Research on sexual orientation and homophobia

[LunarRay]

What about 108%? Is that equal?

Some jobs earn more for women... some are on par and some much less than men...

All should earn the same for the same job... that is simple... it is what we'd all like to see, No?

If you would like there to be a difference between ANY two people doing the same job with all other things being equal what might be the reason?

 

[dawp]

Why stop the practice of eugenics at incest?

troll

 

[LunarRay]

Or consider

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs.../31/young-women-closing-in-on-gender-wage-gap

"Women who have never married earn 94.2 percent of their unmarried male counterparts' earnings. Those who were married with a spouse present earned 75.5 percent of their male counterparts' earnings."

So if making money is your sole measure of importance if life I would suggest that women not get married.

Under the rules of Federal Evidence #401 and #403 (if relevant) I'm not going to respond.

The question has to do with men and women and the earnings gap and equality....

 

[nehalem256]

Some jobs earn more for women... some are on par and some much less than men...

All should earn the same for the same job... that is simple... it is what we'd all like to see, No?

If you would like there to be a difference between ANY two people doing the same job with all other things being equal what might be the reason?

You have provided no proof of women earning less money for doing the job. Absolutely none.

For example your own link http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2011/ted_20110216.htm

Shows that women earn ~80% for working in the same industry. Not the same job.

Now, if employers actually could hire a woman for 70-80% for the exact same job, why would they hire men at all?

 

[Craig234]

You have provided no proof of women earning less money for doing the job. Absolutely none.

For example your own link http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2011/ted_20110216.htm

Shows that women earn ~80% for working in the same industry. Not the same job.

Now, if employers actually could hire a woman for 70-80% for the exact same job, why would they hire men at all?

I'm sure it's a coincidence Fox made the same fallacious argument.

You're confusing gender bias with math. Paying men more is the goal of the bias.

 

[nehalem256]

I'm sure it's a coincidence Fox made the same fallacious argument.

You're confusing gender bias with math. Paying men more is the goal of the bias.

I dont care what Fox says since I dont get my information from Fox News.

And there is no evidence of bias. The numbers presented that show women make 80% of men neglect things such as

1.) Actual job, and not just industry
2.) Experience
3.) Hours worked

I wonder if those factors influence things at all :\

In today's sue happy culture why are there not millions of lawsuits being filed if what you say is actually true.

 

[nehalem256]

troll

There is no trolling. If the basis for preventing incestuous marriage is that such couples have a higher chance of producing off-spring with defects, then logically we should do so for all couples with a higher chance of producing off-spring with defects. In fact if we dont do so we would be engaged in discrimination.

And on 2nd thought, that claim rests on the idea that the purpose of marriage is producing children. But I thought in accepting gay marriage we had rejected such a notion? And the idea would obviously fail for same-sex siblings.

 

[Moonbeam]

I dont care what Fox says since I dont get my information from Fox News.

And there is no evidence of bias. The numbers presented that show women make 80% of men neglect things such as

1.) Actual job, and not just industry
2.) Experience
3.) Hours worked

I wonder if those factors influence things at all :\

In today's sue happy culture why are there not millions of lawsuits being filed if what you say is actually true.

There are millions of irrelevant questions you can ask when you have conservative defective thinking that devotes intelligence to rationalization rather than to rational thinking. You have to understand that you tickle yourself with your ability to avoid real meaning and you are proud of the facility with which you do it. You have become habituated to the kick you get out of your capacity to deflect. It's like the smirk satisfaction a child can get when he farts. It's like being a world champion at being brain dead. You get lots of negative attention which for the true egotist is better than none.

I believe the only answer you deserve is a mirror. You are a complete and total fool and you love it so there's not going to be anything to be had from you other than as an example of what intentional stupidity looks like. You have devoted all of your intelligence to being stupid and because you are profoundly stupid you are also quite bright. What a waste.

 

[alzan]

There are millions of irrelevant questions you can ask when you have conservative defective thinking that devotes intelligence to rationalization rather than to rational thinking. You have to understand that you tickle yourself with your ability to avoid real meaning and you are proud of the facility with which you do it. You have become habituated to the kick you get out of your capacity to deflect. It's like the smirk satisfaction a child can get when he farts. It's like being a world champion at being brain dead. You get lots of negative attention which for the true egotist is better than none.

I believe the only answer you deserve is a mirror. You are a complete and total fool and you love it so there's not going to be anything to be had from you other than as an example of what intentional stupidity looks like. You have devoted all of your intelligence to being stupid and because you are profoundly stupid you are also quite bright. What a waste.

Thank you!

 

[LunarRay]

You have provided no proof of women earning less money for doing the job. Absolutely none.

For example your own link http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2011/ted_20110216.htm

Shows that women earn ~80% for working in the same industry. Not the same job.

Now, if employers actually could hire a woman for 70-80% for the exact same job, why would they hire men at all?

EDIT: reissuing my post for clarity for what follows...
Some jobs earn more for women... some are on par and some much less than men...

All should earn the same for the same job... that is simple... it is what we'd all like to see, No?

If you would like there to be a difference between ANY two people doing the same job with all other things being equal what might be the reason? End Edit.

Don't ever neglect to allow all the words you read to have a bearing on what argument against that your intend to formulate. "All other things being equal" (Ceteris Paribus). It is not uncommon to rule out factors which interfere with examining a specific causal relationship. When we use the Ceteris Paribus assumption we control all of the the independent variables other than the one we study. We do this mainly to eliminate the effect of a single independent variable on the dependent variable in order to isolate it. By keeping all the other relevant and irrelevant factors constant, we are able to focus on the unique and usually specific effects of a given factor in a complex causal situation. It is a normal feature of Economic analysis....
My post asked questions based on the first para of it.... the predicate to the balance, as it were.

I'd suggest you read the syllabus. There will be a quiz on this later today. Your grade will be not be based on the quizzes and written tests but, rather, on your participation in the dialog and to what extent you display an understanding of what gathered data is, what it suggests and how sensible your causal factor analysis is regarding your conclusion(s).

You can apply similar analysis criteria to most all critical thinking processes. It is not instructive to find yourself in a room with an elephant and be focused on the open window either to escape or to determine if that was the entry point. The elephant is there... you can see him... deal with him... IF you argue he is not there at all and it is all an illusion then you have passed the test of being a Conservative... Deny with plausible argument that which seeks to further a conclusion supported by irrelevant factors to the predicate.

 

[nehalem256]

EDIT: reissuing my post for clarity for what follows...
Some jobs earn more for women... some are on par and some much less than men...

All should earn the same for the same job... that is simple... it is what we'd all like to see, No?

If you would like there to be a difference between ANY two people doing the same job with all other things being equal what might be the reason? End Edit.

If 2 people are paid different for the same job after accounting for every relevant variable then yes that would be discrimination. But I have seen no evidence of that being true.

And there is already established law preventing workplace discrimination on sex.

So what would the ERA accomplish?

 

[LunarRay]

If 2 people are paid different for the same job after accounting for every relevant variable then yes that would be discrimination. But I have seen no evidence of that being true.

And there is already established law preventing workplace discrimination on sex.

So what would the ERA accomplish?

Yes, there are a few laws that cover discrimination in the workplace starting with the Equal Rights Act of '64 I suppose and at least one Executive Order.

Because the analysis looks to Industry and Industry versus Industry, saying men earn more than women can be plausibly argued away by considering this variable or that one... More hours or tenure and whatever.. One must also show that to be true if they wish to argue that... Women in say Financial Services or Accounting... Auditors... work as many hours as men do on average. They may even earn as much... say they do... But are they promoted to Partner with the same frequency? Or based on the same criteria?
The fact that women earn... I think it is 77ish percent of men overall and it is scattered all over the place by industry DOES tell us something. Smart Economists - not me cuz I'm lazy or dumb or both - can take various tools like statistical analysis and apply it to the elephant and deduce the poop on the ground came from the elephant... smells like peanuts. Two minute sound bites cannot covey the underlying thinking. Only the gross affect with some indication of what was considered is possible... but, and with uncommon consistency both sides of a debate will have done a very good and honest analysis on the data... Like some Priest said.... IF you have 100 Economists looking at a drop of rain you'll get 100 opinions of what it is and they'll all be different.

In essence, choose to believe what suits you cuz there will be some analysis somewhere that supports it.
Always try to gain insight from the CBO because they'll be the most unbiased of the lot... I think.. and the BLS would follow that, I think... Regarding this topic.


The ERA was an attempt to accomplish equality across the board in all areas for all people regardless of the persons sex... If you don't see the benefit ok... Like the argument proffered during the debate in the House and Senate... Women in War is not American.... We don't want women in the foxhole with men... not conducive to good killing practices. Maybe women want to have babies and not M16s maybe they do... But the ERA would provide for women to do exactly like men do... except a few things I guess.

 

[nehalem256]

Yes, there are a few laws that cover discrimination in the workplace starting with the Equal Rights Act of '64 I suppose and at least one Executive Order.

Because the analysis looks to Industry and Industry versus Industry, saying men earn more than women can be plausibly argued away by considering this variable or that one... More hours or tenure and whatever.. One must also show that to be true if they wish to argue that... Women in say Financial Services or Accounting... Auditors... work as many hours as men do on average. They may even earn as much... say they do... But are they promoted to Partner with the same frequency? Or based on the same criteria?




The ERA was an attempt to accomplish equality across the board in all areas for all people regardless of the persons sex... If you don't see the benefit ok... Like the argument proffered during the debate in the House and Senate... Women in War is not American.... We don't want women in the foxhole with men... not conducive to good killing practices. Maybe women want to have babies and not M16s maybe they do... But the ERA would provide for women to do exactly like men do... except a few things I guess.

So now maybe they do earn equal pay for equal work, but dont get promoted to partner as fast? Make up your mind on what the problem is.

Specifically what rights do you think women (or men) lack that ERA will solve?

 

[LunarRay]

So now maybe they do earn equal pay for equal work, but dont get promoted to partner as fast? Make up your mind on what the problem is.

Specifically what rights do you think women (or men) lack that ERA will solve?

Earth calling nehalem.... come in nehalem...

It is obvious that you don't understand the analysis.... In an industry there are various positions... they all are not receptionists... Discrimination takes the form of variance in the same job as well as WHAT job one does versus the other jobs and how and when and why one gets moved to a higher paying job than another person and in this case women....

Specifically what rights do women lack... is that your question? And how will the ERA solve that lack...

Geepers, I was hoping that by me being vague you'd provide that answer... When it was proposed in '70 (I think) apparently the '64 CRA did not provide the relief sought... Today with more laws on the books women still feel and provide the basis for that 'feeling' that an ERA would be a good thing but more importantly that regardless of what laws are on the books women folk still fall behind men in important areas...
One that my wife harps on... and she's so Right Wing that she's almost coming back to Liberal... Is the failure of the Political Parties to recognize the short fall of women in Politics... Not because they are not viable candidates but they don't get the support from the Power brokers who ARE men... Now, I don't think an ERA would sort that out but maybe just maybe there is something that can alter the men mind from considering women as sex toys and move their men minds to a more equal treatment of women in all areas of Caesar's world. Maybe an ERA can help do that.

 

[nehalem256]

Earth calling nehalem.... come in nehalem...

It is obvious that you don't understand the analysis.... In an industry there are various positions... they all are not receptionists... Discrimination takes the form of variance in the same job as well as WHAT job one does versus the other jobs and how and when and why one gets moved to a higher paying job than another person and in this case women....

Specifically what rights do women lack... is that your question? And how will the ERA solve that lack...

Geepers, I was hoping that by me being vague you'd provide that answer... When it was proposed in '70 (I think) apparently the '64 CRA did not provide the relief sought... Today with more laws on the books women still feel and provide the basis for that 'feeling' that an ERA would be a good thing but more importantly that regardless of what laws are on the books women folk still fall behind men in important areas...
One that my wife harps on... and she's so Right Wing that she's almost coming back to Liberal... Is the failure of the Political Parties to recognize the short fall of women in Politics... Not because they are not viable candidates but they don't get the support from the Power brokers who ARE men... Now, I don't think an ERA would sort that out but maybe just maybe there is something that can alter the men mind from considering women as sex toys and move their men minds to a more equal treatment of women in all areas of Caesar's world. Maybe an ERA can help do that.

You were arguing women make less for the same job. Now you are backtracking and arguing well no, men just keep them from getting a promotion.

So the point of the ERA is to make men see women as men

Never mind that women see men as well basically slaves to provide for them. See Obamacare and Planned Parenthood, and forcing men to provide for the children women CHOOSE to have. Maybe when women stop expecting men to take care of them they will be seen as equals? 😕

 

[jackstar7]

Never mind that women see men as well basically slaves to provide for them. See Obamacare and Planned Parenthood, and forcing men to provide for the children women CHOOSE to have. Maybe when women stop expecting men to take care of them they will be seen as equals? 😕

Misogyny is not dead.

 

[Moonbeam]

There is no level of good sense a defective can't disregard.

 

[Moonbeam]

Misogyny is not dead.

Indeed. I asked our hater what childhood trauma was at source for his blindness motivation, but he disregarded my question. A suspicion, has sense replaced my initial conclusion, namely that nehalem isn't very good breeding material and for him to find a mate would require a world of billions of women quadriplegics who in a state of physical starvation, might take a fancy to the fact that his wallet might supply a Happy Meal. Economically independent women can be picky about to whom they grant sexual favors. Worthless men in womens' eyes would prefer our Neolithic past.

 

[LunarRay]

There is no level of good sense a defective can't disregard.

hehehehe,

True, but this continued dialog has provide me with an abundance of information regarding how the mind can be confronted with words that form sentences and convey in a common language a communication and how a mind deals with that.
I have chosen very carefully what words I've used, in what context I've used them, and what response to that I've received...

Although our friend is but one person the condition is similar among many people and across many subjects... they do the same thing. Probably for the same reason.

I can stop now... I am convinced you and the OP analysis is right...

 

[LunarRay]

You were arguing women make less for the same job. Now you are backtracking and arguing well no, men just keep them from getting a promotion.

So the point of the ERA is to make men see women as men

Never mind that women see men as well basically slaves to provide for them. See Obamacare and Planned Parenthood, and forcing men to provide for the children women CHOOSE to have. Maybe when women stop expecting men to take care of them they will be seen as equals? 😕

Is that a fact?

Would you like to make yourself more comfortable... oh wait... our time is up... see you next thread..

 

[etrigan420]

Never mind that women see men as well basically slaves to provide for them. See Obamacare and Planned Parenthood, and forcing men to provide for the children women CHOOSE to have. Maybe when women stop expecting men to take care of them they will be seen as equals? 😕

Holy shit...you are a gem, aren't you?

 

[nehalem256]

Economically independent women can be picky about to whom they grant sexual favors. Worthless men in womens' eyes would prefer our Neolithic past.

Except women who demand that men pay for their health care and reproductive choices are not economically independent.🙄

 

[nehalem256]

Misogyny is not dead.

Expecting women to be independent and be responsible for their own choices is not misogyny.

 

[cybrsage]

There is no level of good sense a defective can't disregard.

That is a mean thing to say about LunarRay. You apologize for calling him a defecting. 😡

 

[Zebo]

Ive known this forever. Most vocal are fags. Dudes who dont give a fuck are straight.

I like to fuck w overtly bigots by faux flirting w them and get them riled up. Sometimes you get a good scap.