Slashdot Mirror

This is exactly why sex-crime suspects need to have their identities shielded until convicted. Even if exonerated tons of damage can and usually does get inflicted by public perception, of which the lingering effects can be extremely destructive.

Glenn Sacks talked about this subject just this morning:

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4954

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=621

I'd like a citation for this, because I'm extremely skeptical that executive pay would be able to skew the statistics so heavily. There just aren't that many super-highly compensated executives out there to make a difference.

You're right to be suspicious, as the "76 cents on the dollar" canard is based on straight up sophistry. It ignores the issue of experience (number of years worked) and, most importantly, completely ignores the issue of overtime. In the U.S., men worked 72,174 hours per week to 61,597 for women. (Stats are from the International of Labor Organization)

But even those stats don't tell the whole story. Women outnumber men in part time jobs, but men take the lead when it comes to full time employment. And when it comes to overtime, it's no contest whatsoever. More than 3x as many men put in 60+ hour weeks than women.

If Mary has three years more experience than Ann, puts in an average of 10 hours more per week than Ann, and is 9 times as likely to be killed or injured on the job as Ann - of course Mary would expect to paid more than Ann. Except when I say "Ann" I mean the average woman and by "Mary" I mean the average man.

Men get paid more...because men work more. It's that simple.

No, there are commercials about boys. For instance, this one, where the boy is advertised as a future wife-beater.

I'm not being a troll, this is a fact of life.

I know you guys like more than someone saying so. I have seen this for many years, here is a recent article - http://www.glennsacks.com/mysterious_decline_where .htm . Please read it. The future of the world is at stake.

What people need to know about divorce...

The industry that has evolved from people wanting divorces is a huge cash cow machine for states' social services and often shabby lawyers who really care more about having a job and lining their pockets than the welfare of our citizens or our children. The biggest lie in divorces involving custody is that the court tries to make decisions "in the child's best interest". This is of course an entirely subjective definition which while in theory sounds like what we all want, in practice it runs completely afoul of the United States Constitution in violating multiple constitutional rights, particularly: the right to protection from unreasonable seizure, the right to due process, the right to equal protection under the law. Remember that our laws are not meant to be - nor should they be - the highest of moral standards but rather minimal standards in order to best protect everyone while still keeping people as free as possible.

No doubt many people will just simply not believe me when I tell you that men are routinely and commonly and unjustly denied their constitutional rights in divorce proceedings. Ignorance is bliss after all but then complacency is no virtue either. Meanwhile others will cry about how abused women are while others will say but women are just naturally better parents. If you don't believe me read what the other people say:

In a 66 page legal article in Volume 25, No. 4 (Summer 1998) Florida State University Law Review at http://www.law.fsu.edu/Journals/lawreview/download s/254/mcneely.pdf, Cynthia A. McNeely very clearly lays out the unconstitutionality of current divorce practices from its historical basis to its societal impact.

In a 32 page article published in Volume 1, Number 2 (1999) pp 123-150 University of Utah School of Law, Journal of Law & Family Studies at http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/hubin1/Researc h/PRDP.PDF, Donald Hubin rights about Parental Rights and Due Process that specifically describes the failure of the courts to recognize that the standard of "child's best interest" fails to meet our right to due process that should require the courts to recognize that sole custody to one parent means taking away the other parent's custodial rights and that this should not be allowed to be done without proof beyond reasonable doubt that the parent is unfit to share in that right. Imagine if the same standard of "child's best interest" were applied to your family where no divorce was going on and your children were taken from you because in the judge's opinion your faith (or anything else) wasn't in your child's best interest. That's an aweful lot of latitude for subjectively taking your kids away unless we demand nothing less than our due process right. In the context of divorce and custody that means nothing less than a presumption of continued shared custody unless a parent can be shown unfit to the same standards as is done in showing guilt in criminal cases.

In an ongoing battle to protect the virtues of justice and equality are folks like Glenn Sacks who runs a great website on many of the abuses suffered at the hands of the courts in regards to divorce which folks should also check out at http://www.glennsacks.com/. And the list of references can easily go on.

If you get through at least these three references, you'll hopefully be at least dispelled of any blissful ignorances you too may have once had.

Pardon me for not being PC. But those labels are accurate.
http://www.fathermag.com/808/GenderBias.shtml
http://www.4famlaw.com/genbfamc.htm
http://www.glennsacks.com/it_is_fathers.htm
http://www.mesacanada.com/news11.htm
http://www.fathermag.com/205/abuse/

Feminist ideology is an accurate label
They even use the term here to describe feminism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

Just like the "race card", the "pc" card where you *shut down* an opponent's point of view by plucking a few words out of context is wearing thin too. Tho what they did to the president of harvard was an excellent example of the radical feminists and leftists successfully using the "PC" card.

And no... I'm not a republican or "right wing" either- I voted against Bush and 75% of the republican candidates in every election since 1996.

---

And with regard to my parent post- I was responding to the general flow of the discussion with my own specific experience as a "privileged" white male who the parent was arguing didn't need any help since I was well off enough. Thanks, but I'm bloody TIRED of paying for situations that havn't existed for over two decades.

Funny, but that old chesnut's a lie.

But I feel obliged to politely point out that we're still earning (on average) only 92 cents on the dollar compared to men.

Well, would you expect to be paid more than the next employee, if you worked an average of 10 hours more per week, 400 per year, had 25% more job experience and put in 90% of the overtime hours? How about if you were over nine times as likely to be seriously hurt or injured on the job? Feminists complain about how the "glass ceiling" keeps them from the highest paying jobs (a myth), but you don't see too many demanding to be landfill divers (second one down).

And if anyone says women don't earn as much as men in high-tech fields because we're not as good

No, men get paid more because they work more. If women were really paid that much less for the same work, why don't companies fire all their male employees, replace them with women and drive their compeditors out of business? A couple of nice editorials on the subject, here and here.

I will personally punch them in the face.

Ah, another of my favorite double standards. Violence against women by men is a cultural taboo in this country right up there with priests having sex with little boys, but female violence against men is no big deal, deserved, or even funny. I'm not saying you have that attitude, I'm just talking about how gender violence is perceived today.

Finally, one more reason why guys make more than women: because we don't have any choice if we want to date you. Money is the easiest sign of success, and women want their men to be successful. I'm not accusing the entire female gender of gold digging; its not about money. Its just that the man has to be more successful in his profession than the woman is in hers. How many senior, female bank managers marry guys who are full time bus drivers?

But I feel obliged to politely point out that we're still earning (on average) only 92 cents on the dollar compared to men.

Well, would you expect to be paid more than the next employee, if you worked an average of 10 hours more per week, 400 per year, had 25% more job experience and put in 90% of the overtime hours? How about if you were over nine times as likely to be seriously hurt or injured on the job? Feminists complain about how the "glass ceiling" keeps them from the highest paying jobs (a myth), but you don't see too many demanding to be landfill divers (second one down).

And if anyone says women don't earn as much as men in high-tech fields because we're not as good

No, men get paid more because they work more. If women were really paid that much less for the same work, why don't companies fire all their male employees, replace them with women and drive their compeditors out of business? A couple of nice editorials on the subject, here and here.

I will personally punch them in the face.

Ah, another of my favorite double standards. Violence against women by men is a cultural taboo in this country right up there with priests having sex with little boys, but female violence against men is no big deal, deserved, or even funny. I'm not saying you have that attitude, I'm just talking about how gender violence is perceived today.

Finally, one more reason why guys make more than women: because we don't have any choice if we want to date you. Money is the easiest sign of success, and women want their men to be successful. I'm not accusing the entire female gender of gold digging; its not about money. Its just that the man has to be more successful in his profession than the woman is in hers. How many senior, female bank managers marry guys who are full time bus drivers?