Binders Full of Woman: Politics Thread

by **slugsrbad** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 09:19:27

Yea, Romney's answer about woman in the workplace was the worst. Even if he meant good, it just came of so, so, so, so, so bad. "Binders full of woman" and basically implying (at least to this common American) that jobs will be so plentiful, and employers so disparate for employees that they'll be more than happy to adjust for a woman's schedule. I think the thing that irks me about the flexibility issue was that it was one of the first things he said instead of addressing the wage gap.

by **RichmondPhilsFan** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 09:21:03

JUburton wrote:It was a pretty innocuous statement. If you can't generalize that women want to take care of their children then you can't really generalize anything. He wasn't saying every woman needs their hand held and special exemptions to help with their household 'duties'. He was saying that he worked with them so they could accomplish their professional goals and still be home for their family. It's a bit patronizing but there are so many more things to vilify the guy for that I don't see how this is really an issue.

My wife thought it was more than a bit patronizing. But hey, she's just a working mother.

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 09:25:32

The Dude wrote:
mozartpc27 wrote:
The Dude wrote:Unless she typed for you, yes, you suggested she would argue that. He said one anecdote doesn't invalidate an average and listed another example of how that is true. That's the only point I'm arguing, b/c to say he insulted your wife's intelligence is asinine

Where did I suggest that? He (and now you) are assuming some offering of anecodtal evidence that she would definitely not make, and I in no place made.

That's why he said "surveys lie?".

I really don't understand your point. He asserted there was no wage gap in terms of equal pay for equal work, but broadly suggested that men, on average, might make mroe than women because men have a "biological imperative" to work 80 hours a week to provide for their families while women have an imperative to care for children.

I suggested this latter point was utter nonsense, and that my wife would "eat him for lunch" for making such an unfounded assertion.

He responded to this, in a post I did not quote above, by saying:

Werthless wrote:People dont understand statistics, regression analysis, and interaction terms.

Feel free to forward to your wife the links I provided in my previous post, where a study commissioned by the Dept of Labor found no evidence of a paygap after controlling for other factors. Or the study which showed that single childless women outearn their single men couterparts by 8%.

Yes, there are undoubtedly employers that have discriminatory policies. But there is no widespread pay gap for equal work.

Again, what "people" was he referring to here? This is condescension itself, and is totally unresponsive to my point.

So then I posted this:

mozartpc27 wrote:In this case, what I meant my wife would eat you for lunch on was the premise that "men feel more of a biological imperative to work 80 hour weeks to be the provider, and that women often feel an imperative to spend more time with their family," not the existence or non-existence of a gender gap. Although I am sure she would be quite happy to take you up on that as well.

I think there might be a bit of slippage here, on the gender gap, between the question of equal pay for equal work - which is becoming more and more the standard, I suppose (although I am sure, as the Lilly Ledbetter case certainly demonstrated, that there are many exceptions still out there) - and the question of the overall wage gap. It cannot be denied that among boards of directors and CEOs of corporations, there continues to be an overwhelming bias towards men, which in turn produces the overall effect of men making more than women (because they dominate the top-of-the-foodchain jobs). Why that is, and what's to be done about it, is a bit of a separate question from "equal pay for equal work."

In which I asserted, for a second time, that it was his "biological imperative" nonsense that I was questioning (and that my wife, who is something of an expert on the history of this sort of - haha - "reasoning"), "not the existence or non-existence of a gender gap." As an addendum, I suggested she would take him up on the gender gap issue as well, though AT NO POINT did I suggest how she might go about doing that. I suggested that, at least, the term "gender gap" gets thrown around a bit, and might refer to two separate phenomenon, one of which might be more anecdotal than systematic at this point, and one of which remains systematic but is not an "equal pay for equal work" issue.

He responded by suggesting that my wife would use herself as evidence that surveys are wrong, and that he would laugh at her for it.

That most definintely ATTRIBUTES to her an argument she has never made, and I at no point ever suggested she would make, and ASSUMES that she would be dumb enough to make it. It also ignores the nuance to the discussion I offered.

Thanks for getting involved!

by **JUburton** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 09:27:12

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:
JUburton wrote:It was a pretty innocuous statement. If you can't generalize that women want to take care of their children then you can't really generalize anything. He wasn't saying every woman needs their hand held and special exemptions to help with their household 'duties'. He was saying that he worked with them so they could accomplish their professional goals and still be home for their family. It's a bit patronizing but there are so many more things to vilify the guy for that I don't see how this is really an issue.

My wife thought it was more than a bit patronizing. But hey, she's just a working mother.

I don't think he wasn't referring to ALL women or implying that he was. He meant well but it came off kind of weird and didn't address the question.

by **Grotewold** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 09:31:35

Should of just stopped at "My administration included more women in high positions than most," even though it did sound a little But I have a black friend

by **JUburton** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 09:32:18

Apropos of nothing, there wasn't a female partner while he was at Bain.

by **The Dude** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 09:38:36

never mind moz, i really think you read way too much into his comments and are trying too hard to be chivalrous here.

by **td11** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 09:39:35

i think moz was fine, sheriff. i was looking forward to werthless' response 8-)

by **The Dude** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 09:41:32

i'm not being sheriff, i just think saying werthless insulted his wife's intelligence is laughable

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 09:44:10

One thing Obama could've said about the wage gap is that thanks to Republican appointed judges on the Supreme Court, it has become much more difficult for women to file class action suits against companies (Wal-Mart) that are accused of practicing systematic gender discrimination against women.

One problem is that there is a difference between high wage/high power career patterns and more ordinary kinds of 40-50 week jobs that regular people do. I have no problem believing that some of the disparity in big time law firms is because of choice, and honestly, I'm not worried too much about a lady lawyer who has to settle for a mere 200k because she decides to step off the fast track. But blatant, systematic discrimination for any reason is deeply troubling in situations where that extra 30 cents an hour makes a real difference in how people live.

by **Youseff** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 09:44:55

Werthless wrote:"President Obama, education is the gateway to future success. In recent years, women are 60% more likely to have earned an undergrad degree by age 23 than men, and single, childless women make 8% more money in their 20s than their male counterparts. What policies will you support to help men close this education gap?"

Can you imagine if some 25 year old guy asked this at the town hall, the outcry from liberals. This would be an absurd question, even though both facts are true. And now suppose they exaggerated the statistic to make it look like a bigger issue. Oh boy.

I'm looking forward to reading Werthless' ponderings of how offensive it would be if we had a White History month.

by **JUburton** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 09:49:23

TenuredVulture wrote:One thing Obama could've said about the wage gap is that thanks to Republican appointed judges on the Supreme Court, it has become much more difficult for women to file class action suits against companies (Wal-Mart) that are accused of practicing systematic gender discrimination against women.

Also that Republicans vehemently opposed the Lilly Ledbetter act.

by **td11** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 09:55:10

Youseff wrote:
Werthless wrote:"President Obama, education is the gateway to future success. In recent years, women are 60% more likely to have earned an undergrad degree by age 23 than men, and single, childless women make 8% more money in their 20s than their male counterparts. What policies will you support to help men close this education gap?"

Can you imagine if some 25 year old guy asked this at the town hall, the outcry from liberals. This would be an absurd question, even though both facts are true. And now suppose they exaggerated the statistic to make it look like a bigger issue. Oh boy.

I'm looking forward to reading Werthless' ponderings of how offensive it would be if we had a White History month.

r/mensrights

it's a revolution

by **td11** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 09:56:01

mozartpc27 wrote:But let me acknowledge, for the record, that liberals have a problem with white men that is in some ways similar to the one that Republicans have with women. A lot of white men perceive that what "liberals" are trying to say to them is:

1. You have all the privilege in the world by virtue of your birth as a white man, and thus are in no need of help and have no right to complain about anything.

2. Everyone else has suffered directly at your hands, and all their problems are attributable directly to you.

Again, I don't think this is what is being said, but it's clearly what a huge number of white men hear from our side (no doubt egged on by conservative commentators and Republican politicians). This isn't a great message to begin with, of course, and it's all the more problematic when the vast majority of white men perceive a huge "gap" between all the privileges that they think the left is telling them they have, and what they actually possess. A guy working a construction site, some middle-management paper pusher, a coal miner: all these guys don't feel especially "privileged," they've seen their incomes stagnate (like the rest of the middle class) in real dollars for years and years, they've seen their retirement benefits cut, they've lost jobs and spent months and sometimes years looking for new ones, etc. The fact is that a lot of these guys have privileges they don't necessarily see or recognize, but lecturing folks on how lucky they are and how good they have it when they look around and see themselves as having pretty difficult lives is not going to win you a lot of votes.

Not sure what the left should do to try to change this narrative (other than nominate me for president!), but there it is.

In another matter:

jerseyhoya wrote:One more thread like the last two, and Romney should be the president of the United States in 95 days.

If the Republican party takes its lead from yourself and Werthless, and treats the wage gap issue with a sort of sneering condescension, let me assure you that we will be celebrating Obama's 2nd inaugural in 95 days. Fortunately for you guys, you'll notice that Romney was much less contemptuous of the question than either of you.

this is on point

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:01:57

The Dude wrote:i'm not being sheriff, i just think saying werthless insulted his wife's intelligence is laughable

I don't know what to tell you. Werthless began the conversation by acknowledging that the "gender gap," as we understand the term, refers to two ideas: that there is an inequality in pay for equal work (which he is using the labor dept. stats to refute), and that men are in more high-paying jobs than women, because, in his world view, men have more of a "biological imperative" than women to work 80 hours a week. When I called him out on the second part of this, he focused, laser-like, solely on the first part of his argument - that there is equal pay for equal work, and implied that "people" (again, what people?) don't understand stats, regression analysis, etc.

I could take offense to that (why the hell would I post here, of all places, if I had no appreciation for the importance of statistical analysis?), but at first I let it go, and simply called him out, for a second time, on the "biological imperative" thing.

I also suggested that my wife would probably also challenge the "gender gap" issue as well - an issue he acknowledged included more than just the equal pay for equal work issue, a distinction that I went on to discuss a little. He again ignored my words AND HIS OWN on this entirely, now singularly focused on the notion that the gender gap is SOLELY about equal pay for equal work, cited his statistics to refute that there is such a gap, and pretended that my wife, like a flaming retard, would counter that since she got paid less for her work than one of her colleagues, that made all statistics invalid.

By the way, he has no idea what my wife does, what she is paid, or what her colleagues get.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:02:40

mozartpc27 wrote:In another matter:

jerseyhoya wrote:One more thread like the last two, and Romney should be the president of the United States in 95 days.

If the Republican party takes its lead from yourself and Werthless, and treats the wage gap issue with a sort of sneering condescension, let me assure you that we will be celebrating Obama's 2nd inaugural in 95 days. Fortunately for you guys, you'll notice that Romney was much less contemptuous of the question than either of you.

It was an inaccurate question based on a faulty premise. I'm not running for anything or trying to get anyone to vote for me.

by **The Dude** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:03:54

Again, I've said I've finished, and already acknowledged part of what you're ignoring. there's no change in how you're feeling though, so you have every right to be upset it you want

by **JFLNYC** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:07:16

JUburton wrote:
RichmondPhilsFan wrote:
JUburton wrote:It was a pretty innocuous statement. If you can't generalize that women want to take care of their children then you can't really generalize anything. He wasn't saying every woman needs their hand held and special exemptions to help with their household 'duties'. He was saying that he worked with them so they could accomplish their professional goals and still be home for their family. It's a bit patronizing but there are so many more things to vilify the guy for that I don't see how this is really an issue.

My wife thought it was more than a bit patronizing. But hey, she's just a working mother.
I don't think he wasn't referring to ALL women or implying that he was. He meant well but it came off kind of weird and didn't address the question.

So if some employer said he "worked with" a Black, allowing him to come to work late because he had to stop to get the freshest watermelon, it would be OK because he was speaking of Blacks generally, but not ALL Blacks?

by **drsmooth** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:08:57

jerseyhoya wrote:
mozartpc27 wrote:In another matter:

jerseyhoya wrote:One more thread like the last two, and Romney should be the president of the United States in 95 days.

If the Republican party takes its lead from yourself and Werthless, and treats the wage gap issue with a sort of sneering condescension, let me assure you that we will be celebrating Obama's 2nd inaugural in 95 days. Fortunately for you guys, you'll notice that Romney was much less contemptuous of the question than either of you.

It was an inaccurate question based on a faulty premise. I'm not running for anything or trying to get anyone to vote for me.

the debate may reinforce for all of us that the entire subject area has become as fraught as Roe V Wade

"partial-pay job abortion"

by **Soren** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:18:22

r/mensrights, bunch fucking "rape easy" comment making dick bags.

Archived

Binders Full of Woman: Politics Thread

Re: Binders Full of Woman: Politics Thread

Re: Binders Full of Woman: Politics Thread

Re: Binders Full of Woman: Politics Thread

Re: Binders Full of Woman: Politics Thread

Re: Binders Full of Woman: Politics Thread

Re: Binders Full of Woman: Politics Thread

Re: Binders Full of Woman: Politics Thread

Re: Binders Full of Woman: Politics Thread

Re: Binders Full of Woman: Politics Thread

Re: Binders Full of Woman: Politics Thread

Re: Binders Full of Woman: Politics Thread

Re: Binders Full of Woman: Politics Thread

Re: Binders Full of Woman: Politics Thread

Re: Binders Full of Woman: Politics Thread

Re: Binders Full of Woman: Politics Thread

Re: Binders Full of Woman: Politics Thread

Re: Binders Full of Woman: Politics Thread

Re: Binders Full of Woman: Politics Thread

Re: Binders Full of Woman: Politics Thread

Re: Binders Full of Woman: Politics Thread