# Open letter to Ann Coulter for using R-word



## Hollowway (Oct 25, 2012)

Have you guys seen this? Special Olympian writes open letter to Ann Coulter over offensive tweet | The Lookout - Yahoo! News

Apparently Ann Coulter (who I don't know much about, but apparently she says things to get attention) called president Obama a retard. And this man with Downs Syndrome wrote an open letter to her criticizing her use of the word. Bravo. Nothing I like more than someone sticking up for themselves (or others) and doing it elegantly and with integrity.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Oct 25, 2012)

I really have a hard time believing that that hag actually believes the shit she says. I have a sneaking suspicion the Boondocks' portrayal of her is pretty accurate.


----------



## mcd (Oct 25, 2012)

^same, she's just a hype machine much like Bill Maher....none of them really deserve media attention....although this was a pretty horrendous comment. The more re-tweets this gets the more attention she gets, and no such thing as bad press


----------



## vampiregenocide (Oct 25, 2012)

She's a right cunt.


----------



## Blake1970 (Oct 25, 2012)

I cringe when she has anything to say. I hope she goes away after the election.


----------



## synrgy (Oct 25, 2012)

Some day, somebody is going to punch her in the mouth. I just hope I get a chance to see it.


----------



## Sunyata (Oct 25, 2012)

mcd said:


> ^same, she's just a hype machine much like Bill Maher....none of them really deserve media attention....although this was a pretty horrendous comment. The more re-tweets this gets the more attention she gets, and no such thing as bad press



I'm offended that you're reducing Bill Maher to the level of Coulter.


----------



## Edika (Oct 25, 2012)

People like her always bring to my mind classic Cannibal Corpse song like "Fucked with a knife" and "Hammer smashed face".


----------



## renzoip (Oct 25, 2012)

I've heard her name before, but had never bothered to look up who she is or what she does. After reading this article, I just did. Now I will move on with my life and never again bother to find out what she thinks or says about anything ever again.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 25, 2012)

Ann Coulter is so fucking stupid. If Batman was real this bitch would be dead.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Oct 25, 2012)

I'd rather drink hot sulphuric acid with Kevin Federline while I listen to a mashup of songs by Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber than pay attention to anything either Bill Maher or Ann Coulter say.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Oct 25, 2012)

Here's the thing about Bill Maher. He's a comedian, not a pundit. Ann Coulter is delivering herself as a source of news while Maher is quite obviously a comedian/satirist.


----------



## MetalGravy (Oct 25, 2012)

synrgy said:


> Some day, somebody is going to punch her in the mouth. I just hope I get a chance to see it.




I remember hearing that some one hit her w/a pie a few years back. Does that count for anything?


----------



## gunshow86de (Oct 25, 2012)

I was expecting this (also a good letter to Ann);


----------



## Konfyouzd (Oct 25, 2012)

> I have to wonder if you considered other hateful words but recoiled from the backlash.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Oct 25, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> I'd rather drink hot sulphuric acid with Kevin Federline while I listen to a mashup of songs by Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber than pay attention to anything either Bill Maher or Ann Coulter say.



Yea Maher can be a bit of a prick if you don't directly agree with what he has to say. He pretty much made it so Mos Def didn't even wanna speak the one time I watched his show. And Mos Def was actually making good points. He probably should have used proper english to convey them, though (he used slang terms a few times and Maher basically just laughed off his point as if it were no longer valid bc he didn't understand the words--yet when Shakespeare says "a rose by any other name..." ppl call that brilliant...  )...


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Oct 25, 2012)

After I read this part I burst out laughing:



> "No," Coulter responded. "No. I think civil rights are for blacks. What have we done to the immigrants? We owe black people something. We have a legacy of slavery. Immigrants haven't even been in this country."


----------



## Konfyouzd (Oct 25, 2012)

Civil Rights aren't for women too? Take that bitch's microphone... Make her use a different water fountain from the rest of us and give her her own section on the bus (although I can't help but think she'd derive a sense of pride from having her own section of the bus)... 

That's not even addressing everything else wrong with that statement...


----------



## BucketheadRules (Oct 25, 2012)

What a great way of coming back to such a hateful, bigoted comment. Top work from that chap.

Never heard of this Ann Coulter (was going to say "person" but I reckon "thing" will do) before, I assume she's part of the self-righteous, hypocritical, racist, homophobic, far-right, fundamentalist, pro-life, Bible-bashing American Taliban shitwit brigade?

Awful woman... the kind of person the world is unquestionably better off without.




STOP PRESS: Oh holy shit, I just found these quotes from her:




_"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

"Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims."

"Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity, as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of 'kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed'"_





Utterly speechless.

Are we sure she's real, or is she just a spectacularly unpleasant media construct designed to invoke suicidal feelings in everyone who encounters her?


----------



## Sunyata (Oct 25, 2012)

Ann Cunt said:


> _"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
> 
> "Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity, as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of 'kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed'"_



The hypocrisy makes me nauseous. Cunt needs to die.


----------



## BucketheadRules (Oct 25, 2012)

Sunyata said:


> The hypocrisy makes me nauseous. Cunt needs to die.



And the fact that she goes on about the concept of "punishing" Hitler for his crimes, when the kind of concepts and principles she's talking about as her own idea of how the world should be really isn't that far removed from the oppressive, imperialist fascism of the Nazi party...


----------



## matt397 (Oct 25, 2012)

Look on the bright side, maybe she'll die in a fire one day.


----------



## Jakke (Oct 25, 2012)

mcd said:


> ^same, she's just a hype machine *much like Bill Maher*....none of them really deserve media attention....although this was a pretty horrendous comment. The more re-tweets this gets the more attention she gets, and no such thing as bad press



I would have to say that there is quite the chasm between Ann Coulter and Bill Maher. Most of all because Ann Coulter is not a comedienne (not a volountary one), she actually does this from a pretention of factuality. Bill Maher on the other hand, well, he is a comedian. It's his job to rile people up. I think you are equating two people by only the loudness of their opinions, which I am not sure is the right thing to do.


----------



## Gothic Headhunter (Oct 25, 2012)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Ann Coulter is so fucking stupid. If Batman was real this bitch would not be dead because Batman doesn't kill people.



Fixed


----------



## canuck brian (Oct 25, 2012)

I really hope Ann Coulter dies of some sort of horrific disease that brings immeasureable suffering upon her. She does nothing for this world than bring hate and vitriol.

I genuinely hate this woman.


----------



## ASoC (Oct 26, 2012)

> "No," Coulter responded. "No. I think civil rights are for blacks.* What have we done to the immigrants?* We owe black people something. We have a legacy of slavery. Immigrants haven't even been in this country."



Ummm did she study history? Would someone care to explain how the Irish and Chinese immigrants that came to this country were treated? Really everyone who wasn't here when the country was founded is treated like shit. Even Native Americans who were here first were taken advantage of. Honestly, if she thinks we "owe" African-Americans for slavery, then we definitely "owe" everyone else for the legacy of bigotry and hatred that this country seems to like to sweep under the rug.


----------



## BIG ND SWEATY (Oct 26, 2012)

Gothic Headhunter said:


> Fixed


 i feel like he'd make an exception in this case


----------



## Konfyouzd (Oct 26, 2012)

ASoC said:


> Ummm did she study history? Would someone care to explain how the Irish and Chinese immigrants that came to this country were treated? Really everyone who wasn't here when the country was founded is treated like shit. Even Native Americans who were here first were taken advantage of. Honestly, if she thinks we "owe" African-Americans for slavery, then we definitely "owe" everyone else for the legacy of bigotry and hatred that this country seems to like to sweep under the rug.



Precisely. I feel like we're at a point now where no one owes anyone shit, but there are institutions that enable folks to bitch and moan and cause problems for others as a result. It's annoying. Then we get half wits like this chick perpetuating all that nonesense with a buncha historically inaccurate prejudiced jibba jabba...


----------



## bob123 (Oct 26, 2012)

the "r-word"? Are we children? 

She's an idiot. She's always BEEN an idiot. This is not news, this is history repeating itself, again.



ASoC said:


> Ummm did she study history? Would someone care to explain how the Irish and Chinese immigrants that came to this country were treated? Really everyone who wasn't here when the country was founded is treated like shit. Even Native Americans who were here first were taken advantage of. Honestly, if she thinks we "owe" African-Americans for slavery, then we definitely "owe" everyone else for the legacy of bigotry and hatred that this country seems to like to sweep under the rug.




How about the americans that were put into prison camps in Cali during WW2? No one owes anyone anything. Native Americans get PLENTY of appropriations, trust me... Doesn't "make up" for some atrocities white americans committed 150+ years ago. And stop saying "We", me and you did nothing.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Oct 26, 2012)

bob123 said:


> How about the americans that were put into prison camps in Cali during WW2? No one owes anyone anything. Native Americans get PLENTY of appropriations, trust me... Doesn't "make up" for some atrocities white americans committed 150+ years ago. And stop saying "We", me and you did nothing.



In all fairness it doesn't seem to be all on white ppl... A lot of minorities like to throw that guilt trip around ignoring the fact that--like you said--NONE OF US HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT. 

Time to shed all these social training wheels to which we've come to feel entitled...


----------



## pink freud (Oct 26, 2012)

Ann Coulter needs to exist, because sometimes it is handy having a idiot-flame for the idiot-moths to be drawn to and identify themselves.


----------



## Beach (Oct 26, 2012)

Ann Coulter is annoying. Maher's a good sport though. Strange how they both had a thing going on haha.


----------



## Explorer (Oct 26, 2012)

It's interesting to read, on a forum dominated by males, that women earning $.70 for each dollar a man earns for the same job and experience doesn't indicate there's something going on. 

There was an interesting section in Freakonomics, and in the movie, about employment seeking while having either a black- or white-sounding name. Some things are still in action in the US.

Since those seem pretty clear, is there a way these could be explained without there being some kind of pervasive systemic issues which affect women and blacks? I'm ready to learn!


----------



## K3V1N SHR3DZ (Oct 26, 2012)

I still fail to see how Bill Maher is anywhere close to Coulter's level of evil and insanity.
Bill might get a little acerbic from time to time, but most of his stuff is legit.
plz explain.


----------



## SenorDingDong (Oct 26, 2012)

I've always seen her as a less intelligent, less attractive, equally obsessive and directionless, pointlessly-existing real-life version of Golem from LOTR. Who happens to, most likely, think WWE is real and NASCAR is a legitimate sport.


----------



## tacotiklah (Oct 26, 2012)

I remember reading a tweet of hers about how there was a local LGBT pride day on Sunday. She "quipped" with, "Which means Monday is now 'Sons disowned by their fathers day". Nevermind that the vast majority of the homeless in the country consists of vets and/or LGBTs that were thrown out of their house by their parents. Real funny ya homophobic, bigoted bitch.


----------



## The Reverend (Oct 26, 2012)

If I can manage it, I'm going to punch that woman in her face.


----------



## bob123 (Oct 27, 2012)

Explorer said:


> It's interesting to read, on a forum dominated by males, that women earning $.70 for each dollar a man earns for the same job and experience doesn't indicate there's something going on.
> 
> There was an interesting section in Freakonomics, and in the movie, about employment seeking while having either a black- or white-sounding name. Some things are still in action in the US.
> 
> Since those seem pretty clear, is there a way these could be explained without there being some kind of pervasive systemic issues which affect women and blacks? I'm ready to learn!




It's because women ACCEPT $.77 (not 70) for every mans $1. This number stems from higher paying jobs, that require negotiation for your pay. This means MORE then 150k/yr jobs. Its not like the men working at walmart make more then women. Another reason, that people like to ignore, men (statistically) have longer resumes, and less gaps working (child birth Id guess...).



Also, whoever neg repped me is a fucking retard (see what I did there?). Apparently "adding to the conversation" means simply calling the woman a cunt, or bitch, or comparing her to bill maher. Good job, you fail at basic cognitive reasoning skills.


----------



## Jakke (Oct 27, 2012)

^You can not legislate away a cultural phenomena, men tend to be more aggressive in negotiations, therefore men also tend to have higher salaries. This is how biology works, men tend to take higher risks, which means there are more men at the top *and* at the very bottom of society. I have yet to hear calls for affirmative action for women among the local population of bums, there are more men than women there too.
There is no vast "let's-pay-women-less-because-we're-evil"-conspiracy.


*Folds fingers, pondering how to suppress women next*


----------



## bob123 (Oct 27, 2012)

Jakke said:


> ^You can not legislate away a cultural phenomena, men tend to be more aggressive in negotiations, therefore men also tend to have higher salaries. There is no vast "let's-pay-women-less-because-we're-evil-conspiracy".




To be fair, 80 years ago, this was true (watch "Mad Men" for good examples on this lol.) Certain people like to ignore some statistical facts while embracing others; i.e. I can say "more white people go to college in america then black people". Some would get offended, but some would bother to look at other numbers as well... "Oh hey, turns out the country is mostly white, so it makes sense."




Jakke said:


> *Folds fingers, pondering how to suppress women next*



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i1mLF3uMWw


----------



## Jakke (Oct 27, 2012)

bob123 said:


> To be fair, 80 years ago, this was true (watch "Mad Men" for good examples on this lol.) Certain people like to ignore some statistical facts while embracing others; i.e. I can say "more white people go to college in america then black people". Some would get offended, but some would bother to look at other numbers as well... "Oh hey, turns out the country is mostly white, so it makes sense."



Well, It certainly did, and I am happy that has changed, because everyone deserves the same opportunities. 

I blame the invention of fell-good activism, people support causes society has told them is the right causes, and they support them just for the sake of feeling better about themselves (see.. I am an enlightened individual, I have "Free Tibet!" as my screen saver). This activism is also blind and vindictive, as they do not fact check (as you mentioned) and they attach their views to their ego, which makes them terribly offended if someone challenges their views.




bob123 said:


>




That is just tragic...

Which is also what can be considered representative for activism in our age, people do not research positions, and they just go with what sounds good. After all, who would not want to end "suffrage of women"?
Props to some of them at least


"_I think women in general are better than men_"..
-Can you imagine the reception if a man had said men are better than women?


----------



## bob123 (Oct 27, 2012)

Jakke said:


> That is just tragic...
> 
> Which is also what can be considered representative for activism in our age, people do not research positions, and they just go with what sounds good. After all, who would not want to end "suffrage of women"?
> Props to some of them at least
> ...



Lol that vid is like 10 years old, I think it came out when I was in highshcool haha. But yes, inverse discrimination is just as bad as the "real deal". 

People like ann seem to stem from these roots, preying on stats they WANT to enforce, and ignoring others they choose not to see. One day I'd love to have an open questioning with her or bill o reilly haha.


edit: apparently "Adding to the conversation" means "I hope she dies in a fire one day". Gotcha


----------



## tacotiklah (Oct 28, 2012)

Jakke said:


> ^You can not legislate away a cultural phenomena, men tend to be more aggressive in negotiations, therefore men also tend to have higher salaries. This is how biology works, men tend to take higher risks, which means there are more men at the top *and* at the very bottom of society. I have yet to hear calls for affirmative action for women among the local population of bums, there are more men than women there too.
> There is no vast "let's-pay-women-less-because-we're-evil"-conspiracy.
> 
> 
> *Folds fingers, pondering how to suppress women next*




I got something you can suppress.... 





Actually, there is an underlying and subconscious misogyny when it comes to pay. Women are making great advances in the business world, but the top dogs are still insistent that it's a boys only club. I liken our lower salaries as being due to a "cootie" tax that is implemented by those with this club mentality.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 28, 2012)

Gothic Headhunter said:


> Fixed



Batman would make an exception for Ann Coulter and you know it.


----------



## synrgy (Oct 28, 2012)

SenorDingDong said:


> Who happens to, most likely, think WWE is real



Don't you go talkin' trash about my wrasslin'! 










Seriously, though.


----------



## Jakke (Oct 28, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> I got something you can suppress....



Oh you!




ghstofperdition said:


> Actually, there is an underlying and subconscious misogyny when it comes to pay. Women are making great advances in the business world, but the top dogs are still insistent that it's a boys only club. I liken our lower salaries as being due to a "cootie" tax that is implemented by those with this club mentality.




I'm not entirely sure there is, bearing in mind we are from different countries, and mine has elevated PC to state religion. Just a few moments ago I read an article about something we call the university test (this is a general test that can be part of your admission to a university, if your grades are not great, you can get in on your test score). The news was that apparently men had the gall to score better on average than women, and the whole thing was a discussion on how the test could be redone to favour women (it has been recently, but apparently men did not get the message). 

Couple that with the scoop that boys on average receive lower grades in relation to their standard tests (which are done in fifth grade, ninth grade, and every year in highschool) compared to girls, and most talk about structural discrimination leaves a slighty bitter aftertaste for me.

But that is the educational system, and another country, I'm just feeling extra bitter tonight.


----------



## bob123 (Oct 29, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> Actually, there is an underlying and subconscious misogyny when it comes to pay. Women are making great advances in the business world, but the top dogs are still insistent that it's a boys only club. I liken our lower salaries as being due to a "cootie" tax that is implemented by those with this club mentality.




It's not a misogynistic notion that, statistically, women don't hold the same longevity on jobs, have lower working histories, and are culture-bound to not be aggressive (this comes down to some negotiation tactics).


As I stated before, it's not bound on a woman's ability vs the man's. Given all things equal, men and women's pay is pretty equivalent through upper middle class. 

Heres where some of the pay discrepecies come from 

1) Job tenure. Its based on title vs position. Statistically, men hold jobs longer then women. This is not debatable, the REASONS for it may be debatable. A MAN working for 10 years in the same position is being held to the same level as a WOMAN who just started (think nursing or other flat level positions that get yearly raises).


2) There's no clause for "men pay" vs "women pay". ANY job that has a set pay schedule will pay the same, based on experience, not sex. On upper tier jobs, you negotiate for salary. This means, "I want XX% commission, with $XXX,XXX salary". Women ARE groomed to be less aggressive. "Boys will be boys" and "Girls are supposed to be dainty and pretty and not be aggressive". Being more passive, nets them less aggression for negotiation. 



Im sick and tired of the "oh poor me speech" coming from radical women that pick and choose what stats they decide to look at. I'm not saying theres NOT an imbalance at some point, but it's not really affecting the working class citizens of this country. 



BTW, 
These women probably make WELL less then male counterparts... give me a break.


----------



## Splinterhead (Oct 29, 2012)

I hesitate to post in this thread because there are a lot of strong views expressed here.... Ok I'm done hesitating. 

I'm a bit of a news junky and I listen to, and laugh at, the political rhetoric of both sides. I think a lot of these people like Coulter, Maher, Colbert, Limbaugh, Sharpton, Jackson etc create things that may not necessarily exist. It seems they take a kernel of truth and grow it into a huge tree of propaganda, lies and slander. The reason why they do it is obviously money and ratings. It seems like these guys are hawking books all the time. They want us to become enraged. They love it when we love them or hate them. This just adds fuel to the fire thus bringing them more publicity for them to sell their wares. Me personally? I feel they are part of the entertainment industry. 

ps I am so tired of all the politically correct bullshit. Common courtesy should be the rule of the day. (my.02)


----------



## tacotiklah (Oct 29, 2012)

bob123 said:


> It's not a misogynistic notion that, statistically, women don't hold the same longevity on jobs, have lower working histories, and are culture-bound to not be aggressive (this comes down to some negotiation tactics).
> 
> 
> As I stated before, it's not bound on a woman's ability vs the man's. Given all things equal, men and women's pay is pretty equivalent through upper middle class.
> ...




So to be clear, are you saying then that misogyny in the business world doesn't exist?


----------



## bob123 (Oct 29, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> So to be clear, are you saying then that misogyny in the business world doesn't exist?



Please read my entire post.


----------



## The Reverend (Oct 29, 2012)

I like the assumption that women who have reached the point of negotiating for salaries are weak-willed, domicile creatures who will gratefully and eagerly accept any number given to them with a squeaky little, "Yes, sir!"

Those of you who have 'explained' the gender gap in wages, care to explain the racial divide as well? Or am I less likely to bargain for a good income because I'm not white?  Because, if all other things are equal, I won't make as much as someone just as qualified and experienced in my field according to the statistics.


----------



## tacotiklah (Oct 29, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> I like the assumption that women who have reached the point of negotiating for salaries are weak-willed, domicile creatures who will gratefully and eagerly accept any number given to them with a squeaky little, "Yes, sir!"
> 
> Those of you who have 'explained' the gender gap in wages, care to explain the racial divide as well? Or am I less likely to bargain for a good income because I'm not white?  Because, if all other things are equal, I won't make as much as someone just as qualified and experienced in my field according to the statistics.



This was the point that I was getting at. It's one of those things where you really cannot see what goes on unless it happens to you. Minorities still get paid less for the same job, and same level of experience. This is unacceptable.


----------



## Jakke (Oct 29, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> I like the assumption that women who have reached the point of negotiating for salaries are weak-willed, domicile creatures who will gratefully and eagerly accept any number given to them with a squeaky little, "Yes, sir!"



There were no such assumption, but it is a popular sociological explanation, and it does have something going for it. 
It does not have to do with women being weak-willed, negotiations are about confrontation, and women do tend to be less confrontational (So that's a strawman on your part, and that's pretty dishonest IMO). 



The Reverend said:


> Those of you who have 'explained' the gender gap in wages, care to explain the racial divide as well? Or am I less likely to bargain for a good income because I'm not white?  Because, if all other things are equal, I won't make as much as someone just as qualified and experienced in my field according to the statistics.



There has been no claim that all has been explained (after all, this is not religion we are talking about here), only possible explanations have been proposed, which is actually a lot more productive than just going: "lol sexism". 

No, I cannot explain the racial divide, because I do not have all the answers for everything (which you apparently do, at least for this issue). It is possible that it is a question of casual racism, I don't know. Can you attach some statistics so I can take a look? Preferably something that compares equal qualifications.


----------



## Captain Shoggoth (Oct 29, 2012)

Ann Coulter is an incredibly unpleasant woman, and I sincerely hope that one day she realises precisely how unpleasant she is and resolves to grow up.

a man can dream


----------



## Jakke (Oct 29, 2012)

She makes far too much money by being a 'tard.


----------



## Semichastny (Oct 30, 2012)

Jakke said:


> She makes far too much money by being a 'tard.



Ann believes she knows how things really are and regularly says things that are very offensive to people and their beliefs, but lets not forget the left has a group of people doing the exact same thing... we call them scientists!


----------



## flint757 (Oct 30, 2012)

I read an article about an employer who said he interviewed people and his manager gives him an initial value and a certain amount he can go up too for negotiation purposes. It came down to something like 7 out of 10 women accepted the base negotiation pay and didn't even bother to negotiate at all. I've encountered women in higher positions who always say 'I'm grateful for my job' not ' I earned it or deserved it' too. There is a distinct difference in attitude and it comes to being fresh blood in most cases I think.

I'm not going to say some people don't discriminate both racially and sexually, but it is greatly exaggerated to what extent. I know plenty of minorities and women who make a lot more money than I do, am I being discriminated against? Probably not. Sometimes there are in fact other factors and it isn't entirely fair to just assume some form of prejudice.


----------



## ROAR (Oct 30, 2012)

Oh man, Ann Coulter called the president a retard?!
Why does this matter


----------



## flint757 (Oct 30, 2012)

Resolved


----------



## tacotiklah (Oct 30, 2012)

bob123 said:


> Please read my entire post.



I did and I was with you right up to this part, where you seemed to contradict yourself:



bob123 said:


> Im sick and tired of the "oh poor me speech" coming from radical women that pick and choose what stats they decide to look at. I'm not saying theres NOT an imbalance at some point, but it's not really affecting the working class citizens of this country.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So women complaining about an injustice makes them "radical" and therefore beyond being heard? This is a minimizing technique that is a part of the problem. Maybe for once, just once, actually listen to what they have to say. Granted there are some women that do in fact belly-ache far too much on it, but that should not be the reason you tune the whole subject out and cast a label of "politically correct bullshit" on it. I find those that are quick to throw a label on something like that are the people that never have had to deal with it. The fact that two people of the same experience and the same education receive different pay based on gender is ludicrous, but definitely happens all the time. The reasons you were giving were definitely a big part of it, sure. But pretending that there are not people out there that see women as inferior is also naive. 

Let me give you a great personal example:
My cousin was fired earlier this year from her job after 4 years of working there, despite only missing work twice in 4 years. She'd never been late once, and according to her immediate supervisor, she was the best worker they had. However upper management had two very sexist males that would implement very stringent requirements on her just because they wanted to mess with her. B.s. you cry? Not at all. What job do you know of that suddenly decides to tell you that you have to get a driver's license or be fired, when you are never late, and your job doesn't involve driving or operating any kind of heavy equipment? No this was just a bullshit maneuver to root out her and a few of her other female co-workers. My cousin had been at that job for 4 years and never saw advancement, but a new guy they hired just 3 months prior to my cousin getting the boot got promoted fairly quickly despite being disciplined and reprimanded several times for poor attendance. But he was never required to get a driver's license, despite said poor attendance. 

The fact of the matter is that sexism in the workplace is well alive and kicking, and you can never really get it or understand it until that shit happens to you. Then you sit back and have to ask yourself, "Did that just really fucking happen? It's 2012 and that shit still goes on?"


----------



## renzoip (Oct 30, 2012)

I would like to mention, that one does not necessarily have to personally experience discrimination and inequality in order to acknowledge them as real problems. One may never know how it feels to be discriminated unless personally experienced, yes. But once can certainly understand how discrimination and inequality operate within society, and how it disproportionately affects one group of people over the other. Personal (sometimes predisposed) views have to do a lot with how these issues are perceive, and how sympathetic one wishes to be towards people who are affected by them. 

A lot of people are very fixated in the idea that we, as a society, as way past any form of discrimination. That whatever may seem kinda sort of like discrimination must have a perfectly reasonable explanation that makes it justifiable, and must in fact not be discrimination. Therefore, whoever complains about discrimination these days must be playing the victim and should be looked down upon.


----------



## flint757 (Oct 30, 2012)

I don't think he meant because these women have an opinion they are radicals, but that the radical women are too opinionated, big difference. And Renzoip that isn't even remotely what any of the naysayers here meant, you are putting words in our mouth.

The main point is that it is not a one dimensional issue. It is not always discrimination and it isn't always not, either.


----------



## bob123 (Oct 30, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> I like the assumption that women who have reached the point of negotiating for salaries are weak-willed, domicile creatures who will gratefully and eagerly accept any number given to them with a squeaky little, "Yes, sir!"
> 
> Those of you who have 'explained' the gender gap in wages, care to explain the racial divide as well? Or am I less likely to bargain for a good income because I'm not white?  Because, if all other things are equal, I won't make as much as someone just as qualified and experienced in my field according to the statistics.




I'll actually concede the "racial" divide is much more prevalent then the "sexist" one.

And if you call me, ask me directly, this coy bullshit is childish. 

And you also took what I said COMPLETELY out of context for your own spin, so why should I bother explaining something I already have? sheesh. No where did I say women are "meek" or "weak" creatures. Im saying social aspects DO (in fact) play a part. Whether you like it or not is, quite frankly, moot.


And my last post in this thread. You guys are COMPLETELY misreading my points. I'm not saying, in any way, shape or form, that sexism doesnt exist. Im saying the salary gap isn't quite exactly what you guys are making it out to be. 

Jess - if that was, indeed the case, as explicitly as you state, there are laws protecting her, and she should seek legal recourse.


----------



## Jakke (Oct 30, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> But pretending that there are not people out there that see women as inferior is also naive.



And pretending that there are not people out there who see men as inferior is also naive, but since you are a woman, we do not expect you to understand. 
-See what I did there?

There are people thinking virtually anyone except for themselves are inferior, this can not be used as basis for an argument as long as it is not a sizeable portion of the population that entertain these views. There are many women who consider men inferior, often right in our face on TV, but the witches on "The View" are not the majority, therefore it does not matter one flying fuck what they think. The agressive feminists assholes who get media attention to tell us men that we are animals (or as said on a very well visited seminar about gender issues; the male brain is a female brain damaged by testosterone) does not matter one iota as long as the majority do not hold these views, which they don't, because most people are good and open people who understand that we can't go around hating or despising half of the population. Well, slightly more then half when it comes to hating men.



ghstofperdition said:


> Let me give you a great personal example:
> My cousin was fired earlier this year from her job after 4 years of working there, despite only missing work twice in 4 years. She'd never been late once, and according to her immediate supervisor, she was the best worker they had. However upper management had two very sexist males that would implement very stringent requirements on her just because they wanted to mess with her. B.s. you cry? Not at all. What job do you know of that suddenly decides to tell you that you have to get a driver's license or be fired, when you are never late, and your job doesn't involve driving or operating any kind of heavy equipment? No this was just a bullshit maneuver to root out her and a few of her other female co-workers. My cousin had been at that job for 4 years and never saw advancement, but a new guy they hired just 3 months prior to my cousin getting the boot got promoted fairly quickly despite being disciplined and reprimanded several times for poor attendance. But he was never required to get a driver's license, despite said poor attendance.



I can tell anecdotes as well. 
Do you know that within several trades dominated by women there are discrimination against men, and even sexual harrassment against the often very young men coming there to work? This is for example within teaching and nursing where female bosses has harrassed the man, then he has reported it, he is not believed, and he is punished by the female boss for reporting it.

I of course do not support what happened to your cousin, but you have to understand that how sad as it is; anecdotes are not usable in a discussion as positive evidence, or negative evidence. They are not usable at all.



ghstofperdition said:


> The fact of the matter is that sexism in the workplace is well alive and kicking, and you can never really get it or understand it until that shit happens to you. Then you sit back and have to ask yourself, "Did that just really fucking happen? It's 2012 and that shit still goes on?"



I call bullshit on that, this is only a technique to limit dissent. I am fully capable of registering things that I have no personal experience of, as are you Jess. Or does it only go one way? That sounds.. almost a bit sexist.... (I don't think you are, but it's food for thought)
And it also brings me down to me first point, personal experience is sad when it comes to an individual (report that shit!), but it means squat to the overlaying trend. You cannot use personal experience to prove a point about a trend on population level Jess.


----------



## tacotiklah (Oct 30, 2012)

Okay. Then I let science and studies prevail, here's the latest findings as of 2011:
Focus: America's gender wage gap | The Economist
http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/simpletruthaboutpaygap1.pdf


That's right, because being paid 18% less is such a minimal amount. Or 31% less if you are a woman that plans on being an executive in a company. My point is the regardless of the reason, it should not exist to begin with. The fact is that en passe discrimination is still offensive and still keeps women and minorities down.


Edit: Corrected the figure amount for accuracy. Still, being paid 18 cents less for every dollar just because you have boobs is ridiculous. Before people start laughing off 18%, take a calculator and start plugging in numbers. Find a job that pays let's say $50,000 annually.. With the numbers we have to go on, that means that a woman will make $41,100 for that same exact position. That's a difference of $8900 a year. Again, I liken it to what I call "a cootie tax". 
I recall seeing that the position I hope to have (top manager of a decent sized company) has a national average of $104,000/year annually. Let's play with that number and see what dear old Jess will really get paid just for being a girl shall we? Aha, so my handy, dandy calculator says that I can expect $85,488 for doing the same exact job, with the same education, and the same experience level. I get to take a pay cut of $18,512 every year just for being a girl. Sorry, but that is not mere pocket change, nor is robbing a person of nearly 20k due to their gender in any way, shape, or form acceptable.


----------



## eaeolian (Oct 30, 2012)

bob123 said:


> And if you call me, ask me directly, this coy bullshit is childish.



So is attacking users on their profiles. So enjoy the month off, and the next time you won't be coming back.


----------



## flint757 (Oct 30, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> Okay. Then I let science and studies prevail, here's the latest findings as of 2011:
> Focus: America's gender wage gap | The Economist
> http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/simpletruthaboutpaygap1.pdf
> 
> ...



You are pointing to info already mentioned.

As I said not all cases of wage differences are discrimination, to pretend so is ridiculous. Obviously discrimination still exist, otherwise Westboro and the KKK wouldn't still be around; that does not directly correlate that in every scenario where someone is making less money that they are being discriminated against. Your opinion seems to be that the gap is exclusively discrimination which is not a healthy way to look at it, think about it. 'I didn't get into my college, I'm being discriminated against'. I mean that can be used and said about everything if someone wanted too and that creates a negative stereotype that people begin to perceive women and minorities as undeserving of their position when that isn't the case. It does happen, but it should not be the 'go to' excuse either. The big thing is it is just a cop out that EVERYONE uses (well not everyone, but you get the point) and doesn't always apply (not implying that it doesn't apply sometimes, just not 100% of the time either).

My mom, for instance, picked a job when I was a kid that was flexible so that she could take off if need be. This led her into a job that inevitably pays less. Someone recently got hired on making more than her and was a woman too (mind you, my mother&#8217;s responsibilities are far greater as well). In some cases it is just corporate greed and that is it. Then you have to factor in that some men have been working in their respective fields for anywhere from 20-30 years longer than women as a whole and that is relevant when you add in the age gap. I can't explain away all discrimination as it is very real, but it is NOT a one dimensional issue and IMO doesn&#8217;t actually explain the disparity at all. I mean think about it, if across the country those numbers are true then you&#8217;re implying that nearly every company discriminates against women and that is a tad ridiculous. I mean can you explain why almost every doctor I have ever had has been a woman. If there was full fledged discrimination occurring I doubt this would be the case. There are plenty more examples available of what could be perceived as reverse discrimination or just women in great positions for any of these sweeping generalities to be true.

Then there are things like this as well (quoted from a comment in an article that I felt had good points):



> Her health insurance costs more than a man's. Statistically she is more likely to call in sick then a man. A man is more likely to work overtime or to accept unpleasant work hours. There is a major chance for her to quit, due to pregnancy



This also has to be taken into consideration for a part of the disparity. 

Women at my college, for instance, typically chose a business major over engineering and there is no structural discrimination here (my school is quite diversified and women get amazing scholarships to do engineering too, they just choose not to). Engineering jobs typically pay more so that is an obvious disparity there as well. My Aunt is a woman and is a highly respected and sought after network engineer; never went to college. My mother&#8217;s boss is a woman and makes millions (literally). My friends wife took a job at half of her current jobs pay to be closer to home and have more flexible hours as she intends to have a child in the coming year. These things go unaccounted for in most statistics. There is too much confirmation bias surrounding them for me to take them at face value.

The statistics take into account mean pay of women and men, excluding all other factors entirely. It can be discrimination (and probably is sometimes, in some places maybe a lot of the time) obviously and I'm sure there is some disparity from that, but that figure alone is not enough to make it so. Women have only been an active part in the work force since the 80's basically. None of the data seems to take into account the employee&#8217;s personal choices that they may have made. What equality is asking for honestly is that some top paying people get replaced by women because that is the only way for wages to become more equal across the board. That IS a problem, but a company can't exclusively look for women to fix the issue no more than any other minority because then it just becomes reverse discrimination and is still ultimately allowing prejudice to determine decisions (good or bad). It'd be easier if it just wasn't an issue at all, but it will probably always be an issue to an extent. It is hard to determine if someone really is the best candidate or if someone is being cheated.

No idea if this is true, but it is interesting as well.

Women less interested than men in jobs where individual competition determines wages | UChicago News

As I've already stated I'm certain the road is a lot harder for women and there is a preconceived notion that already exists within the employers mind. It may be that if a woman is too aggressive during negotiation that she wouldn't get hired and as such it becomes a self fulfilling prophesies as they stop asking. Just brings me back to the point that it isn&#8217;t a simple problem, but it isn&#8217;t solely the governments or the employer&#8217;s problem/fault either. My mom went to the car dealership and the finance manager tried ripping her off. She kept negotiating for a week and eventually got what she wanted. Determination in the long run always wins, even if not right out of the gate.

This is something worth looking at just in general (men and women alike):

Three Mistakes Women Make When Negotiating Salary | Monster

Here is the article I was talking about earlier as well:

Women 2.0 » Hot Topic on Reddit: XX Chromosome Equals Lower Pay


----------



## ASoC (Oct 31, 2012)

Not to dampen your discussion on sexism and women making less money (not always the same issue), but  

I suppose it's to be expected that anything involving Coulter is going to explode into some seriously opinionated discussion. 

But by all means, carry on. It's interesting to see what you have to say.


----------



## flint757 (Oct 31, 2012)

Yes, quite off topic, but this thread wasn't going anywhere anyhow. 

First page is just pretty much bashing some random person (sounds nicer than cunt ) that most of us couldn't care less about.  I personally found the derail conversation far more interesting...


----------



## Konfyouzd (Oct 31, 2012)

bob123 said:


> Im sick and tired of the "oh poor me speech" coming from radical women that pick and choose what stats they decide to look at. I'm not saying theres NOT an imbalance at some point, but it's not really affecting the working class citizens of this country.



Really it only bothers me when it comes from the folks that aren't doing shit with themselves to begin with... It's like the guy/gal who spends frivolously and then bitches they can't manage their finances b/c of the economy.

Or the guy who can't get a job bc he's a ghetto ass but will assert that his blackness is the reason he can't maintain a stable job... 

It's a self fulfilling prophecy to keep them from having to actually *achieve* something. Now... If there *is* actually someone out there purposely paying women less, I'd like to have a word with said individual.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Oct 31, 2012)

Semichastny said:


> Ann believes she knows how things really are and regularly says things that are very offensive to people and their beliefs, but lets not forget the left has a group of people doing the exact same thing... we call them scientists!



The difference is one doesn't used biased statistics and pure ignorance to support their claims. Apples to oranges... 

You can't refute science with crazy...


----------



## renzoip (Oct 31, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Yes, quite off topic, but this thread wasn't going anywhere anyhow.
> 
> First page is just pretty much bashing some random person (sounds nicer than cunt ) that most of us couldn't care less about.  I personally found the derail conversation far more interesting...



Same here, said "random person" does not deserve a 3 page thread on ss.org


----------



## renzoip (Oct 31, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> Really it only bothers me when it comes from the folks that aren't doing shit with themselves to begin with... It's like the guy/gal who spends frivolously and then bitches they can't manage their finances b/c of the economy.
> 
> Or the guy who can't get a job bc he's a ghetto ass but will assert that his blackness is the reason he can't maintain a stable job...
> 
> It's a self fulfilling prophecy to keep them from having to actually *achieve* something. Now... If there *is* actually someone out there purposely paying women less, I'd like to have a word with said individual.



And this is the reason these issues are complicated. Some people will say it's the individual fault's despite the system. Some people will say it's the system's fault despite of the individual. And unfortunately, both can be true at the same time


----------



## flint757 (Oct 31, 2012)

Hence why the only true way for this to pass is just through time. Anything else is just going to create structural discrimination if not now then later down the road.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Oct 31, 2012)

^ *Cough* Affirmative Action *Cough*...

So... What you're saying is that our desire for immediate gratification coupled with the ability to make it so and/or our likelihood to do so is ACTUALLY the problem?


----------



## Semichastny (Oct 31, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> The difference is one doesn't used biased statistics and pure ignorance to support their claims. Apples to oranges...
> 
> You can't refute science with crazy...



That's only if a person cares about facts though.


----------



## Jakke (Oct 31, 2012)

Logic does per definition not work on illogical people


----------



## flint757 (Oct 31, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> ^ *Cough* Affirmative Action *Cough*...
> 
> So... What you're saying is that our desire for immediate gratification coupled with the ability to make it so and/or our likelihood to do so is ACTUALLY the problem?



Well it certainly doesn't help the core problem.


----------



## The Reverend (Oct 31, 2012)

Flint, I'm pretty sure you and I were involved in a thread concerning racial wage divisions earlier this year. I posted quite a few links regarding the subject, as well as the well-known study where resumes sent in with black-sounding names were responded to less. I don't feel like doing that again, but to all who are curious, it is a well-researched topic. 

Regarding the individual vs society debacle... Well, society has more power than any singular person. I hate to pull the 'Goodwin's Law but for Race' card, but seriously. Civil Rights Act, anyone? I'm in no way suggesting that wage divides are as damaging as a lack of fundamental human rights, nor am I equating the two. I'm trying to illustrate a sort of Hobbesian idea that should we deem it necessary, the collective will overpowers the individual's. 

I don't know if Affirmative Action is right, or what could replace it as a viable, non-preferential system, but I believe a solution could be found. Minorities and women deserve at least the thought. 

Also, even if 'sociological factors' play into this (a fancy term that still leads to my absurd caricature) divide, wouldn't that be punishing the victims even still? If women are less inclined to be confrontational, a trait that is nurtured, not innate, then isn't it still society's fault? Look up masculine and feminine cultures in a sociology book to see that aggressiveness is not gender-specific, at least in the type of situation we're talking about. Differing cultures have different social norms and mores regarding offers of any kind. In your assertions, women in Western culture are more-or-less trained to accept a salary offer without bargaining. Okay. I'll accept that. Is it right, by our culture's commonly shared morals?


----------



## Jakke (Oct 31, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> Also, even if 'sociological factors' play into this (a fancy term that still leads to my absurd caricature) divide, wouldn't that be punishing the victims even still? If women are less inclined to be confrontational, *a trait that is nurtured*, not innate, then isn't it still society's fault? Look up masculine and feminine cultures in a sociology book to see that aggressiveness is not gender-specific, at least in the type of situation we're talking about. Differing cultures have different social norms and mores regarding offers of any kind. In your assertions, women in Western culture are more-or-less trained to accept a salary offer without bargaining. Okay. I'll accept that. Is it right, by our culture's commonly shared morals?



I kind of agreed with you until this. That is post-modern bullshit. There is a lot of biological research going on right now on this, and it seems to point to that we are different on a biological level, so I'd blame nature if I were you. Nature also seems to decide what kind of toys you'd probably want play with as a kid..
Naturally sociologist do not accept this, they are notoriously anti-natural science and their paradigm is built on post-modernism, i.e. that nurture always wins. Natural science that points to natural explanations is obviously a threat.

Frankly, I cannot see how someone can claim aggressiveness is non-gender specific... We know of a hormone that is associated with aggressiveness, risk-taking and anger.
-Testosterone.
We also know that one gender produces it in bucketfuls more than the other. 
Does the post-modern sociologist believe in a magical barrier that blocks the effects of testosterone, or does society just influence the production in males?
Hey, as testosterone is also associated with balding, maybe we could get society to close the tap a bit? I know of many men who would like that very much.


----------



## flint757 (Oct 31, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> Flint, I'm pretty sure you and I were involved in a thread concerning racial wage divisions earlier this year. I posted quite a few links regarding the subject, as well as the well-known study where resumes sent in with black-sounding names were responded to less. I don't feel like doing that again, but to all who are curious, it is a well-researched topic.
> 
> Regarding the individual vs society debacle... Well, society has more power than any singular person. I hate to pull the 'Goodwin's Law but for Race' card, but seriously. Civil Rights Act, anyone? I'm in no way suggesting that wage divides are as damaging as a lack of fundamental human rights, nor am I equating the two. I'm trying to illustrate a sort of Hobbesian idea that should we deem it necessary, the collective will overpowers the individual's.
> 
> ...



We did indeed have that discussion. Here's the thing I have not once said it doesn't exist though, just that the topic gets overgeneralized and because it sounds correct people just assume racism/sexism is the case (end of story). Then people assume that all instances of wage disparity are some form of discrimination and that is the part I disagree with.

I don't have a replacement idea for affirmative action either. My main point is we are trying to resolve a situation that is ultimately bleeding out the wound. In other words in attempt to hurry up equality we are actually lengthening the era of racism not shortening it. In time it will in fact heal itself (that is undeniable), but I can understand why people obviously wouldn't want to wait as it probably won't end even in my lifetime.

And no it isn't societies fault. Even though we do have a set norm that exists in society we don't have to accept it. We cannot completely blame society no more than we can completely blame the individual. If society created a barrier, whether it is right or wrong, it is still up to the individual to overcome it. In any case there isn't anyone in particular to blame (unless you're religious) as genetic makeup does predisposition men to be more aggressive. Males in almost all creatures are more aggressive out of the two, for mating purposes (and leadership in some species), so it is not completely a societal construct. It just is what it is and it is something that individual will have to overcome. Everyone has a laundry list of weaknesses that impede their lives and we all have to overcome them to make something of ourselves.


----------



## musicaldeath (Nov 2, 2012)

vampiregenocide said:


> She's a right cunt.






Also:

"But most of all, Ann, you will shut the fuck up."


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 2, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Frankly, I cannot see how someone can claim aggressiveness is non-gender specific... We know of a hormone that is associated with aggressiveness, risk-taking and anger.



His reference to female and male cultures for some reason sparked thoughts of Amazon women... Now I'm not sure whether or not they were real and I don't really care, but I feel like in an extreme case like this where there are a ton of women and basically no men, the women will take on manly traits bc they're absent within the society.

I saw something on the Discovery Channel with female lions that seemed to suggest something similar. A lot of the male members died off for one reason or another and some of the females began to take on male traits.


----------



## Corrosion (Nov 2, 2012)

Within any system that allows exceptions, there will be discrimination. 

That being said, I do not believe that wage distribution is a sure sign of discrimination, as many factors depending on the company go into play to determine salaries, and while I acknowledge that it does exist, believe that there are many other more apparent examples of discrimination to reference than this. 

I am impressed by the honest rebuttal of this man towards a bully of epic proportions, who essential has been taking elementary school tricks to tarnish opponents for the sake of being mean. In the many years of knowing about Ann Colture, I have yet to understand why she hasn't been killed yet, at least by someone whose foot she has wrongly stood upon. And furthermore, who cares what she says in reality, because it is not like she actually does anything worth mentioning, ever. I wish she came with a mute button...


----------



## ROAR (Nov 2, 2012)

BREAKING! 
Mårten Hagström uses the R-word!!!! 1:45


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 2, 2012)

Corrosion said:


> ...and while I acknowledge that it does exist, believe that there are many other more apparent examples of discrimination to reference than this.



Sad but true... 

Even sadder... This is what folks care most about. Hence why this election seems to hinge on monetary issues not even directly related to the president's responsibilities as a figure head...


----------



## Stuck_in_a_dream (Nov 5, 2012)

IMHO, Ann Coulter's should not get any attention from the media. What's her credentials? I'll take Carl Rove over her any day, at least that's a person who at least seems to have an argument any time I see him speak. Coulter is just an attention whore, that's it, I don't see any value to anything she said. So, I think it's a problem with the media not with Ann Coulter, she is what she is.


----------



## DTSH (Nov 5, 2012)

Are people really saying "The R-word" now? It seems a little ridiculous. I mean it's not a great word, and if you maliciously call someone with developmental disabilities that, you're an asshole, but man. That seems to be taking it too far.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 5, 2012)

Flint (and others), you know how people will argue with theories which explain certain phenomena... but who don't have a better theory to replace it?

If you can't think of a better theory to explain something which a theory explains well, then that seems like weak reasoning... and just not wanting to accept that theory because you personally don't like it. 

*Why* do you not think there are racial reasons for minorities to earn less?

*Why* do you not think there are racial reasons for those with black-sounding names to have a harder time getting equal employment?

It sounds like racism explains those phenomena, and I can't think of an elegant theory which can replace it. To reject it for the reason that (it seems to me) you just don't like it seems more like an emotional argument than reasoned thinking. 

And, if you *can't* come up with a better explanation which covers both those phenomena... then at least be comforted that you're in the same zone as those who reject evolution for religious/emotional reasons, and there's plenty of people like that.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 5, 2012)

Please do some reading Explorer, not once did I say it does not exist or doesn't happen. 

I said (I'll bold it for you):

IT IS NOT ALWAYS THE CASE AND YET IT IS ALWAYS THE ASSUMPTION.

The rest I'll ignore as it was a ridiculously childish and petty insult to diminish all other opinions that YOU disagree with.


----------



## Jakke (Nov 5, 2012)

Explorer said:


> *Why* do you not think there are racial reasons for minorities to earn less?
> 
> *Why* do you not think there are racial reasons for those with black-sounding names to have a harder time getting equal employment?



There is no one who has claimed that there are no racial motivations for these issues. The strawmen seems to keep flying in this thread. And I am going to assume I am lumped in with Flint and others.

What has been proposed is that there might be other reasons for men earning more than women other than men being a bunch of meanies who are keeping down women for being women.

*EDIT* Also what Flint said. Just because something is an explanation in some cases, or even many cases doesn't mean it's the explanation in all cases.


----------



## The Reverend (Nov 6, 2012)

Jakke said:


> There is no one who has claimed that there are no racial motivations for these issues. The strawmen seems to keep flying in this thread. And I am going to assume I am lumped in with Flint and others.
> 
> What has been proposed is that there might be other reasons for men earning more than women other than men being a bunch of meanies who are keeping down women for being women.
> 
> *EDIT* Also what Flint said. Just because something is an explanation in some cases, or even many cases doesn't mean it's the explanation in all cases.



Well, to defeat these straw men you keep seeing, state your positions clearly. Nobody is misrepresenting your claims, they're merely making logical extensions of your points. You said women won't negotiate for higher pay, so I used a string of context-appropriate adjectives to illustrate what it would look like if your claim was in fact true. 

I posit that the gender gap in wages is due to sexism to a significant degree.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 6, 2012)

Even at a significant degree it would not always be the case. Insurance when most of these stats were taken was higher and may still be. i'm fairly certain a job that offers insurance to employees would keep such things in mind. Parents have to take off frequently to take care of children and single parents, which I imagine are statistically higher among women than men (as the mom typically keeps the kid in most cases), which would lead to a more flexible job choice and thus less pay. I'm not going to pretend like I know what every manager on the planet is thinking, but to presume they are just being sexist is in its own right sexist. It is quite difficult to determine whether there are legitimate reasons or sexism occurring per each individual case unless someone just outright says 'Your fired because you are a woman'.

Nonetheless I will not presume in each case initially that someone has ill intent unless proper evidence can be presented. Generalizations are exactly what keeps sexism and racism alive, but now people are taking it too far the other way as well.


----------



## Jakke (Nov 6, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> Well, to defeat these straw men you keep seeing, state your positions clearly. Nobody is misrepresenting your claims, they're merely making logical extensions of your points. You said women won't negotiate for higher pay, so I used a string of context-appropriate adjectives to illustrate what it would look like if your claim was in fact true.



Why is everything so black and white with you? What has been said is that women tend to be less pushy and agressive when it comes to negotiating, not that "women won't negotiate", why are you insisting on generalizing all the time?
The strawman I "keep seeing" is the false dichotomy of "either all is or there is none", latest from Explorer who claimed that Flint and I have said that there were no racial motives to lower pay.

Not all vage disparities are due to sexism, but that does not mean it does not exist. I am sure that there are assholes out there who are medieval enough to not consider women full workers, but I object to that this would be the norm, or even significant. We have a number of biological and sociological factors that might explain why women in general have a lower yearly income. Saying that the vage gap is just because of those sexist men is a cop-out, and it works as a way of being satisfied with an answer; "well, it turned out it was sexism all along, now what to do about the middle east?".
Since women earn less per year in most fields, but the hourly vage often is set, there seems to be reason to look for another explanations than that men are mean and are keeping women down. Women statistically take more sick leave than men, they are often home more with children, both when they are newly born, and when they are sick. They also tend to work less at uncomfortable hours and work late less.




The Reverend said:


> I posit that the gender gap in wages is due to sexism to a significant degree.



Then I suggest you go about proving it. I have a couple of managers you could start with on your grand tour of manager-interviewing. As it says in my sig; "proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies". Those romans had it figured out.


----------



## The Reverend (Nov 7, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Why is everything so black and white with you? What has been said is that women tend to be less pushy and agressive when it comes to negotiating, not that "women won't negotiate", why are you insisting on generalizing all the time?



So women _are_ weak-willed, domicile creatures? 




Jakke said:


> Then I suggest you go about proving it. I have a couple of managers you could start with on your grand tour of manager-interviewing. As it says in my sig; "proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies". Those romans had it figured out.



Now I have to put on my Internet Researcher Cap, and that makes me very unhappy, indeed. 

This is from a meta-analysis of over 260 published studies on the wage gap starting from the 1960s and ending in the 1990s, from over 63 countries. I know that meta-analysis is not Law in the science world, and the authors of this paper acknowledged and countered this by devising a formula that accounts for and weights the discrepancies. They describe it in the paper, in case you doubt its veracity. 

http://www.econ.jku.at/papers/2003/wp0311.pdf



> From the 1960s to the 1990s, raw wage differentials worldwide have fallen
> substantially from around 65 to only 30%. The bulk of this decline, however, must be attributed to better labor market endowments of females which came about by better education, training, and work attachment. Looking at the published estimates for the discrimination (or unexplained) component of the wage gap yields a less promising perspective: There is no decline over time. However, these published estimates are based on different methods and data sources. Our meta-regression analysis allows to construct a specification for a standardized gender wage gap study: applying such a unique specification  concerning data selection as well as econometric method  gives rise to a slightly more optimistic picture: The ratio of what women would earn absent of discrimination relative to their actual wages decreased approximately by 0.17% annually. This indicates that a continuous, even if moderate, equalization between the sexes is taking place.


----------



## Jakke (Nov 7, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> So women _are_ weak-willed, domicile creatures?



No, and you know very well they are not. Women also tend to be shorter than men, but that does not make them pygmies. There are middle grounds, not everything has to be full-throttle or none at all.




The Reverend said:


> I know that meta-analysis is not Law in the science world, and the authors of this paper acknowledged and countered this by devising a formula that accounts for and weights the discrepancies



That is correct, meta-analyses are notoriously open to bias (especially in a politicized subject like this), and this is something that the reader cannot really control for. We can't really know on what grounds a study was selected, and why some were rejected. They talk of "quality factors", but that does merely show that the studies used were of sound methodology, not that studies were not weeded out because of the "wrong" conclusions.
But I'm not going to even go there, we can probably assume that these are serious scientists who looked at this in an unbiased way.

But, let's not forget either that this is between 40-10 year-old statistics.




So, it was a nice study to read. Two of the points brought up that I found interesting was:
1. It is significantly lower for recent entrants in the job market
2. It is significantly lower for singles than for married couples.

Looking at point no. 1, would not this, if there was a structural discrimination of women in the job market, be higher? 
I mean, what you are proposing is that somehow most male employers think alike (even over cultural barriers), and most of them have decided to discriminate against women (because they're evil.. I guess..). Would not this also hit female employees who have recently entered the job market as well?

Looking at no. 2. Would this male group-think also make considerations for singles? Or could it be that singles tend to at work more since they only have one salary to support themselves on? Married couples are also, to a significantly higher degree, more likely to have children than singles.


Let's say this again, neither Flint or I denies that it is possible that women are discrimated against solely based on their gender. But the degree of that discrimination does not seem to be as significant as many claims, it does also sound unlikely based on a fact:
We are all individuals. 
We are very similar to each other in many ways, but are you going to claim that one of these common characteristics is that a significant portion of men would think it is a good idea to discriminate against women, even over cultural barriers?


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Nov 8, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> So women _are_ weak-willed, domicile creatures?




I think you mean "docile," but I kinda hope you don't .


----------



## guitareben (Nov 8, 2012)

Semichastny said:


> Ann believes she knows how things really are and regularly says things that are very offensive to people and their beliefs, but lets not forget the left has a group of people doing the exact same thing... we call them scientists!



You can't be offensive to people's beliefs. Beliefs aren't sentient. Beliefs don't have feelings.


----------



## The Reverend (Nov 8, 2012)

@Jakke:

1. Women get lower and fewer raises, maybe? I really hurt myself thinking of a plausible theory for that one.
2. Look up the Motherhood Penalty on Wikipedia.

Now, even if those two answers are wrong, you totally ignored the part about an unaccounted gap. If necessary, I'll do the research for you even more, though even given statistics you are sticking to your opinions. Don't be afraid to be a little wrong, man.


----------



## Jakke (Nov 8, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> @Jakke:
> 
> 1. Women get lower and fewer raises, maybe? I really hurt myself thinking of a plausible theory for that one.
> 2. Look up the Motherhood Penalty on Wikipedia.
> ...



First of all, please don't patronize me. I wouldn't do that to you, I personally enjoy butting horns with you.

1. And how do you intend prove this? An hypothesis* is only worth something if you actually can prove it.

2. The motherhood penalty is an unproven hypothesis. What basically happened was that sociologists saw that mothers earn less than women without children, decided to presuppose that there is an outside influence keeping the wages down, and called it the motherhood penalty.

And what you are proposing is a god-of-the-gaps argument; we don't know, therefore sexism. We could take the easy way out and blame it all on sexism, or we could be intellectually honest thing and admit that we do not know why it exists, then start doing some non-presuppositional research. When Higgs presupposed the existance of the Higgs boson, did the physics-community all agree that it must exist and then went and researched something else? 
-No, they decided to prove that what was presupposed was actually true. Why should social sciences be any different?

But I promise you, if it turns out to be a significant level of sexism when it comes to wages, I will adjust my views. There does not seem to be a way right now to account for this adjusted wage gap (it's between 4.8 and 7.6-ish in the US, lower in Sweden) though, but I always look forward to new research on the subject.

Something interesting though is that the adjusted wage gap is basically unchanged over time, but we are also getting more and more equal socially. That a gap influenced by sexism would not get smaller with increased equality sounds very strange to me.

I still also find it interesting that apparently does most male employers think alike, and most of them has decided to discriminate against women when it comes to wages.

This is an interesting study comissioned by the United States Department of Labour (they are usually trustworthy), I had not thought about the issue of fringe benefits before:

Gender Wage Gap Final Report.pdf


Just realized that I as a foreigner is arguing about something that does not concern me the slightest in my day-to-day life


----------



## The Reverend (Nov 8, 2012)

Okay, now I'm rolling up the sleeves on my Internet Researcher Shirt, and when that happens... Let's just say you don't want to know. 

Actually, never mind. I'm being lazy and copying Wikipedia's references about the motherhood penalty for you. They are published studies, except for a Forbes magazine article that I believe we will both ignore as a valid source. 



*^* Budig, Michelle and Paula England. 2001. "The Wage Penalty for Motherhood." American Sociological Review 66(2):204
*^* Anderson, Deborah J., Melissa Binder, and Kate Krause. 2003. "The Motherhood Wage Penalty Revisited: Experience, Heterogeneity, Work effort and Work-Schedule Flexibility." Industrial and Labor Relations Review 56:273-94.
*^* Correll, Shelley, Benard Stephen and In Paik. 2007. "Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty?" American Journal of Sociology 112(5):1297-1339.
*^* Budig, Michelle and Melissa Hodges. 2010. "Differences in Disadvantage: Variation in the Motherhood Penalty across White Women's Earning Distribution." American Sociological Review 75(5):1-24


So that's that on the motherhood penalty thing.






Also, as a very outspoken atheist, I resent you accusing me of utilizing the "God of the gaps" argument. Let me retort, impassioned and embittered, with this scathing reply: Sexism as an official policy has a documented and well-researched past, and as such cannot be considered to be a fallacious answer to any question regarding discrimination in the workplace. It existed once; whereas you say, "It does not exist in the workplace anymore o any significant degree," I say, "It does." You must admit that it has been a factor in the past, and thus logic dictates that it could be a factor in the present, no?


Also, I would like to know what proof you need. Because I can summon up U.S. Dep't of Labor study that specifically talks about the existence of an undefined wage gap between the genders. 



I totally robbed the "no?" thing from Explorer, and it feels good.


----------



## Jakke (Nov 8, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> Okay, now I'm rolling up the sleeves on my Internet Researcher Shirt, and when that happens... Let's just say you don't want to know.
> 
> Actually, never mind. I'm being lazy and copying Wikipedia's references about the motherhood penalty for you. They are published studies, except for a Forbes magazine article that I believe we will both ignore as a valid source.
> 
> ...



And it is not possible for me to control all of these right now. However, as the wiki uses them as citations, it can be seen as a representation of the gist of them. Did you notice all the "mays" and "coulds"? This is because it is a hypothesis.





The Reverend said:


> Also, as a very outspoken atheist, I resent you accusing me of utilizing the "God of the gaps" argument. Let me retort, impassioned and embittered, with this scathing reply: Sexism as an official policy has a documented and well-researched past, and as such cannot be considered to be a fallacious answer to any question regarding discrimination in the workplace. It existed once; whereas you say, "It does not exist in the workplace anymore o any significant degree," I say, "It does." You must admit that it has been a factor in the past, and thus logic dictates that it could be a factor in the present, no?



Let me give you an analogy. Flu causes fever, this is documented and well researched, correct? 
If a patient with a fever is admitted to a hospital, do the doctors assume that the patient has a flu based on the documented cases of influenza causing fever?

It is very possible that sexism, to a significant degree, in wages could exist, but there does not seem to be positive proof that pinpoints this as a cause.

I sincerely apologize for any image problems calling on god of the gaps might have caused you.



The Reverend said:


> Also, I would like to know what proof you need. Because I can summon up U.S. Dep't of Labor study that specifically talks about the existence of an undefined wage gap between the genders.



Well, apart from most of the male employers admitting that they are sexist bastards, I would like someone to account for the unnaccounted wage gap without presupposing that it is because male employers tend to be assholes.
I don't dispute that there is an unexplained gap (and I do believe I have already posted that study), but I dispute your explanation for that gap.


----------



## The Reverend (Nov 8, 2012)

I just don't understand how you can look at a set of data and not go for the simplest answer. 

Your metaphor is inaccurate. A patient has cancer, and because of this, is underweight. Patient slowly gains weight over time, then is reevaluated. Doctors are glad that the patient's weight is returning to a healthy number, but are still troubled by the gap between the patient's real and target weight. They then refuse to look at the cancer as a cause. 

Are you suggesting that at some point discrimination almost totally disappeared (or however you'd like to put it, to avoid straw men), and that there instead is some other cause? Because many, many studies have been done on this. And there is no other explanation. There is literally no accounting for the fact that, if all other things are equal, a statistical woman would make less than a statistical man. Discrimination is the only piece that fits this puzzle.


----------



## Jakke (Nov 8, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> I just don't understand how you can look at a set of data and not go for the simplest answer.



Because that is not how science works. What is perceived as "the simplest answer" depends on our society and our culture. In the 16th century the simplest explanation for disease was demons, before that the simplest explanation was bad air.



The Reverend said:


> Your metaphor is inaccurate. A patient has cancer, and because of this, is underweight. Patient slowly gains weight over time, then is reevaluated. Doctors are glad that the patient's weight is returning to a healthy number, but are still troubled by the gap between the patient's real and target weight. They then refuse to look at the cancer as a cause.



I do not believe it was inaccurate. See, your argument went as follows:
It is documented that sexism has previously been official policy. There is one symptom in common between this situation and from when sexism was common policy, thus logically should sexism be a current component too.
And I'm not buying it, it does not have to be flu causing the fever, it can also be meningitis (which would arguably be worse). 
Your cancer methaphor is lacking in one area, the doctors could verify that the patient suffers from cancer, we have not been able to verify that the adjusted wage gap is due to discrimination.



The Reverend said:


> Are you suggesting that at some point discrimination almost totally disappeared (or however you'd like to put it, to avoid straw men), and that there instead is some other cause? Because many, many studies have been done on this. And there is no other explanation. There is literally no accounting for the fact that, if all other things are equal, a statistical woman would make less than a statistical man. Discrimination is the only piece that fits this puzzle.



No, only a fool would claim discrimination is almost totally gone. I would however say that even though discrimination is decreasing quite a lot, the unaccounted gap is constant. One interpretation could of course be that while more and more men view women as equals (and vice-versa), they drop all that when they come to work every morning.

I read an explanation just now in the report I posted, women tend to take out non-wage benefits like better health insurance to a greater degree than men, that will make the yearly salary lower. 
That is probably a part of many factors if it is accurate, but contrary to your claim, there are other explanations.
Let us not also forget that I am open to a certain degree of sexism right now, but I do not believe it accounts for a major (or significant) part of the unaccounted gap.

This is the final words from this analysis:


CONSAD for the US Department of Labour said:


> As a result, it is not possible now, and doubtless will never be possible, to determine reliably whether
> any portion of the observed gender wage gap is not attributable to factors that compensate women and
> men differently on socially acceptable bases, and hence can confidently be attributed to overt
> discrimination against women. In addition, at a practical level, the complex combination of factors that
> ...


----------



## flint757 (Nov 9, 2012)

What the US Department of Labor said in your post is spot on to the point I have been trying to make. Discrimination exists (obviously), but there isn't just one factor at play and the entirety of the wage gap is not (and honestly cannot be) exclusively discrimination. The implication would be that EVERY employer discriminates against women. 

In any case it cannot be proven and I don't like working in absolutes or under faulty assumptions. It is actually more rational to believe that there are both sexist and non-sexist reasons for the wage gap. How much and to what degree can be argued until the end of time.


----------



## Jakke (Nov 9, 2012)

I felt it pretty accurate as well, I have always shivered when it has been mentioned how sexist male employers are, and my immediate thought have been:
- What? All of them? How do you know that?


----------



## viesczy (Nov 14, 2012)

I cannot stand Ann Coulter, she isn't worth pinch of crap in Hell. 

That said, who cares what words are used by her? I mean really? The power of words does not come from the speaker, but in fact the power of words is given by the listener. Really. 

Any "offensive" term used is done so to elicit a response, only to actually empower the speaker. If you don't surrender that power, the speaker is only a nattering fool desperately looking for power. It isn't turn the other cheek, it isn't kill them with kindness either. It is the control of power, yours over yourself and not theirs over yourself. 

You can say whatever you want to my face, I will not flinch. You will always get a reply, you most likely won't be able to offer a rebuttal beyond "yo mama", but you won't make me flinch and you won't make me angry. 

Derek


----------



## TaylorMacPhail (Nov 15, 2012)

Reasons why getting mad at someone for saying retard is often unwarranted. 1) The standard definition of retard mentions nothing about mental illness, except for the disparaging slang use of course. 2) 9 times /10 people who use the word aren't even referring to mental illness (ex. Down Syndrome) 

Retard: to make slow; delay the development or progress of (an action, process, etc.); hinder or impede.

That being said, this woman still sounds like a cunt lol.


----------



## Overtone (Nov 15, 2012)

Merriam-Webster said:


> Noun
> *2re·tard*
> 
> 2 _often offensive_ *:* a retarded person; _also_ *:* a person held to resemble a retarded person in behavior
> ...



So there's the actual definition of retard as a noun, of retarded, and retardation for you. 

What are those people referring to 90% of the time if not that? Why is it when kids use that word they often accompany it with that arm gesture and saying "duyyy" or similar? 

Don't kid yourself.


----------



## TaylorMacPhail (Nov 15, 2012)

Wow, very selective copy-pasting with those definitions. Not to mention, the MEDICAL definition of retardation obviously refers to mental illness, but we are talking about the general term. 

Start at the top and read down 
Retard - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

However, 9/10 might be a bit of a stretch lol but using the word with or without those kind of gestures are two different cases.


----------



## Overtone (Nov 15, 2012)

"Why are you mad that I called you a faggot? You're not gay! Obviously I didn't mean that, I was just calling you a faggot. And you're kind of a Jew... not in the sense that you are a Hebrew, you're just really cheap. What? What did I say? Something retarded?"


----------



## Explorer (Nov 29, 2012)

Fascinating to read all those attempts to say sexism and racism in the workplace couldn't be assumed to be the primary reason for the wage gap... without a single countertheory being presented.

Sounds like the typical attacks on evolution, no?

I'm hopeful something will actually be presented as a meaningful factor which would be as powerfully explicative. Any thoughts, naysayers?


----------



## Jakke (Nov 30, 2012)

Explorer said:


> Fascinating to read all those attempts to say sexism and racism in the workplace couldn't be assumed to be the primary reason for the wage gap... without a single countertheory being presented.



Wrong. As you can see in this thread, both Flint and I proposed alternative explanations. Explanations such as that women tend to take out other compensations than monetary ones, women tend to work less overtime and on less uncomfortable hours, they are also more likely to be home with children when they are sick, and men seems to be generally just better at negotiating a higher pay. But yeah, no other explanations.




Explorer said:


> Sounds like the typical attacks on evolution, no?



Wrong again. Attacks on evolution usually take three fundamental forms (from my highly anecdotal experience):
-Anomaly hunting, i.e. if something seems to be intuitively wrong, all is wrong. This has not been done here.
- Blind denial, "evil-ution can't have happened and that is that". Did not happen here either, we are open to that there could be a degree of sexism, but this degree has not been proven, and from what we have seen studies-wise, the possible degree does not seems to be significant.
- God of the gaps, "We don't know, therefore god". Not committed from our side, but instead from your side; "we can't explain this gender wage gap, so therefore a multi-ethnical and multi-age conspiracy from male employers to give women less pay must exist". 



Explorer said:


> I'm hopeful something will actually be presented as a meaningful factor which would be as powerfully explicative. Any thoughts, naysayers?



Do you understand the burden of proof? (I even have it in my signature, but in latin, since I am a pretentious sonofabitch)
We have said that we do not buy into the explanation that sexism is at work here, since there is no evidence to support this, but rather a presupposition. Since you brought in a religious comparison, I can relate this to my and most other's atheism. We have not seen sufficient evidence to convince us of the existence of a god, the faithful just presupposes that that deity is in fact reality. It is not up to us to prove a negative (which can't be done), it is upp to the asserter to prove a positive.


I would also like to address something that is an outright lie, or something that you just glanced over.. Race.
I do not go near race in this discussion (I am just not confident enough to approach race outside of a biological context), so Flint was the one who adressed the non-sequitur accusation of that we deny racism being a possible factor in the lower pay for black people in particular. No where did he say that he is certain that there is no component of racism, he even clarified that he was willing to believe a higher degree of racism than sexism. *He even adressed that very same claim from you earlier. And yet you continue to misrepresent his position.* He even bolded it for you.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 30, 2012)

Explorer said:


> Fascinating to read all those attempts to say sexism and racism in the workplace couldn't be assumed to be the primary reason for the wage gap... without a single countertheory being presented.
> 
> Sounds like the typical attacks on evolution, no?
> 
> I'm hopeful something will actually be presented as a meaningful factor which would be as powerfully explicative. Any thoughts, naysayers?





flint757 said:


> What the US Department of Labor said in your post is spot on to the point I have been trying to make. Discrimination exists (obviously), but there isn't just one factor at play and the entirety of the wage gap is not (and honestly cannot be) exclusively discrimination. The implication would be that EVERY employer discriminates against women.
> 
> In any case it cannot be proven and I don't like working in absolutes or under faulty assumptions. It is actually more rational to believe that there are both sexist and non-sexist reasons for the wage gap. How much and to what degree can be argued until the end of time.



Did not say it was impossible, but I am curious as to why you feel like it should and undoubtedly be presumed to be the primary cause? Do you have any actual proof? It is like the Department of Labor stated, the degree CANNOT be proven and therefore means the person stating an absolute (i.e. you) is actually wrong. You may in fact be right in the end, but your approach is unscientific. I have never stated that it couldn't be the primary cause, but that it is unlikely (big difference). I'm not denying anything, it actually seems like everyone else is because somehow it just HAS to be discrimination and that is it.

I brought race up because it does parallel quite well since we are discussing discrimination and it was also a counter argument, if memory serves, as I wasn't the first to bring it up. I have to say, though, I've been denied a ton of jobs, more than I can count, and it was not race, sex, or whatever else related (impossible given my supposed 'privileges' as I keep being told). I just wasn't the right person, wasn't pushy/persistent enough or there was someone better I was competing against. Most of the jobs I have gotten have been through people I know and I imagine that is in fact how a lot of people get their jobs. Yet the presupposed assumption when someone else whom fits into a 'minority' group (not always and not everyone jumps to that conclusion either thankfully) is that it had nothing to do with their presentation or abilities or experience, but discrimination. It could be discrimination and I'm sure there are plenty of cases where it is, in fact I'd be shocked if there wasn't. That does not then imply an absolute where failure to get a job, get in to a college, make as much as a colleague (harder to prove as that is private information), etc. is just always or 'primarily' discrimination. If it were easier to prove the law would have already stepped in because it is already illegal. The fact that they don't is proof enough that it is murky at best. 

The issue with the 70 cent theory is that it is based on the ENTIRE population. It does not take into account ALL factors that go into a persons job and salary (and there are a lot). Case-by-case would be far more appropriate, but then you have to deal with people lying, making assumptions and digging into peoples personal information, which isn't going to happen at most jobs as the only people whom should know your salary are the boss, you and HR. I've heard cases where people are saying they make less without even knowing or having any proof (rumors by the water cooler). Much like yourself they are just making the broad assumption that because he is a guy he MUST make more, otherwise the whole theory would go out the window in the first place. 

Fair doesn't really enter the job world anyhow as profit is always #1 and if we are discussing fair then jobs would be divided based on statistical populations (which completely removes responsibility, skill and assets from the equation). A company that hired based on discriminatory policies won't get very far anyhow, as it would mean they do not have the best and brightest simply because they are sexist or racist. 

In any case Jakke did a good enough job with his post . I look forward to returning back to the thread and finding my posts twisted and torn apart to fit what y'all think I'm trying to say.


----------



## Jakke (Nov 30, 2012)

You bring up a good point, "woman" or "man" are two very big demographics. If you have a sample with only one common trait, their gender, I am not sure that would work in social sciences. There are too many human variables.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 30, 2012)

That's the basis of the problem, one variable is not enough. How can gender come into play and the fact that only women can bear children not? There are many variable defined right along the gender line that offer up solid explanations for some of the variability. Since all of this is based on assumptions (sexist and non-sexist reasons) from past events and no personal information is present there is no absolute way for us to know who is right and wrong. Even if we could, neither would be right 100% of the time as society is far more complex than that.


----------



## tacotiklah (Dec 8, 2012)

I know everyone is having fun with debates on sexism and all, but I thought I'd throw in this lulz-worthy article on Ann Coulter:

Ann Coulter Says GOP Should Give Up On Taxes | Liberals Unite

Well now that the seventh seal has been broken, I await the oncoming of the four horsemen.


----------



## BuckarooBanzai (Dec 15, 2012)

Sunyata said:


> I'm offended that you're reducing Bill Maher to the level of Coulter.



His "documentary" reminded me of a butthurt 15 year old complaining about how his mommy made him go to church on /r/atheism. Based on that alone I don't really respect him all that much.


----------



## sevenstringj (Dec 22, 2012)

I just noticed a google ad at the top of this page for one of this cunt's websites.

Google is one scary bitch.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Jan 5, 2013)

I love the politics section of music forums. Some of the same people that are so informed and knowledgeable of music and gear, sound like complete retards on political and social issues. 

Oops, did I use the "R" word?

To use the word to describe someone that actually has mental disabilities is low-class and rather reprehensible. Someone that does so should be kicked in their teeth. But to make a big deal out of someone using the word in the context that Coulter did shows you how ridiculous this country has gotten with this politically correct nonsense. Rather petty and ignorant.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 5, 2013)

I find it rather petty and ignorant for you to post in a couple weeks old thread to just say we are a bunch of '_retards_'.


----------



## Jakke (Jan 5, 2013)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> I love the politics section of music forums. Some of the same people that are so informed and knowledgeable of music and gear, sound like complete retards on political and social issues.
> 
> Oops, did I use the "R" word?
> 
> To use the word to describe someone that actually has mental disabilities is low-class and rather reprehensible. Someone that does so should be kicked in their teeth. But to make a big deal out of someone using the word in the context that Coulter did shows you how ridiculous this country has gotten with this politically correct nonsense. Rather petty and ignorant.



And did you have anything constructive to add other than calling several members who could run intellectual circles around you (you know who you are) retarded?


----------



## Hollowway (Jan 5, 2013)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> I love the politics section of music forums. Some of the same people that are so informed and knowledgeable of music and gear, sound like complete retards on political and social issues.
> 
> Oops, did I use the "R" word?
> 
> To use the word to describe someone that actually has mental disabilities is low-class and rather reprehensible. Someone that does so should be kicked in their teeth. But to make a big deal out of someone using the word in the context that Coulter did shows you how ridiculous this country has gotten with this politically correct nonsense. Rather petty and ignorant.



Yes, but it doesn't matter what _you_ think. It's not news worthy that a political pundit harshly criticized a politician. It's news worthy that a mentally handicapped person who was offended by the term decided to stick up for himself and write a letter about it. It doesn't matter if you think it's an OK word to use or not. You're not mentally handicapped, so no one cares whether you think mentally handicapped people should or should not be offended by it. If you read the article you'll see that it was not the "country" that was offended by the word, it was a mentally handicapped individual. 

I'm not sure why you bothered to bump the thread. Either you misunderstood what the article was about, knew what the article was about but chose to bump it with an off-topic opinion rather than starting a new thread, or you're in a crappy mood about something else in your life and decided to troll a subforum on a music site to pick a fight. But do yourself a favor - go back, read the article, and think about how many times you've seen someone stand up for themselves in such an eloquent, direct way. It doesn't happen a lot.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Jan 6, 2013)

flint757 said:


> I find it rather petty and ignorant for you to post in a couple weeks old thread to just say we are a bunch of '_retards_'.


 
I was commenting in response to individuals in this thread, saying the "R" word instead of saying retard, like they were afraid to use the word. It was also in part to the thread turning to wage gaps that exist because of race and gender and the posters pushing that issue. I should have quoted them in my post and made it clear what I was referring to, I did not, I am sorry. 

I wasn't referring to everyone on here in general as retards, not even close. Several of you sound very well spoken. And Flint, honestly, I agree with most of what you and Jakke have posted in this thread. 

Holloway. As far as going off topic, this whole thread has gone from being about a letter a mentally handicapped person wrote about being offended by the word retard all the way to wage gaps in the workplace due to race and gender. Is that related? I don't think so. Pretty off of the original topic to me. 

Apologies gentlemen.


----------



## Hollowway (Jan 6, 2013)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> Holloway. As far as going off topic, this whole thread has gone from being about a letter a mentally handicapped person wrote about being offended by the word retard all the way to wage gaps in the workplace due to race and gender. Is that related? I don't think so. Pretty off of the original topic to me.
> 
> Apologies gentlemen.



No worries, man.  If we can't get into a meandering, passionate discussion about things, then it must not be P&CE!


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Jan 10, 2013)

Hollowway said:


> No worries, man.  If we can't get into a meandering, passionate discussion about things, then it must not be P&CE!


----------

