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

[jcfynx]

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

No they don't.

Yes they do.

They're merely forcing THEIR views on other people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where did the point go.

[Gryphoneer]

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

[Streetcircus]

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

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

[Spatel]

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

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

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

[catilda lily]

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

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

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

[Kahoku]

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

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

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

[Ad Hoc]

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

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

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

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


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

[Metalmeerkat]

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

One must be careful about the law of unintended consequences.

[DefectiveSpoons]

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

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

They're not genetically built for those tasks.

[CannonFodder]

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

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

They're not genetically built for those tasks.

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

[DefectiveSpoons]

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

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

ALSO

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

That post was bad and you should feel bad.

[Ad Hoc]

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

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

They're not genetically built for those tasks.

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

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

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

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



EDIT:

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

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

[Ozriel]

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

That post was bad and you should feel bad.

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

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

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

[CannonFodder]

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

ALSO

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

That post was bad and you should feel bad.

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

[DefectiveSpoons]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



EDIT:

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

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

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

Make sense?

[Ad Hoc]

snip'd for space

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

[DefectiveSpoons]

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

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

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

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

[DefectiveSpoons]

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

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

[Ozriel]

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

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

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

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

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

[DefectiveSpoons]

We're the extended discussion of the furry fandom. Get used to trying to back up what you say with links or else it'll devolve to heresay.

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

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

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

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

[jcfynx]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The idea is equal pay for equal work.

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

[Ozriel]

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

I just have to link this for humor. :V

[Spatel]

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

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

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

[Ad Hoc]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Metalmeerkat]

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

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

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