Slashdot Mirror

When President Lawnchair had a democratic-controlled congress he still caved to republican demands. If the democrats would have rallied under their own principles they could have passed a logical, non-conservative, non-big-business-handout health care reform bill; but they were weak and allowed the minority republicans to bully them in to this awful piece of garbage that we have now. He didn't make any meaningful changes in his first 6 years, he won't be making any in his last 2 either.

Nope, he passed the plan as designed, and it worked because the AMERICAN VOTERS ARE STUPID, and they'll ask for this piece of shit because they'll believe whatever lie the "most transparent administration" tells them.

> Good point. Those opposed to Obama's policies would be better off looking for ways to bring class action lawsuits against GM, Chrysler, and the PCG investment firm: http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/09/nancy-pelosis-brother-in-law-owns.html Crony capitalists have a lot more influence in Washington now than voters do. They don't get multimillion (or multibillion) dollar bailouts and kickbacks for nothing. Voters who want to influence policies in D.C. should find creative ways to put pressure on the crony-capitalists who wield the real power behind Obama. check out: Oligarchy's Ascent in America, by Mark Farha. (Abstract from IPSA.org: "This paper examines how the Obama administration, hiding behind a rhetorical smokescreen of “believable change,” has overseen arguably the most severe socio-economic polarization in modern American history. Income inequalities today outstrip even those witnessed during the Great Depression. Despite his rhetoric of change, President Obama’s financial policies have continued the policies of prior Presidents in skewing the financial system in favor of mega-banks. The unprecedented bailouts by the US Treasury and Fed amounted to a disenfranchisement of the US citizen under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Far from making good on the campaign promise to exclude lobbyists and increase transparency of governmental decisions, the Obama administration has set new records in the employment of well-entrenched Wall Street bankers and veteran K Street lobbyists to key positions. Increasingly, however, the Obama administration finds difficulty in upholding its carefully constructed media image of renewal. By highlighting the common calls for transparency found at both ends of the political spectrum, this paper will examine how dismay with a status quo ante foreign policy, as well continued opacity in fiscal and monetary matters, may have kindled a critique and constituency cutting across partisan lines of left and right as the dominant pattern of crony capitalism and lack of transparency violates both the principles of free markets and social justice.") Also, making economics a required subject for all K - 12 students is a pretty good idea too, and the Mises Academy has courses that are very appropriate for high school student-levels: http://www.iwf.org/news/2789583/Demography-Isn't-Destiny-When-Voters-Are-Economically-Informed

While I am at it, it is very hard to take seriously a group that makes up statistics about domestic violence and the Super Bowl Sunday. And, once the lie was exposed, the group has defended and justified the lie.

And, it is hard to take seriously a group that has been complaining about the wage-gender gap when a female economist showed the gap to be, 2% when experience, education, and number of years on the job are taken into account. And, when a former head of the National Organization for Women New York City shows it is actually false. The reason men tend to make more in many professions is because men do harder and more dangerous jobs. Men are more likely to do the nastier jobs, to work later, to work overtime, work odd hours, to travel for their job, and do all the most difficult things in a job than women. Women are also more likely to choose jobs that are personally rewarding but pay less, such as working for non-profits. The reason men make more than women is because men sacrifice more of their happiness, health, and self to their jobs than women do.

Feminists are their own worst enemy.

Thats probably that well known animal porn site "International Wildlife Fund". You want the other IWF.

It is well known that aside from all other determiners, a woman will receive less pay than a man.

"Well known" and mostly wrong. A woman with the same experience and education in the same job a man earns 98% of his salary on average. The main source of the gap is that men and women choose different jobs. Some of this is probably due to socialization, but it's never going to go away completely, if for no other reason than that women have babies.

http://www.iwf.org/campus/show/18948.html

this is the source. and the study comes from the IWF (independent women's forum!).

to sum it up, they found that when controlled for all the variables above, women make about 98% of what men earn.

This article claims that A study of the gender wage gap conducted by economist June O' Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that women earn 98 percent of what men do when controlled for experience, education, and number of years on the job..

Of course, women are now graduating college at higher rates than men. There was a recent study mentioned in the New York Times which claims that in US urban areas, women 21-30 earned more on average than men (as high as 120% in Dallas), although nationwide women in that age range only made 89% of men. The suspicion is that urban areas are attracting more college and higher educated women.

At the same time, I've seen a couple of industries that are notable anti-female, so while things are getting better in general, things still have a long way to go.

There is no huge gender gap between males and females in education. Infact on average females do slightly better overall in schooling(they are more obedient). This gap is a myth created by marginal feminist groups that through lobbying, media campaigns, funding their own research and then hiding the results They have created this false public perception that females are shortchanged and victimized. There is a small male advantage in math and science achievement but boys trail more behind in all other areas.

In the USA the true underpriveleged group which has a huge achievement gap in education is young African American males. If you want real facts read the paper Taking the Boy Crisis in Education Seriously... by Krista Kafer.

Great job Winnie Cooper, you wrote a book to address a pretend gender gap that is a myth created by manipulated research findings like that of a debunked study entitled "How Schools Shortchange Girls". Mrs. Cooper propagating this myth only helps to make it harder to deal with the real problem of underachieving males that belong to minority groups, who really need attention.

These "Banned Books" lists that librarians like to trumpet tend to be lists of books which were ever banned anywhere by any library at any time, not books which are banned today. So if they can find that some old biddy in Vermont in 1903 didn't like "Huckleberry Finn", it goes straight on the list. The conclusion that you're supposed to draw is that Literature is Under Attack Even Today by Reactionaries who are hiding under your bed.

In general I agree, though there are recent complaints about Huckleberry Finn (because it includes the "n-word").

But there's another kind of "banning" that doesn't get included: bookstores refusing to carry nonfiction books they don't like. (I know this isn't "censorship" because it doesn't involve government action, but it is a form of "banning.") Recently the famous City Lights bookstore in San Francisco, famous for supporting banned books and authors, told a customer "We don't carry books by fascists" when some asked for a book by Oriana Fallaci, who (ironically) actually fought against real fascists in World War II. There are other cases of books by conservative authors that have been intentionally misfiled by clerks in an attempt to hide them, or of bookstores that refuse to special order a book they don't like. I know this happened to The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS by Michael Fumento when it was published in 1990, but I've never seen it listed as a "banned book."

It's called White Male Privilege.

No, it's called a lie.

Like many lies, it has a purpose, and that purpose is to convince women that they're victims so they'll demand sympathy and special treatment, privileges, and protection, something you seem all too eager to give them.

It's almost hidden

In other words, you can't prove it or give any legitimate examples of its existence, but I should just assume it exists anyway because a bunch of man-haters with an agenda and a long, detailed history of spreading other lies (e.g., "rule of thumb") say so.

You don't have to consider sexism in the workplace

No? So female bosses never give special treatment to their female employees? And some companies don't actively seek to hire women, regardless of their qualifications, just so they can say they hire lots of women?

you don't have to be aware that it's possible you're being underpaid compared to the WM sitting next to you doing the same job.

Ah, one of the oldest feminist lies ever told rears its ugly head again. That women make less money for doing "the same job." That they only make $0.76 for every dollar a man makes.

That statistic comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and it's a comparison of the average salary of all full-time employed men in the country and the average salary of all full-time employed women. It's not a comparison of salaries between men and women doing the same job, working the same hours each week, doing the same amount of overtime, with the same amount of job experience, in the same city, for the same company... And surprise, surprise, when some of those factors are taken into consideration, the wage gap disappears.

Men make more money on average because they work more hours on average each week, are twice as likely to work overtime, and seek out higher-paying, less-fulfilling jobs because they rightly assume that society (read: women) sees them as nothing more than walking wallets and determines their self-worth based on how much money they have. Men also do the dangerous jobs women won't, and makeup 93% of on-the-job fatalities.

So yes, of course men make more money: they deserve it. There's a new book written on this very subject called Why Men Earn More.

Even Patricia Ireland had to back off this lie when confronted with the facts. Watch her squirm once she gets called on her bullshit by the head of the Cato institute.

Once you realize that you already have special privileges (just because you're a WM) then it doesn't seem so unfair when others are given the same.

White women are and have always been a protected class of citizens with special rights and privileges their male counterparts do not have. The entire concept of chivalry revolves around men sacrificing for women; that women are weak and defenseless and that men need to protect them and provide for them and give up their lives for them.

It still persists to this day, and I can give numerous examples, like the Violence Against Women Act, the federal Office of Women's Health (no office of men's health), the fact that women get custody of children more than 85% of the time (even though they initiate the divorce three-fourths of the time), a 6-7 year "death gap" between men and women no one seems eager to correct, exemption from the draft and combat service in general... The list goes on.

Give me examples of the special treatment men receive. It's very simple, actually. The game works like this: "x law affects women unfairly because..." See if you can play it. If not, then stop trying to claim victimhood for them.

One thing that has changed is that the national debate now profits from the contributions of non-feminist but scholarly women who know how to evaluate data.

A pair of them, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, an economist with the American Enterprise Institute, and Christine Stolba, a doctoral candidate at Emory University, have published (with the help of the Independent Women's Forum) a new edition of their book "Women's Figures: An Illustrated Guide to the Economic Progress of Women in America."

As everyday experience suggests, women have made dramatic economic progress in the past 40 years. In nearly every field of endeavor, from advanced degrees to business ownership, women have made great strides. Women comprised only 12 percent of pharmacists in 1970, compared with 44 percent today. They were only 27 percent of public relations specialists, whereas they now dominate the field with 66 percent. There are five times as many female lawyers today as there were 30 years ago and nearly three times as many doctors.

The wage gap, Furchtgott-Roth and Stolba explain, is a crude comparison of the wages of all men compared with the wages of all women. It does not take into account education, training, time on the job, or full or part-time work. In reality, the most important factor in the wage gap between men and women is probably summed up in one word: children. Women with children tend to take more time off from work, accumulate less seniority and accordingly earn less than men. And the more children a woman has, the more her income is likely to suffer. The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth finds that among workers ages 27 to 33 who have no children, women's earnings are 98 percent of men's.