Let Freedom Reign!


 
HomeHome  PublicationsPublications  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Republicans War on Women

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1 ... 10 ... 16, 17, 18  Next
AuthorMessage
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1887

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   7/18/2014, 6:43 pm

Scorpion wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
   The poll wasn't just about Hobby Lobby, it was about the decision to allow closely held corporations to withhold contraceptives based upon religious beliefs.  You are correct that Hobby Lobby still covers other forms of contraception, and if this poll was only about Hobby Lobby, the corporation, rather than the Hobby Lobby decision, your view that the questions were misleading would also be correct.

But that's not the case, Jack.

I see.
I guess I was fooled by the headline of the artlicle.

Women Strongly Oppose Hobby Lobby's Birth Control Case: Poll

So what you are saying is that the poll is valid but the article, much like the person who knowingly posted it, is entirely dishonest.
OK, I guess I can accept that opinion.

No. That's not what I'm saying.  I just noticed that this poll took place before the Hobby Lobby decision, so there's nothing wrong with the headline or the article.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   7/18/2014, 7:47 pm

Scorpion wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
   The poll wasn't just about Hobby Lobby, it was about the decision to allow closely held corporations to withhold contraceptives based upon religious beliefs.  You are correct that Hobby Lobby still covers other forms of contraception, and if this poll was only about Hobby Lobby, the corporation, rather than the Hobby Lobby decision, your view that the questions were misleading would also be correct.

But that's not the case, Jack.

I see.
I guess I was fooled by the headline of the artlicle.

Women Strongly Oppose Hobby Lobby's Birth Control Case: Poll

So what you are saying is that the poll is valid but the article, much like the person who knowingly posted it, is entirely dishonest.
OK, I guess I can accept that opinion.

No. That's not what I'm saying.  I just noticed that this poll took place before the Hobby Lobby decision, so there's nothing wrong with the headline or the article.



The timing of the article and the poll changes absolutely nothing about the nature of the case. Both the article and the poll attempt to disingenuously conflate the Hobby Lobby decision with some sort of blanket ban on contraception, and that is clearly not what was involved in the decision.
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1887

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   7/18/2014, 11:49 pm

happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
   The poll wasn't just about Hobby Lobby, it was about the decision to allow closely held corporations to withhold contraceptives based upon religious beliefs.  You are correct that Hobby Lobby still covers other forms of contraception, and if this poll was only about Hobby Lobby, the corporation, rather than the Hobby Lobby decision, your view that the questions were misleading would also be correct.

But that's not the case, Jack.

I see.
I guess I was fooled by the headline of the artlicle.

Women Strongly Oppose Hobby Lobby's Birth Control Case: Poll

So what you are saying is that the poll is valid but the article, much like the person who knowingly posted it, is entirely dishonest.
OK, I guess I can accept that opinion.

No. That's not what I'm saying.  I just noticed that this poll took place before the Hobby Lobby decision, so there's nothing wrong with the headline or the article.

The timing of the article and the poll changes absolutely nothing about the nature of the case. Both the article and the poll attempt to disingenuously conflate the Hobby Lobby decision with some sort of blanket ban on contraception, and that is clearly not what was involved in the decision.

On the contrary, that's exactly what the decision means. As I pointed out earlier, the Court's conservative majority directly struck down the contraceptive mandate.  Not just for IUDs and "morning after pills."  If Congress doesn't act, and the Supreme Court decision is allowed to stand, then there is nothing to stop a "Hobby Lobby like" corporation from banning coverage for any sort of contraception.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   7/19/2014, 12:52 pm

Scorpion wrote:

On the contrary, that's exactly what the decision means. As I pointed out earlier, the Court's conservative majority directly struck down the contraceptive mandate.  Not just for IUDs and "morning after pills."  If Congress doesn't act, and the Supreme Court decision is allowed to stand, then there is nothing to stop a "Hobby Lobby like" corporation from banning coverage for any sort of contraception.
Exactly! If a Dr prescribes a certain type of contraception that is on the banned list at Hobby Lobby then it is a clear cut case of a corporation,basing their decision from a religious belief, getting between a patient & their Dr,
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   7/19/2014, 3:11 pm

It strikes me as odd that you all are suddenly opposed to the government, i.e., the Supreme Court, fucking around with the medical issues of private citizens.
My, my, how times have changed.
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1887

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   7/19/2014, 5:48 pm

happy jack wrote:
It strikes me as odd that you all are suddenly opposed to the government, i.e., the Supreme Court, fucking around with the medical issues of private citizens.
My, my, how times have changed.

I don't know what the hell you mean. Are you talking about the Affordable Care Act? That's about making it possible for the uninsured to get affordable insurance coverage. That's not "fucking around with the medical issues of private citizens."

You must be confused by the right wing's talking points. The myth of "government run" health care is just that... a myth.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   7/19/2014, 6:45 pm

Scorpion wrote:
happy jack wrote:
It strikes me as odd that you all are suddenly opposed to the government, i.e., the Supreme Court, fucking around with the medical issues of private citizens.
My, my, how times have changed.

I don't know what the hell you mean.  Are you talking about the Affordable Care Act?  That's about making it possible for the uninsured to get affordable insurance coverage. That's not "fucking around with the medical issues of private citizens."      

You must be confused by the right wing's talking points.  The myth of "government run" health care is just that... a myth.



You don’t know what I mean?
Well, then let me tell you what I mean.
You, and others like you, insisted that the government get involved in the health care system.
And now that they have, you will never get them out of the health care system.
Ever.
And now you’re crying about it.
Be careful what you wish for.
Is that a little more clear?
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1887

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   7/20/2014, 12:58 pm

happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
happy jack wrote:
It strikes me as odd that you all are suddenly opposed to the government, i.e., the Supreme Court, fucking around with the medical issues of private citizens.
My, my, how times have changed.

I don't know what the hell you mean.  Are you talking about the Affordable Care Act?  That's about making it possible for the uninsured to get affordable insurance coverage. That's not "fucking around with the medical issues of private citizens."      

You must be confused by the right wing's talking points.  The myth of "government run" health care is just that... a myth.



You don’t know what I mean?
Well, then let me tell you what I mean.
You, and others like you, insisted that the government get involved in the health care system.
And now that they have, you will never get them out of the health care system.
Ever.
And now you’re crying about it.
Be careful what you wish for.
Is that a little more clear?

No, it's not clear at all.  The government isn't involved in the health care system.  The Affordable Care Act is about health insurance, not health care.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   7/20/2014, 6:39 pm

Scorpion wrote:
   The government isn't involved in the health care system.  The Affordable Care Act is about health insurance, not health care.



????
Of course they’re involved - health insurance specifically concerns health care, and if health care is not part of the health care system, then I don’t know what is.
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1887

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   7/20/2014, 7:27 pm

happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
   The government isn't involved in the health care system.  The Affordable Care Act is about health insurance, not health care.



????
Of course they’re involved - health insurance specifically concerns health care, and if health care is not part of the health care system, then I don’t know what is.

Whatever... I think you know what I meant.  But to clarify, there's a big difference between health care coverage and the delivery of health care.  

You specifically said that "it strikes me as odd that you all are suddenly opposed to the government fucking around with the medical issues of private citizens."

To me, "medical issues" in this context refers to the delivery of medical care (i.e. doctor/patient), not the purchasing of health insurance.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3092

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   7/21/2014, 4:37 pm

He knows what you meant. He's already argued as such with the "no one's denying them healthcare; they can still get it" bit.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   7/21/2014, 5:55 pm

Heretic wrote:
He knows what you meant.  He's already argued as such with the "no one's denying them healthcare; they can still get it" bit.  



FYI, it's not a 'bit' - it's a 'fact'.
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1887

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   7/21/2014, 7:27 pm

happy jack wrote:
Heretic wrote:
He knows what you meant.  He's already argued as such with the "no one's denying them healthcare; they can still get it" bit.  

FYI, it's not a 'bit' - it's a 'fact'.

Yeah. Well the fact is, if women employed by Hobby Lobby need to use any of the forms of contraception that Hobby Lobby finds objectionable...for "religious" reasons, then they will need to pay for it themselves.   The "fact" that "they can still get it" is irrelevant to this discussion.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   5/6/2016, 9:15 am

Thanks for the talking point,Tubby. Can't wait to hear the carnival barker's response....
Chris Christie Vetoes Equal Pay Bill, Calling It ‘Business Unfriendly’
Quote :
New Jersey’s lawmakers want to require employers to pay women the same as men for essentially the same work. But Gov. Chris Christie (R) thinks they went too far.

The bill that passed both chambers of the state’s legislature would have banned employers from paying women less for “substantially similar” work as men, and would only have allowed differing pay rates between genders if employers could prove it was based on something besides sex, such as education, experience, or performance. The similarity of the work would have been determined based on the required responsibilities, effort, and skills for jobs across all of an employer’s operations.

Most equal pay laws require the same pay for the exact same work. But New Jersey’s bill would have been much stronger, reaching beyond the exact same jobs to require women to be paid equally if they’re doing the same tasks in a different role. The problem is common given that when women enter a particular job, the pay drops because their work is valued less, even if it’s the same work being performed by men. For example, maids make less than janitors; high school teachers make less than college professors; women’s sports coaches tend to be paid less than men’s coaches.

This concept, known as pay equity or comparable worth, used to be popular among statehouses. By 1989, 20 states had analyzed the pay of their own workforces to see whether men and women performing essentially the same duties were being paid differently. Over a decade, they spent more than $527 million to give more than 335,000 women a raise because they were being paid less despite doing basically the same work as men, eliminating between 25 and 33 percent of the pay gap. A national law would have been one of the strongest ways to reduce the gender wage gap, getting rid of over a quarter of it. Minnesota still conducts regular pay equity assessments and has significantly narrowed its gap, and California already passed a law just like New Jersey’s.

But Christie specifically objected to this piece of the bill in his veto, calling it “nonsensical” and saying that it “makes New Jersey very business unfriendly.”
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   5/7/2016, 10:42 am

Artie60438 wrote:
   
…. For example, maids make less than janitors ….

You are talking about two different positions, each having its own separate set of responsibilities, each having nothing to do with gender.



Artie60438 wrote:
   
….  high school teachers make less than college professors ….

You are talking about two different positions, each having its own separate set of responsibilities, each having nothing to do with gender.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   5/7/2016, 2:01 pm

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
   
…. For example, maids make less than janitors ….

You are talking about two different positions, each having its own separate set of responsibilities, each having nothing to do with gender.
They could be performing similar duties just with different job titles

Quote :

Artie60438 wrote:
   
….  high school teachers make less than college professors ….
They both teach students

[quote'"dishonest troll"][b]You are talking about two different positions, each having its own separate set of responsibilities, each having nothing to do with gender.[/quote]
Naturally you left out the relevant part and totally ignored the sports coaches example.
"even if it’s the same work being performed by men. For example, maids make less than janitors; high school teachers make less than college professors; women’s sports coaches tend to be paid less than men’s coaches."

You must really hate women.
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1887

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   5/7/2016, 7:05 pm

Yeah. well personally, I think that all of these examples suck.   There is no way in hell that a high school teacher should make as much as a college prof, regardless of gender.  Sports coaches?  For the most part,  I assume that we're talking about colleges, and there is no question that the men's basketball program brings in far more revenue. Men's coaches should be paid accordingly.

However, there is something that would shed light on this argument, in a link that is sitting right above the examples cited.  According to that article, when women move into a field, the pay drops.  Now that is compelling evidence, but apparently you haven't followed the link yet, Artie.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   5/7/2016, 8:39 pm

Scorpion wrote:
Yeah. well personally, I think that all of these examples suck.   There is no way in hell that a high school teacher should make as much as a college prof, regardless of gender.  Sports coaches?  For the most part,  I assume that we're talking about colleges, and there is no question that the men's basketball program brings in far more revenue. Men's coaches should be paid accordingly.

However, there is something that would shed light on this argument, in a link that is sitting right above the examples cited.  According to that article, when women move into a field, the pay drops.  Now that is compelling evidence, but apparently you haven't followed the link yet, Artie.
Thanks. Here it is.
As Women Take Over a Male-Dominated Field, the Pay Drops
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   5/9/2016, 10:31 am

Artie60438 wrote:
   
…. For example, maids make less than janitors ….

[quote="happy jack"] You are talking about two different positions, each having its own separate set of responsibilities, each having nothing to do with gender. [quote]
[quote="Artie60438"]They could be performing similar duties just with different job titles[quote]
[quote="happy jack"]What the hell do the job titles have to do with gender?
Also, “…. could be ….” is rather vague.
Explain.
[quote]



[quote="Artie60438"]    
….  high school teachers make less than college professors ….
They both teach students[quote]

[quote="happy jack"]Yes, they both teach students, but at decidedly different levels, and the qualifications to be a college professor are more stringent and require higher levels of education and experience, so college professors have most certainly earned the right to more pay. And anyway, what in the fuck does being a high school teacher as opposed to being a college professor have to do with gender?
Do you think someone who coaches high school football should be paid the same as Bill Belichik? I mean, after all, they both coach football players, don’t they?
[quote]



[quote="Artie60438"]     Naturally you left out the relevant part and totally ignored the sports coaches example. [quote]

[quote="happy jack"]I left it out because I have no quibble with male and female coaches at the same level making the same amount of money. I believe that’s the way it should be, although Scorpion makes a good point about male-dominated college sports bringing in considerably more revenue than their female counterparts. [quote]



[quote="Artie60438"]    
You must really hate women. [quote]

[quote="happy jack"]Actually, I like women very much.
Unlike you.
[quote]
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   5/9/2016, 1:07 pm

troll babbled wrote:

Move along troll,conversation is over. You lost.
As Women Take Over a Male-Dominated Field, the Pay Drops
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   5/9/2016, 1:20 pm

Artie60438 wrote:

Move along troll,conversation is over. You lost.
As Women Take Over a Male-Dominated Field, the Pay Drops



So, now that the pay grade (allegedly) has dropped when women enter the field, that means that men in that same field are also affected.
What in the hell does this have to do with gender?
It sounds to me that it is more of an issue with the overall economy than it is with some imaginary gender disparity.
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1887

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   5/9/2016, 6:49 pm

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:

Move along troll,conversation is over. You lost.
As Women Take Over a Male-Dominated Field, the Pay Drops



So, now that the pay grade (allegedly) has dropped when women enter the field, that means that men in that same field are also affected.
What in the hell does this have to do with gender?
It sounds to me that it is more of an issue with the overall economy than it is with some imaginary gender disparity.

Did you actually read the article?
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   5/10/2016, 11:35 am

Scorpion wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:

Move along troll,conversation is over. You lost.
As Women Take Over a Male-Dominated Field, the Pay Drops



So, now that the pay grade (allegedly) has dropped when women enter the field, that means that men in that same field are also affected.
What in the hell does this have to do with gender?
It sounds to me that it is more of an issue with the overall economy than it is with some imaginary gender disparity.

Did you actually read the article?    



Yes, I did.
Different positions deserve different salaries.
Goodness, what a surprise!!!!


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/upshot/the-pay-gap-is-because-of-gender-not-jobs.html?_r=0

Instead, she said, the trick is workplace flexibility in terms of hours and location.
“The gender gap in pay would be considerably reduced and might vanish altogether if firms did not have an incentive to disproportionately reward individuals who labored long hours and worked particular hours,” she wrote in a paper published this month in The American Economic Review.
Occupations that most value long hours, face time at the office and being on call — like business, law and surgery — tend to have the widest pay gaps. That is because those employers pay people who spend longer hours at the office disproportionately more than they pay people who don’t, Dr. Goldin found. A lawyer who works 80 hours a week at a big corporate law firm is paid more than double one who works 40 hours a week as an in-house counsel at a small business.




A-fucking-mazing!!!!
People who work long and inconvenient hours are rewarded ‘disproportionately’.


‘….employers pay people who spend longer hours at the office disproportionately more than they pay people who don’t, Dr. Goldin found.’

Call Gloria Steinem!!!!
Stat!!!!
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1887

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   5/16/2016, 2:04 pm

happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:

Move along troll,conversation is over. You lost.
As Women Take Over a Male-Dominated Field, the Pay Drops



So, now that the pay grade (allegedly) has dropped when women enter the field, that means that men in that same field are also affected.
What in the hell does this have to do with gender?
It sounds to me that it is more of an issue with the overall economy than it is with some imaginary gender disparity.

Did you actually read the article?    



Yes, I did.
Different positions deserve different salaries.
Goodness, what a surprise!!!!

Seriously?  I don't see how anyone can read this....

Quote :
And there was substantial evidence that employers placed a lower value on work done by women. “It’s not that women are always picking lesser things in terms of skill and importance,” Ms. England said. “It’s just that the employers are deciding to pay it less.”

A striking example is to be found in the field of recreation — working in parks or leading camps — which went from predominantly male to female from 1950 to 2000. Median hourly wages in this field declined 57 percentage points, accounting for the change in the value of the dollar, according to a complex formula used by Professor Levanon. The job of ticket agent also went from mainly male to female during this period, and wages dropped 43 percentage points.


The same thing happened when women in large numbers became designers (wages fell 34 percentage points), housekeepers (wages fell 21 percentage points) and biologists (wages fell 18 percentage points). The reverse was true when a job attracted more men. Computer programming, for instance, used to be a relatively menial role done by women. But when male programmers began to outnumber female ones, the job began paying more and gained prestige.



... and characterize it as  "Different positions deserve different salaries."  In this piece, the examples cited show that is clearly not the case... so it's hard to believe that you actually read it. I don't know how the hell else you can explain that conclusion.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   5/17/2016, 9:33 am

In fact, another study shows, when women enter fields in greater numbers, pay declines — for the very same jobs that more men were doing before.

Which is understandable if those fields are no longer as essential as they once were.



The median earnings of information technology managers (mostly men) are 27 percent higher than human resources managers (mostly women), according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

Those are two entirely different positions and, regardless, IT management has become more and more essential in the digital age as production and services come to rely more and more upon computerization and automation. It seems to me to be quite natural that those with the qualities, experience, and education to provide the most essential services receive compensation commensurate with those skills.



At the other end of the wage spectrum, janitors (usually men) earn 22 percent more than maids and housecleaners (usually women).

Again, different positions.



A striking example is to be found in the field of recreation — working in parks or leading camps — which went from predominantly male to female from 1950 to 2000. Median hourly wages in this field declined 57 percentage points, accounting for the change in the value of the dollar, according to a complex formula used by Professor Levanon.

And what, pray tell, would this “complex formula” be?



Computer programming, for instance, used to be a relatively menial role done by women.
………
But when male programmers began to outnumber female ones, the job began paying more and gained prestige.

Yes, computer programming used to be a menial field.
And now it isn’t.
As I said earlier, it is understandable that computer and IT skills are more in demand and, hence, more valuable today than they were in the past.
So what is the cause and effect here? Is the job paying more simply because there happen to be more men occupying those positions, or is it because those positions are now in greater demand?
I would bet on the latter.




Women have moved into historically male jobs much more in white-collar fields than in blue-collar ones. Yet the gender pay gap is largest in higher-paying white-collar jobs, Ms. Blau and Mr. Kahn found. One reason for this may be that these jobs demand longer and less flexible hours, and research has shown that workers are disproportionately penalized for wanting flexibility.

So men are willing to work longer and less flexible hours and are more adequately compensated for that willingness.
So what?
Seems only fair that if the ladies want the bucks, they had better be willing to do the time.



Research by Claudia Goldin, a Harvard economist, has found that a pay gap persists within occupations. Female physicians, for instance, earn 71 percent of what male physicians earn, and lawyers earn 82 percent.
Occupations that most value long hours, face time at the office and being on call — like business, law and surgery — tend to have the widest pay gaps. That is because those employers pay people who spend longer hours at the office disproportionately more than they pay people who don’t, Dr. Goldin found. A lawyer who works 80 hours a week at a big corporate law firm is paid more than double one who works 40 hours a week as an in-house counsel at a small business.

Well, I never!!!!
Someone who works twice as long is paid twice as much?!?!?
Oh, the humanity!!!!
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Republicans War on Women   

Back to top Go down
 
Republicans War on Women
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 17 of 18Go to page : Previous  1 ... 10 ... 16, 17, 18  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Let Freedom Reign! :: Nation/Other :: Nation/World-
Jump to: