAC (Mar 11, 2017)

stupid ass, women deserve pay men have tbh


----------



## Haskell (Mar 11, 2017)

twentyonepilots said:


> stupid ass, women deserve pay men have tbh



I'll never understand why some people don't want equal pay for a man and a woman.


----------



## KaydeeKrunk (Mar 12, 2017)

Well I mean if we can't get equal pay at least pay my boyfriend twice as much so I can just stay home and be the housewife society wants me to be.


----------



## Soot Sprite (Mar 12, 2017)

His whole argument is "women are supposed to be the 'mothers' and paying them equal is generally bad for the family' but that makes no sense. Wouldn't paying women and men the same make it better for the families - if both are being paid equally that means more money for the family. A lot of women have jobs now so his traditionalist way of thinking isn't even relevant. Women aren't staying home and raising children so there's no reason to treat them like they are. And honestly, that wouldn't be the life I wanted for myself either way. My fiance makes more money than me but he also has two jobs. I would feel like I'm taking advantage of how hard he works if I'm at home all day, I work because I want too- and if I'm working of course I want to be earning as much as my male coworkers. 

His argument is just his way of protecting men getting higher pay. His only other reason against it is that men will end up making less money because they're paying women more.


----------



## Bowie (Mar 12, 2017)

Men and women deserve equal pay. I don't know why anybody would have to explain why.


----------



## AppleBitterCrumble (Mar 12, 2017)

I say equal pay for everyone!


----------



## Romaki (Mar 12, 2017)

Equal pay for equal work.

And since it was brought up in this thread: anybody who works full-time, whether it be one full-time job or several part-time jobs, deserves to earn enough money to pay for their basic need and housing. 

That's actually a human right, but I guess outdated worldviews are more important.


----------



## Haskell (Mar 12, 2017)

Riedy said:


> Equal pay for equal work.
> 
> And since it was brought up in this thread:* anybody who works full-time, whether it be one full-time job or several part-time jobs, deserves to earn enough money to pay for their basic need and housing.*
> 
> That's actually a human right, but I guess outdated worldviews are more important.



If they're responsible.


----------



## visibleghost (Mar 12, 2017)

Raskell said:


> If they're responsible.



?? what do you mean "responsible" 
people should get paid enough to be able to live and survive. it's a human right to have a place to live and food to eat and while going full communism isnt rly possible/going to happen the government has to make sure that the people have their rights met. everyone spuld have enough money to have food and a home and the government has to make laws that protect people and make sure that employees arent exploited. it's not the responsibility of ppl to make sure that that happens and no one should have to prove that they deserve to get paid enough to be able o survive


----------



## easpa (Mar 12, 2017)

Equal pay for equal work is one of those things that it's hard to believe people still disagree over in 2017 but lo and behold...


----------



## Sanrio (Mar 12, 2017)

women deserve equal pay!

*PS*

*if you don't think so i will hit you in the face with a chair.*


----------



## Haskell (Mar 12, 2017)

visibleghost said:


> ?? what do you mean "responsible"
> people should get paid enough to be able to live and survive. it's a human right to have a place to live and food to eat and while going full communism isnt rly possible/going to happen the government has to make sure that the people have their rights met. everyone spuld have enough money to have food and a home and the government has to make laws that protect people and make sure that employees arent exploited. it's not the responsibility of ppl to make sure that that happens and no one should have to prove that they deserve to get paid enough to be able o survive



People, regardless of gender, should get paid appropriately for the amount work they put in. If the work equals money that equals enough to survive... then there's no reason on why they cannot survive. 

With that money, they have to be responsible with it. Although the majority of people are responsible, some aren't. Those some waste the money on recreational, non-essential things such as cars, phones, televisions, et cetera.



> "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." - JFK


----------



## visibleghost (Mar 13, 2017)

Raskell said:


> People, regardless of gender, should get paid appropriately for the amount work they put in. If the work equals money that equals enough to survive... then there's no reason on why they cannot survive.
> 
> With that money, they have to be responsible with it. Although the majority of people are responsible, some aren't. Those some waste the money on recreational, non-essential things such as cars, phones, televisions, et cetera.



any full time job has to pay enough to survive. 

of course people have to be responsible with the money they get (having rent, bills and food as priorities) but thry have to be given enough to be responsible with.
having a person working full time but not paying them enough to live full time is never okay. what jobs "deserve" enough money to survive is based on opinions and are often made by people with jobs that get them ok amounts of money. i don't think anyone would say that their line of work doesn't deserve enough money to get food

laws about minimum wage and equal pay and rights of working ppl are extremely important. i think it is very closely related to equality, poverty and issues in society today w/ minorities (especially immigrants and people of color). women should be paid as much as men w/ the same jobs. and everyone needs to get enough money to survive.

and your quote i mean... your government has obligations to you. and you have obligations to the government and society. it goes both ways but the government has to give you your rights, it has to provide you with school, health care, safety etc. obviously you cant blame your financial problems on politicians if you spent all the money you got on teletubbies suits or whatever because that's your own fault, like dude... have some priorities. But thats not rly what this is about.


----------



## B e t h a n y (Mar 13, 2017)

This probably wouldn't have been said it feminists didn't push the wage gap myth
I definitely don't agree with what he said though lmao.


----------



## visibleghost (Mar 13, 2017)

B e t h a n y said:


> This probably wouldn't have been said it feminists didn't push the wage gap myth




alternatively u could say that this probably hadnt been said if those Darn Traditionalists thought equality was a good thing. he's a gross person, u cant blame it on feminists lmao


----------



## radical6 (Mar 13, 2017)

Wow, so woke.


----------



## LinkToTheWorld (Mar 13, 2017)

Raskell said:


> People, regardless of gender, should get paid appropriately for the amount work they put in. If the work equals money that equals enough to survive... then there's no reason on why they cannot survive.
> 
> With that money, they have to be responsible with it. Although the majority of people are responsible, some aren't. Those some waste the money on recreational, non-essential things such as cars, phones, televisions, et cetera.



Not always the case. I barely earn enough to keep me going. I have to have a car otherwise I wouldn't have a job at all, so that's a necessity not a luxury and I'd be in a lot of trouble if I didn't have a phone with me all the time. So those things are essential for some people and when they don't earn enough to cover everything it doesn't mean they're irresponsible or spending frivolously.
So many people in this country living on the breadline just getting by.
Just because you work and get paid it doesn't always mean you have enough to survive on. That isn't how it automatically works


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 13, 2017)

Raskell said:


> Utah Republican argues against equal pay for women: It’s ‘bad for families’ and society
> 
> What are your thoughts about the article of James Green's thoughts?



What I think about James Green's thoughts isn't fit to print in this forum. Suffice it to say, I don't agree with him - and neither does his party : 

Rep. Tim Quinn, a Republican representing Wasatch County, issued a statement Friday distancing the county organization from the opinions espoused by Green in the original letter.
*
“I am shocked and appalled to learn how James Green feels about equal pay for women. I don’t know where this belief came from. I do not subscribe publicly or privately to the words or the spirit behind these words, thoughts or ideas. Of course, the Wasatch County Republican Party and I are for equal pay and rights for all people.*

My hope is that there will be a sincere apology. I appreciate that he immediately stepped down from his position within the GOP.”

- from the original source article for the quote, emphasis is mine http://fox13now.com/2017/02/17/vice...criticism-over-letter-on-equal-pay-for-women/

As for the article itself, it seems reasonable enough. I don't have any strong thoughts about it.


----------



## B e t h a n y (Mar 13, 2017)

visibleghost said:


> alternatively u could say that this probably hadnt been said if those Darn Traditionalists thought equality was a good thing. he's a gross person, u cant blame it on feminists lmao



Congrats on not including following comment lmao. I don't even know who that guy is lmao I'm not even American. Believe it or not you don't have to be a feminist to believe in equality. Also btw I wasn't being completely serious. Yeah I don't believe in the wage gap, but that doesn't mean I can't make a joke. I can admit that some feminists do have the right intentions, but there is lot of misinformation.


----------



## Haskell (Mar 13, 2017)

LinkToTheWorld said:


> Not always the case. I barely earn enough to keep me going. I have to have a car otherwise I wouldn't have a job at all, *so that's a necessity not a luxury *and I'd be in a lot of trouble if I didn't have a phone with me all the time. So those things are essential for some people and when they don't earn enough to cover everything it doesn't mean they're irresponsible or spending frivolously.
> So many people in this country living on the breadline just getting by.
> Just because you work and get paid it doesn't always mean you have enough to survive on. That isn't how it automatically works



I never said cars were only and forever a luxury...


----------



## visibleghost (Mar 13, 2017)

B e t h a n y said:


> Congrats on not including following comment lmao. I don't even know who that guy is lmao I'm not even American. Believe it or not you don't have to be a feminist to believe in equality. Also btw I wasn't being completely serious. Yeah I don't believe in the wage gap, but that doesn't mean I can't make a joke. I can admit that some feminists do have the right intentions, but there is lot of misinformation.


-_- you edited the post 2 minutes after i posted lmao im sorry for not time traveling b4 clicking the quote button .....,,,

- - - Post Merge - - -



Raskell said:


> I never said cars were only and forever a luxury...



but u did say it was a luxery .


----------



## Haskell (Mar 13, 2017)

visibleghost said:


> but u did say it was a luxery .





> People, regardless of gender, should get paid appropriately for the amount work they put in. If the work equals money that equals enough to survive... then there's no reason on why they cannot survive.
> 
> With that money, they have to be responsible with it. Although the majority of people are responsible, some aren't. Those some waste the money on recreational, non-essential things such as cars, phones, televisions, et cetera.
> 
> ...



I'm talking about buying a car when it's not necessary.


----------



## Cory (Mar 13, 2017)

the wage gap isnt real


----------



## Haskell (Mar 13, 2017)

Cory said:


> the wage gap isnt real



The wage gap doesn't take into consideration of women having pregnancies, women tending to work less hours, women's choices in career, etc.


----------



## moonford (Mar 13, 2017)

Cory said:


> the wage gap isnt real



Do you believe in alternative facts?


----------



## Haskell (Mar 13, 2017)

Whiteflamingo said:


> Do you believe in alternative facts?



I believe in the side that the media doesn't report on.


----------



## moonford (Mar 13, 2017)

Raskell said:


> I believe in the side that the media doesn't report on.



I didn't reply to you so why did you reply to me?


----------



## Shimmer (Mar 13, 2017)

Pretty much whoever argues that women should be underpaid just for being a woman are clearly males who don't give a **** about the other sex.


----------



## Haskell (Mar 13, 2017)

Whiteflamingo said:


> I didn't reply to you so why did you reply to me?



Why do you care if I reply to you?


----------



## Haskell (Mar 13, 2017)

Whiteflamingo said:


> I didn't reply to you so why did you reply to me?



Why do you care if I reply to you?


----------



## moonford (Mar 13, 2017)

Raskell said:


> Because it's a thread. Why do you care if I reply to you?



I don't I was just asking and now I'm backing away into the shadows until Cory replies.


----------



## Cory (Mar 13, 2017)

Whiteflamingo said:


> Do you believe in alternative facts?



eh there could be truth to some


----------



## moonford (Mar 13, 2017)

Cory said:


> eh there could be truth to some




Well it's an alternative fact that the wage gap does in fact exist.  < This is a joke, just in case you didn't pick up on that
Alternative facts are lies, there are only hard cold solid facts/truths.

Seriously though it is very much real, here's some examples: X X XX
I added a variety of evidence from different parts of the world because the USA isn't the only place on Earth and some of you think it is.

Denying the wage gap is completely ignorant, just because it isn't by much it still exists and it's still a problem.


----------



## visibleghost (Mar 13, 2017)

Raskell said:


> The wage gap doesn't take into consideration of women having pregnancies, women tending to work less hours, women's choices in career, etc.



oh wow but did u know women are discriminated bc of that too !! women dont get paid maternity leave in the us!! women lose their kons bc theyre having children . thats not Cool


----------



## deSPIRIA (Mar 13, 2017)

personally, i don't really care about competition. it would only motivate me to work harder. getting paid more. getting to compete. there are only a couple of scenarios with this that i worry about.
of course women are mostly expected to take care of their children, but that's been a cycle for years. as this guy has written some sort of article so therefore i expect hyperbole with his statements such as it being a "vicious cycle that destroys families". mothers take time off to take care of their children. it's as simple as that. (yeah men can do the same but it's normally women)
i guess for some people it can be viewed as an ""excuse"" to not join the workforce.


----------



## Haskell (Mar 13, 2017)

visibleghost said:


> oh wow but did u know women are discriminated bc of that too !! women dont get paid maternity leave in the us!! women lose their kons bc theyre having children . thats not Cool



So women working less hours and wanting to get pregnant is discrimination. Ok.


----------



## Dogemon (Mar 13, 2017)

Raskell said:


> So women working less hours and wanting to get pregnant is discrimination. Ok.



Not everyone *wants* to be pregnant, just wanted to point that out right quick.


----------



## ZetaFunction (Mar 13, 2017)

My mom (years before I was born) had a job where her coworkers compared each others pay, and she had a reduced paycheck/rate because she was female.
And if you still think the wage gap is bs, look at the US constitution.  Women got the right to vote in 1920.  That's after god knows how many years women couldn't vote in america or the uk.  The wage gap is just one of the many remnants of inequality that exist from the old age mindset.  Hopefully the wage gap is bridged by the time I have kids, so they can get fair pay...


----------



## Corrie (Mar 13, 2017)

Raskell said:


> So women working less hours and wanting to get pregnant is discrimination. Ok.



A woman working less hours just means she works less hours. Why should that mean that she gets paid less for the hours she DOES work?


----------



## Haskell (Mar 13, 2017)

Corrie said:


> A woman working less hours just means she works less hours. Why should that mean that she gets paid less for the hours she DOES work?



She doesn't get paid less for the hours she works. It's illegal to pay someone based on gender. Equal pay act of 1963 is one example of it being illegal.

Just because one said women gets paid less than one said man does not mean it's because of gender. Job performance, amount of hours that's worked, et cetera all go into how much you're paid.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Dogemon said:


> Not everyone *wants* to be pregnant, just wanted to point that out right quick.


A fair amount of women do leave work (often temporarily) because they're a mother. You can't deny that. That's what isn't put into consideration with the "wage gap."

Studies have also shown women were happier before the third wave of feminism hit.


----------



## B e t h a n y (Mar 13, 2017)

Raskell said:


> The wage gap doesn't take into consideration of women having pregnancies, women tending to work less hours, women's choices in career, etc.



correct, theres an earnings gap, notna wage gap.


----------



## Dogemon (Mar 13, 2017)

Raskell said:


> She doesn't get paid less for the hours she works. It's illegal to pay someone based on gender. Equal pay act of 1963 is one example of it being illegal.
> 
> Just because one said women gets paid less than one said man does not mean it's because of gender. Job performance, amount of hours that's worked, et cetera all go into how much you're paid.
> 
> ...



I don't you understand that not everyone chooses to be a mother. Over 50% of pregnancies are unplanned.


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 13, 2017)

Raskell said:


> So women working less hours and wanting to get pregnant is discrimination. Ok.



... I don't work less hours (than the average in my sector, early childhood education), nor do I want to get pregnant. In fact, for medical reasons I am unable to carry a foetus to term (or viability outside of my uterus). So pregnancy is *completely* out of the question for me.

What an inconsiderate comment.

Men are welcome to start wanting to get pregnant and all that comes with that *choice* just as soon as science finds a way. In the meantime, society kinda needs at least some women to want to carry children.

So maybe don't make life so incredibly difficult for women in the meantime, yeah? Just a thought. Access to appropriate health (including reproductive services) is crucial for people in general but especially those looking to start a family.

Penalising those people who are willing to procreate - as the current situation effectively does in many respects - is shortsighted at best. And absolutely qualifies as discrimination, whether malicious or not.


----------



## Haskell (Mar 13, 2017)

amanda1983 said:


> ... I don't work less hours (than the average in my sector, early childhood education), nor do I want to get pregnant. In fact, for medical reasons I am unable to carry a foetus to term (or viability outside of my uterus). So pregnancy is *completely* out of the question for me.
> 
> *What an inconsiderate comment.*
> Men are welcome to start wanting to get pregnant and all that comes with that *choice* just as soon as science finds a way. In the meantime, society kinda needs at least some women to want to carry children.
> ...



Most women do want to have children and do work less hours. I wasn't being inconsiderate... I was being truthful. I'm sorry if you perceived me as being inconsiderate.


----------



## vel (Mar 13, 2017)

Raskell said:


> So women working less hours and wanting to get pregnant is discrimination. Ok.
> 
> Most women do want to have children and do work less hours.



woman who have maternity leave are likely to return to work after the child's birth, which benefits the company as they don't need to find a replacement for the woman. secondly, there's nothing to lose for giving a woman their deserved maternity leave, most companies report a positive effect in the environment or with the woman's work, or no difference at all. nothing bad about getting paid and being with your family.

being a mother also aids in the continuation of society, as it's vital to have children to continue the generations and to carry your last name. you do also realize when you view motherhood as a choice and refuse paid maternity leave as a result, you're directly disenfranchising single mothers or lower income parents who can't afford to take unpaid time off from work in order to have children, which means some women are forced to choose between having children, working full time, or leaving work and putting a financial strain on their family. many women can't afford to do so, which effectively robs them of their choice. how would you feel if you had to choose between having a job or having a family?

first off, the 12 to 18 weeks that a woman is gone does not affect her performance and worth. the wage gap effectively says that a woman is not valued as highly as a man is in the workplace because she is not equally compensated for the same work. pitting a woman's choice to have children against her workplace value isn't right. 

took a lot of that from online sources so i can improve my argument, as some of my words may not compute the point well enough.


----------



## seliph (Mar 13, 2017)

So the same people who want to force people to have babies they don't want also want to force women to work during pregnancy which can put unneeded stress on her and cause complications with the pregnancy as well as miscarriage. Wild.


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 13, 2017)

Raskell said:


> Most women do want to have children and do work less hours. I wasn't being inconsiderate... I was being truthful. I'm sorry if you perceived me as being inconsiderate.



Oh really? Most women want to have children? Not anymore. Please cite a source or two showing that most women *today* want to have children. I'm not aware of any credible data supporting that assertion.

"According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, in 2014, 47.6 percent of women between age 15 and 44 had never had children, up from 46.5 percent in 2012. This represents the highest percentage of childless women since the bureau started tracking that data in 1976."

- http://m.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/childless-more-women-are-not-having-kids-says-census_n_7032258

---

Whilst statistics vary on how many women work full time hours vs less than that, there are certainly more women working part time hours than there are men. This is due to many factors which have more to do with family commitments and employment opportunities than anything else. Women in a society that expects them to be the primary caregivers for children have a much tougher time finding + keeping full time employment than women in a society that shares caregiving responsibilities more equitably.

Truth and consideration are not mutually exclusive, but in any case you made a comment about *women* as a collective group.


----------



## Haskell (Mar 13, 2017)

amanda1983 said:


> "According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, in 2014, 47.6 percent of women between age 15 and 44 had never had children, up from 46.5 percent in 2012. This represents the highest percentage of childless women since the bureau started tracking that data in 1976."



According to your source, I'm still correct. 47.6 percent of women (between the ages of 15 and 44 in 2014 according to the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey) state that they're not Mothers. It doesn't state whether they want to be. 

Also even if it did state "wanting children" instead of "having children" I would still be correct as I said, "most." 

You cited a Huffington Post article... if you're going to try to convince a republican right-leaning individual (for future reference) don't cite aHuffington Post article.


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 13, 2017)

Raskell said:


> According to your source, I'm still correct. 47.6 percent of women (between the ages of 15 and 44 in 2014 according to the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey) state that they're not Mothers. It doesn't state whether they want to be.
> 
> Also even if it did state "wanting children" instead of "having children" I would still be correct as I said, "most."
> 
> You cited a Huffington Post article... if you're going to try to convince a republican right-leaning individual (for future reference) don't cite aHuffington Post article.



Are you suggesting that there are more women in the US  who want to have children but are unable to than there are women who have had unplanned children? Of course "unplanned" doesn't mean "mother did not want children" - I'll look into what data there is on that when I get home. Interesting.

Most = a synonym of "almost all". Half is not most, even 3 quarters would be pushing it. I don't see how your premise is supported by the statistic at all.

I cited a Huffington Post article, yes. You don't seem to be questioning the validity of the quote however so I'm confused as to how that is relevant. Just for future reference, people outside of the US are often much less focussed on partisan lines (HuffPost =/= for american republicans, apparently) than we are accuracy in reporting. If the facts are correct, I don't care if the publication is Buzzfeed or Breitbart.


----------



## seliph (Mar 13, 2017)

Raskell said:


> According to your source, I'm still correct. 47.6 percent of women (between the ages of 15 and 44 in 2014 according to the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey) state that they're not Mothers. It doesn't state whether they want to be.
> 
> Also even if it did state "wanting children" instead of "having children" I would still be correct as I said, "most."
> 
> You cited a Huffington Post article... if you're going to try to convince a republican right-leaning individual (for future reference) don't cite aHuffington Post article.



Hold on, even if Amanda didn't prove you wrong, that doesn't mean you're correct. You aren't automatically right until someone comes along and disproves you.

Most women today don't want children because the economy is tough on them alone as it is, school costs a fortune, and mental illnesses are at a peak. They don't want to bring children into the mixture.


----------



## Haskell (Mar 13, 2017)

amanda1983 said:


> Are you suggesting that there are more women in the US  who want to have children but are unable to than there are women who have had unplanned children? Of course "unplanned" doesn't mean "mother did not want children" - I'll look into what data there is on that when I get home. Interesting.
> 
> Most = a synonym of "almost all". Half is not most, even 3 quarters would be pushing it. I don't see how your premise is supported by the statistic at all.
> 
> I cited a Huffington Post article, yes. You don't seem to be questioning the validity of the quote however so I'm confused as to how that is relevant. Just for future reference, people outside of the US are often much less focussed on partisan lines (HuffPost =/= for american republicans, apparently) than we are accuracy in reporting. If the facts are correct, I don't care if the publication is Buzzfeed or Breitbart.



I'm suggesting there are more women in the United States that have children than those that don't.

50%, in my opinion, is most... but I can see how you think it's not. It's like... "most of the country voted for Hillary."

What determines if something's credible on Buzzfeed, CNN, or Breitbart though?

- - - Post Merge - - -



gyro said:


> Hold on, even if Amanda didn't prove you wrong, that doesn't mean you're correct. You aren't automatically right until someone comes along and disproves you.
> 
> Most women today don't want children because the economy is tough on them alone as it is, school costs a fortune, and mental illnesses are at a peak. They don't want to bring children into the mixture.



It's "he says, she says" right now until statistics are brought up.


----------



## seliph (Mar 14, 2017)

Raskell said:


> It's "he says, she says" right now until statistics are brought up.



Then don't say that you're correct and automatically dismiss the other person as wrong, especially when they've linked you a valid source.

Also 50% is not most, it's half. Half is not most. That's not how math works.


----------



## vel (Mar 14, 2017)

amanda1983 said:


> If the facts are correct, I don't care if the publication is Buzzfeed or Breitbart.



YES, thank you Amanda for writing that. I agree. If the facts are correct, you can't use the credibility of the source as a proper argument.

And yes, literally no one cares if you're democratic or republican when they argue with you, does being a democrat make you look at the citations less or something? people who argue are here for a good argument because you can build a proper one, and being a democrat, republican, or neither doesn't help with your argumentation skills.


----------



## Dogemon (Mar 14, 2017)

I'm registered Republican and cringing at the disregard of data. Huffington Post in this case IS a credible source. No one cares if you think otherwise, you asked for statistics and you got them. Secondly, as a REPUBLICAN woman, since you think your political affiliation matters at all in this case, most women I know DON'T want kids. I live in the hard, traditionalist south, and even women here aren't comfortable having kids because of how they can lose their jobs for it and lose out on a lot of money.


----------



## vel (Mar 14, 2017)

Dogemon said:


> I'm registered Republican and cringing at the disregard of data. Huffington Post in this case IS a credible source. No one cares if you think otherwise, you asked for statistics and you got them. Secondly, as a REPUBLICAN woman, since you think your political affiliation matters at all in this case, most women I know DON'T want kids. I live in the hard, traditionalist south, and even women here aren't comfortable having kids because of how they can lose their jobs for it and lose out on a lot of money.






are you dva bc you just "shut down" raskell


----------



## Haskell (Mar 14, 2017)

vel said:


> View attachment 195696
> 
> are you dva bc you just "shut down" raskell



No... maybe I just regret making this thread.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Dogemon said:


> I'm registered Republican and cringing at the disregard of data. Huffington Post in this case IS a credible source. No one cares if you think otherwise, you asked for statistics and you got them. Secondly, as a REPUBLICAN woman, since you think your political affiliation matters at all in this case, most women I know DON'T want kids. I live in the hard, traditionalist south, and even women here aren't comfortable having kids because of how they can lose their jobs for it and lose out on a lot of money.



One person's life experience isn't the overall. Most republicans, or at least the ones I know and what I've seen from GOP representatives, would agree with me that _Huffington Post_ is not a news source of preference because of belief that they're not credible.


----------



## seliph (Mar 14, 2017)

Raskell said:


> Most republicans, or at least the ones I know and what I've seen from GOP representatives



This isn't the overall either. Also if you had actually checked that HuffPost article out rather than automatically dismissing it for its name, you'd see that it has its own sources from several other sites as well.


----------



## vel (Mar 14, 2017)

Raskell said:


> No... maybe I just regret making this thread.



what? what are you talking about, i was talking to doge?


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 14, 2017)

Raskell said:


> No... maybe I just regret making this thread.
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> ...



Look mate, I'm sorry you have an issue with the credibility of HuffPost. I'm Australian and I read very very widely. I share a lot of article links to many different groups of people. In my experience, people who want to engage in a discussion like this are able to put aside their feelings in order to engage with the content shared, even if they don't like (or find credible) the specific source of the article.

I think it's a shame you're willing to waste time on that incidental detail than on the substance of both the article and of my comments.

The article is solid and the info all checks out. If you have read it, I'd like very much to hear what you think of the actual content. If you haven't, then I think we're probably done here since a discussion like this involves effort from both parties.


----------



## visibleghost (Mar 14, 2017)

Raskell said:


> Most women do want to have children and do work less hours. I wasn't being inconsiderate... I was being truthful. I'm sorry if you perceived me as being inconsiderate.



most women dont work less hours lmao what

also what u said abt it being illegal ...,,.. http://m.imgur.com/gallery/swgtq

- - - Post Merge - - -



Raskell said:


> No... maybe I just regret making this thread.
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> ...


im cryign you always say that u regret makinga thread when u realize thst everyone disagrees w u and can make valid arguments against ur points Lmao this is Wild .

jskghkkdwofi you trust fox news and "alternative" media i dont think you have mch credibility qhen it comes to good sources


----------



## Soda Fox (Mar 14, 2017)

Interesting points everyone is bringing up.  I know toad and I had a nice back and forth earlier but I want to reiterate some points I had before.

I agree there is a wage/earning gap in general between the sexes.  I do think two people doing the same job with the same level of efficiency should earn the same regardless of any other differences.

However I think a lot plays into the earning gap (bit of an older article but one I read recently on the topic and I think it has a lot of good points), the major things being that women typically spend less time at work than men (but more time in the home caring for household members).

Now, I don't believe that a woman should be paid $16/hour while her male counter-part is paid $17/hour, but if they're both making $16/hour and the man spends 30mins/day longer at work (while the woman goes home to care for the house), in a year the man is making $16,640(*redundant) $10,000 more than his female counter-part simply from being at work the extra 30mins/day.

(16/2=8)*(40, typical work week)*(52, weeks in a year) = 16,640
(*)I realized I did my math wrong.
I think the actual calculation would be this:
(16/2=8)*(5, typical days worked/week)*(250, business days[does not include Federal Holidays or weekends])= 10,000

Woman : 16*40*52 = 33,280
Man : 33,280 + 16,640 = 49,920 
REVISED Man : 33,280 + 10,000 = 43,280

It's crazy how something that seems so insignificant as 30mins/day can add up to so much difference, but it does.
In the example I gave above, the woman would have to be earning $24/hour $21/hour to the man's $16/hour (+30mins/day) to close the gap.  I would say a salaried system that pays no matter how many hours are worked would be great (as long as all assigned tasks are complete), but most jobs require people to be somewhere at specific times in the day, and/or require sales goals that earn additional compensation.

It's a tricky situation.  I don't think women should get paid extra just because they typically do more in the home, because I don't think a woman with no kids/family obligations should be paid more just because they're a woman.  (*)Mothers(parents) already get deductions on taxes and government subsidies, however I'd be willing to rework these.  I say that as someone who is not a parent and done no research into it, so my opinion may change.  I have work soon so that will be a project for another day.


----------



## Ghost Soda (Mar 14, 2017)

The fact that in this day and age there are still people that sincerely argue that women should be paid less than men is horrifyingly amazing.


----------



## N e s s (Mar 14, 2017)

Raskell said:


> According to your source, I'm still correct. 47.6 percent of women (between the ages of 15 and 44 in 2014 according to the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey) state that they're not Mothers. It doesn't state whether they want to be.
> 
> Also even if it did state "wanting children" instead of "having children" I would still be correct as I said, "most."
> 
> You cited a Huffington Post article... if you're going to try to convince a republican right-leaning individual (for future reference) don't cite aHuffington Post article.



Dude, this is coming from you of all people when you've cited fake news websites in the past...


----------



## Haskell (Mar 14, 2017)

N e s s said:


> Dude, this is coming from you of all people when you've cited fake news websites in the past...



Breitbart isn't fake news. I've cited Buzzfeed once and articles from low-profile journalists.


----------



## MozzarellaSticks (Mar 14, 2017)

The problem isn't equal pay so much as it lack of opportunity. A lot of factors come into play. Why aren't women getting promoted as much as men? Why aren't women entering the same fields? Why are women the ones expected to stay home with sick children? Women tend to earn less because they put in less hours, enter different fields, and don't make up a significant percentage of high positions. This disparancy can be further broken down by race. So what is it? Bias, mostly.

When orchestras made their auditions blind auditions, female players were highered more. But, even then, something as simple as wearing high heels or a skirt could hurt their chances of being hired. Why? The interviewers could see or hear the shoes/skirt below the curtain separating them from the interviewee. The interviewers were sexist, but didn't even notice it. They had implicit bias. (source)

A lot of the time women's set backs in their careers are from these implicit biases. Women are expected to get pregnant and need maternity leave, take sick days when their kids are sick, still come home to a "second shift," being assertive is a negative trait for women, etc. This makes them seem like less valuable workers. They have a lot to overcome to pass the glass ceiling, and when they do they can still be viewed as a *****.

In the end, equal pay legislature is important, but without effort into changing social structures, and good motherhood and childhood care, women won't see any real advancements in job desperency.


----------

