this is your quote:

So what is a solution to this dilemma for me? Suck it up and accept that I'll always be paid less because the man is considered the "gold standard" and I am intrinsically less valuable by the lone fact that I am a female?

Yeah Hobby - rejoice in the fact that you'll always be considered second-best and be paid accordingly...as will your daughters...and their daughters...and their daughters.

I'm sorry I can't do that.

then, in this very post, you say you are not being paid less than any equally talented male at your firm.

Which is it?

Sorry if I just shake my head, chuckle, and assume you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Did you conveniently skip over the part where I said that I had been paid less in the past? Why would I not assume that this is likely to happen in the future - simply because of the fact that it is not true for the one job that I am currently in? That's why I used statistics in backing up my assertions...because for every Hobby that is being paid fairly (right now) there are many many similar Hobby(ies) that aren't.

So it's not OK for me to raise the issue in the hopes of preventing this wage disparity from occurring in my life again, which is highly likely given the statistics?

I close my eyes and sigh that you think it's OK to dismiss what I say because "I just like to argue". Thanks.

aaaaand we're back to suspect statistics. Good for you that you got out of an unfair situation. I'm sure all of us have been treated unfairly in the work place in the past and it's our responsibility to make sure it doesn't happen in the future.

no one here is saying you or other females have less intrinsic value in the workplace and that you shouldn't be paid an equal salary. However, I do still claim the "70 cents on the dollar" stat to be dangerously misleading and erroneous.

And that's all I have to say on the subject. If you want to argue some more, just re-read my posts!

Can I talk about domestic violence again? I wrote this out before realising I'd missed a page and there were 50 more reposnses to wade through. I was responding initially to the claim by vhawk01 and a few others that the stats about DV were bunk because men are less likely to report it as victims. I wouldn't post if I didn't think it related at least somewhat to things still being discussed though.

What I wrote at the time:

"I think it's very easy to just assert that domestic violence by men against women is more likely to be reported than the other way around (because OMG, stigma about being beat up by a girl!*), and I'd say it's probably true, but I doubt the difference is that large and I doubt it's the full story. Reporting of domestic violence is always going to be a vexed issue because, by definition, it occurs within the dynamic of an intimate relationship. There are can be all sorts of reasons not to report, but the most common are likely to be fear of retaliation and issues of dependence. Here I think the issue of domestic violence does converge with the issue of women earning less than men on average, and being more likely to be 'homemakers'. It doesn't matter what you attribte that fact to, women are less likely than men to have the economic means necessery to break free from an abusive an abusive relationship. Madnak earlier asked earlier of HobbyHorse "Whoever has the fatter wallet is better off, I guess. Is that really your perspective?", and while obviously that's not the whole equation, it is a HUGE part of it. If you've given up your career, or never had a career, to be a stay at home mum, and your husband becomes abusive towards you, the issue of reporting the abuse isn't that simple because you aren't economically independent. And if you don't have the means to easily leave the relationship, then reporting the abuse may seem futile, or may threaten simply to antagonise the abusive partner further.

Men are much less likely to be in that situation. I would say that even if it is true that men are less likely to report being abused by their wife because the cops might laugh at them, they're also much less likely to face significant economic hurdles to extricating themselves from abusive relationship.

Of course, there's more to it than that. There are obviously issues of emotional dependence as well, and from speaking to my friend's wife who works with victims of domestic abuse (women only), a common theme of her experience is that abusers will seek to isolate victims from friends and family and thus compounding issues of dependence even further. I don't know how the relative importance of these other factors differs between male and female victims (though I'm sure economic dependency would only complicate these issues) but as long as we were talking about disparity in levels of pay and the domestic roles of men and women, I thought I might point out how those issues might actually tie in to a discussion of violence against women.


*Just goes to show guys pride themselves on strength and aggression whereas women don't imo, but whatever."

Hope people don't mind me wedging that in, there can't be that much harm in at least trying to draw a link between all this gender wars stuff and domestic violence. Considering there seems to be a consensus that men are paid more than women (though there's definitely no consensus on the reason or justness of that fact), do people consider that economic disparity equates to a disparity of power? Evidently not based on comments so far, but what source of power do women have that compensates? Madnak has gone so far as to say women have the power in society and in relationships specifically, but in what sense? I don't get it.

I know you said you're not arguing the point anymore, but you never really disputed the statistics. I mean, you did, but then it was pointed out that you misinterpretted them (thought they were comparing the aggregate of women's salaries and the aggregate of male salaries), then you later dismissed them out of hand ("By the way, my first friend is male and my second is female - yet I rightly assume that their gender does not in any way play a part in how much they are paid"), but you never made a case the stats were suspect.

Michaelson have you ever seen a beautiful woman?

Do you know how much she gets for free and gets away with?


Watch that ******ed Paris Hilton show or one of the many knock-offs to see what I mean. It's actually a coined term called "pussy power" in some circles

Yeah, I read your post about the comparitive advantage of being an attractive woman when it comes to, and I quote, "PR, bartending, server, being a hooker, stripper, model, actress and all that."

It must be great to be of a gender where you're regularly assessed on the basis of attractiveness rather than other more relevant qualities of personality and intelligence. Unless you're unattractive or uncomfortable flaunting your attractiveness, of course.

I think you're seeing this from the outside looking in. There are probably just as many inconveniences, invasions of privacy, and lewd encounters from social undesirables as there are freebies.

Michaelson's post about personality and intelligence being neglected is well exemplified by Marilyn Monroe. From all accounts about Monore's life once she became a sex symbol she couldn't even attempt certain roles. She aspired to be a serious actress but since they'd pidgeonholed her as the dumb blonde bombshell that's all she'd ever play. Sure the world loved it but she didn't. So she wasn't exactly in charge of her own career.

Jamie Lee Curtis was another actress who in an interview explained she'd turn down roles when she felt they were sexually exploitive and they were offering her roles just so she'd provide eye candy. Apparently she wanted to be considered important for more than just her body.

I'll give you my stats.
I mow the lawn and trim and take care of most everything with the lawn. We have 5 acres, several flower garden and a vegetable garden so that is already a boatload of work.
I do dishes greater than 50% of the time
I do the laundry greater than 50% of the time
I shop for food greater than 50% of the time
I do not vacuum, dust or mop but I guarantee that doesn't happen as often as once a week.

When I got married my workload more than doubled. It is VERY easy for me to take care of myself.
When we had kids my workload doubled pretty easily. I changed diapers and helped with just about everything else with the exception of breastfeeding and bathing(which I am for some reason very bad at, guess the garden hose idea wasn't a good one)
I make the VAST majority of money in our house
I expect my wife to work and she actually works two jobs, well one full time job and a part time job and soon another part time job.

I do not mind working around the house, I think it is only fair that I do that. But I can absolutely guarantee you that if it was just me my work would be far far less. And again, I do NOT mind this. It is just part of life when there is more than just yourself to take care of. It has a kind of synergy to it.

I know a LOT of men who do more than their fair share of work around the house. I will admit that this is not always the case but I think this is the case quite often.

First off, I never said anyone was ENDORSING it. I said some posts were deflecting the issue, either downplaying its extent or obfuscating with irrelevant or meaningless replies.

You did exactly this. When you responded to the subject of wife-beating by saying: Oh yeah? Well I have friends whose girlfriends throw things.

I mean, really, how is that relevant? What was your point here?

Hypothetical conversation:
X: I saw a documentary on the Holocaust last night.
Y: Yeah, well everyone focuses on the 6 million Jews who were killed. But Hitler killed alot of Catholics and Gypsies, too. Plus, Stalin killed way more people, like 10 million.

Yes, what Y is saying is true. (Just like you know guys who've had the remote thrown at them.) But why make a point like that? What's the motivation, if not to deny, mitigate, minimize, or just change the subject?

Why is it ok for a woman to make a sweeping generalization, but it's not ok for men?

I can say that the reason women are happy after divorce is that they get half the money that they didn't earn in the first place.

It's probably not true, the same way it's not true that men are depressed because they lost their maids.

Exactly.

See Hobby Horse? You lose out on pay, sure, but think of all the advantages you have in sexing teens!!

This is a really narrow view to take, imo, its like you dont get how a smart person does selfishness. I certainly dont want to do anything at my own expense, but eliminating foolish discrimination (as opposed to astute discrimination) isnt at my own expense, its to my benefit.

Except this whole line of argument started because you were talking about how the golden age for women had ended and that you had apparently missed it. YOU were the one (if I recall correctly) who decided to couch the debate entirely in terms of employment. Thats silly, though, and we dont need to be restricted to that topic just because thats where you choose to fight. Of COURSE you'd focus on that, since thats one area where women might be at a disadvantage. But that doesnt mean women arent better off than men, because there is more to the world than making money. You have to USE that money for things.

Inverse correlation between happiness and pay equality?

I guess...its not like you are any more responsible for your personality or your intelligence than you are for your attractiveness. The only reason intelligence is more valuable is because its less fleeting. This reminds me of the hilarious discrepancy between telling a woman she has a nice body and telling a woman she has beautiful eyes....the first means you are a pig, the second means you are romantic. Why? Because "my eyes are part of who I am, windows to my soul" or whatever, whereas my body is just some superficial aspect of my person that I cant do anything about.

Intelligence is useful as a means to an end. So is attractiveness. Why is it so offensive to be judged on one and not the other? It must be great to be a gender where you are constantly judged on the basis of your intelligence, competitiveness and motivation, unless you are dim or meek.

Lol, I'd never really thought about it like that before. Personality is probably a debatable point, but you're right in principle.

To be more precise, my point would be that it would suck to be judged on your looks in areas of life where looks should be irrelevant. Applying for a job, say. Areas where it would be the equivalent of refusing work to a model because they were dumb.

This is silly coming from a poker player. In fact you just gave the woman a clear read. The difference between complimenting her on her eyes or on her body is she knows exactly where your mind is at. IOW you let her profile you. Now depending on how long the game has been going on you may feel safe in revealing your hand. But in the game of love as in poker as always "It depends". So the big question becomes "what do you think that she thinks about you" before you choose between initiating one of these compliments. Life really is a big poker game after all.

You're absolutely right Rhino. I only got part of it right.

As for sweeping generalizations we all make them. Its probably the reason why starting out relationships are so dysfunctional. They become a self fulfilling prophecy. IOW you usually expect the same mistake as someone else made and you sit around looking for it until it happens. Then you say I knew that was gonna happen instead of reacting off the cues being currently provided. Good players don't do this to excess on the poker table makes you wonder why so many people are prone to do it in life. But that's a big mistake in poker and life picking the wrong game tactics to play for the current table dynamic.

I am not saying that Alexsems post is relevant or spot on, but this above is no way near the case, and it is really simple to prove with logic.
If it was the case, people would try to look ugly to reap the benefits of that. However every single one of us prefer to look as good as possible. And that is because the reward in life by being attractive is so big that the inconveniences are insignificant.

"lewd encounters from social undesirables" Only a woman can have the luxury of this problem


This is completely different.
These people are "selling" themself to the whole world and get huuuge money for it. They made there own choice, and liked the benefits of it. She might hate the fact of being a certain type, but man did she exploid it still.
These are also extreme examples, which hold no real value in the debate.

Also the focus on what is bad for you and forgetting all about where you stand in front, is well very natural cause things we have good we don`t need to focus on, but it will just make you more frustrated.

Let me turn the "Women getting paid less in business solely based on being a woman" around.
Then if women were in the mens shoes i would have to listen to:

- Oh this is so unfair, i have the same job as another guy in the office, but my boss expect so much more from me.
He expect me to put in more hours than this man who is hired in a similar position, just because i am a man.

- I can`t take leave to be with my newborn without my boss and the company looses respect for me, and i can then kiss a promotion goodbye.
Not to mention all the things the might call me behind my back.

God it is unfair to be a woman.


There is a flipside to any coin.

Number7 care to point out where I'm not relevant or spot on? Last I recall my post got Blarg approval stamp on it. So it's beyond critique, ya hear?

What are you talking about? My mind is on her superficial beauty, regardless. Why does it matter if its her legs, her breasts, her eyes or her smile? My mind is "at" the same place when I'm looking at any of those characteristics, namely "this is a beautiful woman that I am physically attracted to." Legs arent more sexual than eyes, and yet "nice legs!" is cat-calling, but "you have a wonderful smile" is polite. The mouth is MORE sexual than the legs, and yet thats ok?

You are basically proving my point. You think that when a guy compliments you on your eyes, he is complimenting "you as a person," as opposed to when he compliments your body.

I'm sorry, you're willfully and egregiously mischaracterizing and even misstating what people are saying and getting caught at it. Don't try to turn it around or defend it. It's a super-cheesy tactic that completely sucks in every way. Just let it go.

Why can't we just stick to a subject around here?

Defending wife beating indeed!

Two things right off the bat:

1. Taking more of the dangerous jobs means higher pay at the same time it means lowered life expectancy.

2. Working outside the home is much more stressful than inside. That's why, as women are moving into the workplaces, and for careers and not just jobs, those women are catching up to men in incidence of heart disease, heart attack, and strokes.