Can you point me to a study that comes to this conclusion that accounts for continuity of employment?
This study by the GAO found a 20% salary gap, even after correcting for the facts that on average women have fewer years of work experience, work fewer hours per year, are less likely to work a full-time schedule, and leave the labor force for longer periods of time than men; and also for factors such as industry, occupation, race, marital status, and job tenure.
What a strange thing to say. Is there some movement afoot to prevent women from getting x-rays or diabetes medication? Or are you being incredibly disingenuous in order to make the legitimate disagreement over abortion seem illegitimate?
I was speaking primarily of wingnut pharmacists, though wingnuts who want to roll back the clock and send women to back-alley abortionists also qualify.
the pharmacists I know take their oath seriously. They have a moral obligation to (among other things) do no harm.
What oath is that? The Oath of a Pharmacist I found makes no mention of "do no harm" but does say "I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of
my ability to assure optimal drug therapy outcomes for the patient I serve." (Emaphasis added).
You don't seem to leave any room to consider that women are naturally inclined to have a greater number of them prioritize family over career.
Some women (and some men) freely choose to prioritize family over career. Great. Some women (and probably a few men, though very few) are pressured into doing so by unjust socioeconomic factors - including salary inequalities. (Alice and Bob have a baby; one of them will stay home, one will work. Bob can get paid more than Alice due to discriminatory salary inequality. Therefore Bob will work.) That's a problem.
But really, any measures to correct what you see as "inequity" always boil down to punishing men because women value family over career. Personally, I tend to see this as 'inequity'.
Nonsense. First, your blanket assertation that "women value family over career" is sexist prejudice, as not all women choose that way. Second, the problem is not that people who value family over career tend to make less, the problem is that those women who choose career over family still make less; and also that women are pressured (by both institutionalized and non-institutionalized factors) into being the ones to sacrifice career for family.
Suggesting that people with equal qualifications should receive equal pay for equal work, and that women (and men) should not be pressured into assuming certain gender roles but should be free to explore and choose from the full range of human experience, is not in any way punishing men.
I think you need to allow some room in your anti-woman idealogy to concede that in this day and age, women choose the careers, family options, and priorities that they do because that's what they want.
I think you need to allow some room in your anti-woman ideology to concede that bias and prejudice have not completely disappeared in less than fifty years, and that women must deal with these factors in making choices about careers, family options, and priorities.
Either the pharmacist is responsible for safeguarding your health, or they're not. If they're not, well, we need to get rid of the entire profession. If they are, well, they need to rely on their own judgement.
A pharmacist's responsibilty to safeguard my health is limited to giving me pure drugs in the specified dosage, and to watch out for drug interactions. Not to attempt to override the treatment decision that my physician and I have arrived at. ("Penicillin? No, man, I think what need is erythromycin...")
But I'm quite willing to get rid of the prescription system, except for antibiotics (and other drugs that might affect people other than the user). It's ridiculous that I need a permission slip from my doctor to make decisions about my body.
It puts the pharmacist in an untenable position when the express purpose of that medication is to (in the view of some people) kill one of the two people standing in front of him.
For birth control pills, the purpose is to prevent there being "two people". For the standard pill there is not even a zygote yet present when the prescription is filled. One would also hope that a pharmacist would have enough understanding of biology to grasp that a zygote or a blastula that may exist when a woman needs the "morning after" pill is not a person, since personhood requires more than an undifferentiated ball of cells.
The major cause is rank and seniority. When these are factored in, most of the differences disappear. The remaining difference is cause by a greater portion of women valuing family over career.
And you don't see inequity in a social system in which it is overwhelmingly the woman of a couple who is expected to sacrifice her career to be the primary caregiver?
Though, they don't seem to be crying over the horrendous underrepresentation of men in the child-care and nursing professions? It doesn't seem to be an "equality" thing; lots of people just hate men.
Please. One natually makes a bigger fuss about bigger problems; the continuing discrimination against women is a bigger problem, i.e. occurs more often, than discrimination against men in certain fields. That doesn't make anti-male discrimination all right, or mean that those in favor of equality for women "hate men", a ludicrous charge.
But if it makes you happy, I now shed one official tear for male nurses who have been the victim of discrimination. Things are hard enough for our overworked and underappreciated nurses of either gender, without throwing bias into the mix.
(Yes, I have encountered extremists who do blame everything wrong in the world on those of us with Y-chomosomes and penises; thankfully they are few and far between.)
Dude, did you actually read my post, or are you reading your prejudices again?
My God its not going to get you laid and only makes you appear desperate.
The reason I care about women's rights is not to get laid (need no help there, thanks, I've got some great girlfriends). It's because my mother is a woman; my grandmothers were women; many of my friends are women; every woman I've ever loved has been a woman. What affects those I love, affects me.
The fact that she said that there was nothing special about her flying the spacecraft back is wonderful.
Uh, didn't I say exactly that? Yep: "While it's wonderful (and well past due) that the professionals in the space program don't care about the gender of their colleagues..."
Finally, we have reached a point where no one gives a shit about equality of the sexes questions.
While it's wonderful (and well past due) that the professionals in the space program don't care about the gender of their colleagues, women still suffer plenty of discrimination in the workplace, are underpaid relative to men doing the same job with the same experience, and are still threatened with religious wackos cutting off access to healthcare services. Women are still underrepresented in the top levels of government and industry.
Much progress has been made, no doubt of that, but much work remains.
Just to clarify, I do not fear nor hold contempt for people who engage in homosexual behavior. I hate the act of gay/lesbian sex. I believe it is destructive to society as a whole
Bullshit. That's like saying "I do not fear nor hold contempt for {Christians, Jews, Muslims, Pagans}, I just hate the act of {churchgoing, attending synagogue, going to a mosque, holding a Circle} and believe it is destructive to society as a whole."
I refuse to give you and other homophobes a pass about your intolerance. You of course have the right to be a bigot, and I would defend most strongly your right to your ignorance and your right to express it (as I would for Klansman or Neo-Nazis); but I decline to remain silent about it.
I always find it quite humorous that this is used as an argument for accepting homosexual behavior. Animals do it so it should be okay for us to do it, too? Animals!?!
No, it's used to refute the arguement that homosexual behavior is unnatural.
Geez, talk about circular reasoning:
Homophobe: Homosexuality is unnatural!
Rational person: No it's not. There are many non-human animals that engage in homosexuality.
Homophobe: Are you suggesting we model our behavior on that of animals? Disgusting!
We are supposed to be above all other forms of life on this earth...We are at the stage in evolution where the next step is spiritual, not physical.
Gee, wouldn't a good place to start that spiritual development be more tolerance and less fear and hatred?
And sex can be a powerful tool for spiritual development.
but what does the poster mean by 'programmatically accessible' email archive?
"Programmatically accessible" means accessible by a computer program.
I.e., software that not only hs a user interface (GUI or CLI) but has a function library, or TCP protocol suite, or web services, or RPC, or REST, or some other way to access the data and functionality of the software, from other software.
Once again, we have a discussion focused primarily on "my rights", without any discussion whatsoever of your resposibilities to, and as a representitive of, your employer.
Unless my job involves interacting with the public, I am not a "representitive" of my employer; and even then, only when I'm on the clock.
My sole resposibility to my employer is to produce professional quality results that give a fair exchance for my pay. No more, no less.
Would you be upset if cemetary owners protested cremations? Would you be upset if NAMBLA protested weddings? What if Catholics protested Jewish temples?
Those would be rude and stupid things to do, and they may upset me, but so what? They are absolutely 100% protected speech. I don't have a right to not be upset that trumps someone else's free speech rights.
The Secret Service can do pretty much whatever it wants.
In the sense that they have a lot of guns, yes. In the sense of respecting the law, no. Citizens have the right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances" - you cannot do that from a "free speech zone" blocks away.
It is my right to get as close as practical considerations allow to members of the US Government and let them know exactly what I think of them (an opinion that, in many cases, requires the use of rude, foul, and "obsene" language).
Amendment I says that *congress* shall make no law. This does not prevent my city council from acting in the best interests of the citizens.
First, may I refer you to Amendment XIV? States (from whom cities derive power) are bound to respect the civil rights of citizens, including those enumerated in Amendment I: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Second, censorship is NEVER in the best interest of citizens.
Because the United States and China are so similar when it comes to oppressing free speech and jailing political dissidents.
You're reading into his statement more than was said. China and the U.S. need not be similar in the degree to which they oppress free speech for someone in the U.S. to have legitimate need for
If anyone can give actual provable examples of the US government abridging Constitutionally protected free speech, I'd love to hear it.
Geez. Those who are ignorant of history...
Try the Alien and Sedition of 1798 and the Sedition Act of 1918 for starters. Also the Espionage Act which was used to send labor leader and presidential candidate Eugene Debs to jail for a decade.
We can dance around semantics as to whether HUAC's actions during the 1950s constituted "censorship", but certainly it was government action in supression of certain viewpoints.
Of course a criminal would want some privacy, or someone who is lying to his wife. But otherwise I can't think of a good reason for it.
Do you leave the door open when you take a crap, or leave the shades up when you make love? Some people simply prefer privacy for some parts of their lives - that is, part of "what they want to do" is do X in private. They don't need to justify it to your self-righteous ass.
Of course there are far more serious reasons for keeping some things private. Anyone who is in a minority that may face bias or repression may want to keep some things to themselves. Many homosexuals stay "in the closet" out of fear - which, considering that people are beaten and killed because of their sexual orientation, is not unreasonable.
As long as people are people, we will have conflict, violence, and war.
There will always be conflict and violence, since it only takes one person to create violence.
War, though, is an organized action of states. I think it is not too much to hope for that at some point in the future, well-structured democratic forms of government will spread to all nations, and that a majority of the people of each nation will decide to spend their nations' resources on something better than killing people who live between a different set of lines on the map. But I'm not holding my breath for that to happen soon.
RTFA. Excerpt: "Cobblestone-like walking paths are common in China. The activity is rooted in traditional Chinese medicine and relates to some of the principles of reflexology, in that the uneven surface of the cobblestones stimulate and regulate "acupoints" located on the soles of the feet."
Then TFA is blowing smoke. There is only one TCM acupoint located on the sole of the foot, Kidney 1; and CM has no relation at all to reflexology.
But what about all the times that it doesn't work? And there are many. The trouble with things like this is people focus more on the times they succeed and tend to forget about all the times that things failed.
Of course. The same is true for any treatment, conventional or complementary. Western physicians aren't immune to believing in treatments that don't work. Hell, just a few decades ago your doctor would be telling you to take up smoking to help lose weight.
There is a huge difference between a medical doctor prescribing you a treatment that has been properly scientifically and medically proven and tested...
But very few of the treatments used in standard Western medicine have been so tested! Please show me a controlled double-blind study of coronary bypass surgery.
"A prescription of acupuncture at fixed points may differ from acupuncture administered in clinical settings". In other words, what was tested was nothing like acupuncture as it is actually applied.
part of the control group received "noninsertive simulated acupuncture", which will also stimulate points - in some cases, as effectively as needle insertion. Those of us who practice acupressure and ABT stimulate points without needle insertion all the time
So you've cited a study that has no bearing on clinical acupuncture.
A better example of a double-blind controlled methodology for acupuncture research is that developed by
Allen and Schnyer, where the control is geniune acupuncture adminstered for a condition other than that under investigation. They found:
Thus, based on a small outpatient sample of women with major depression, it appeared that acupuncture provided significant symptom relief at rates comparable to standard treatments such as psychotherapy or pharmacotherapy. The effect sizes observed in this small sample were at least as large or larger than those seen in trials of antidepressant medication or psychotherapy, and they suggest that a larger clinical trial is warranted.
Slashdot Mirror
This study by the GAO found a 20% salary gap, even after correcting for the facts that on average women have fewer years of work experience, work fewer hours per year, are less likely to work a full-time schedule, and leave the labor force for longer periods of time than men; and also for factors such as industry, occupation, race, marital status, and job tenure.
I was speaking primarily of wingnut pharmacists, though wingnuts who want to roll back the clock and send women to back-alley abortionists also qualify.
What oath is that? The Oath of a Pharmacist I found makes no mention of "do no harm" but does say "I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal drug therapy outcomes for the patient I serve." (Emaphasis added).
Some women (and some men) freely choose to prioritize family over career. Great. Some women (and probably a few men, though very few) are pressured into doing so by unjust socioeconomic factors - including salary inequalities. (Alice and Bob have a baby; one of them will stay home, one will work. Bob can get paid more than Alice due to discriminatory salary inequality. Therefore Bob will work.) That's a problem.
Nonsense. First, your blanket assertation that "women value family over career" is sexist prejudice, as not all women choose that way. Second, the problem is not that people who value family over career tend to make less, the problem is that those women who choose career over family still make less; and also that women are pressured (by both institutionalized and non-institutionalized factors) into being the ones to sacrifice career for family.
Suggesting that people with equal qualifications should receive equal pay for equal work, and that women (and men) should not be pressured into assuming certain gender roles but should be free to explore and choose from the full range of human experience, is not in any way punishing men.
I think you need to allow some room in your anti-woman ideology to concede that bias and prejudice have not completely disappeared in less than fifty years, and that women must deal with these factors in making choices about careers, family options, and priorities.
A pharmacist's responsibilty to safeguard my health is limited to giving me pure drugs in the specified dosage, and to watch out for drug interactions. Not to attempt to override the treatment decision that my physician and I have arrived at. ("Penicillin? No, man, I think what need is erythromycin...")
But I'm quite willing to get rid of the prescription system, except for antibiotics (and other drugs that might affect people other than the user). It's ridiculous that I need a permission slip from my doctor to make decisions about my body.
Not when the wingnut refuses to transfer the prescription to another druggist - or to give the script back to her. Or when there's only one open pharmacy when you need the "morning after" pill.
For birth control pills, the purpose is to prevent there being "two people". For the standard pill there is not even a zygote yet present when the prescription is filled. One would also hope that a pharmacist would have enough understanding of biology to grasp that a zygote or a blastula that may exist when a woman needs the "morning after" pill is not a person, since personhood requires more than an undifferentiated ball of cells.
And you don't see inequity in a social system in which it is overwhelmingly the woman of a couple who is expected to sacrifice her career to be the primary caregiver?
But even with those factors taken into account, there's still a significant gap. The GAO found a 44% total gap; factoring out industry, occupation, union status, demographics, work experience, number of hours, and full/part time status, they still found a 20% gap.
Please. One natually makes a bigger fuss about bigger problems; the continuing discrimination against women is a bigger problem, i.e. occurs more often, than discrimination against men in certain fields. That doesn't make anti-male discrimination all right, or mean that those in favor of equality for women "hate men", a ludicrous charge.
But if it makes you happy, I now shed one official tear for male nurses who have been the victim of discrimination. Things are hard enough for our overworked and underappreciated nurses of either gender, without throwing bias into the mix.
(Yes, I have encountered extremists who do blame everything wrong in the world on those of us with Y-chomosomes and penises; thankfully they are few and far between.)
Dude, did you actually read my post, or are you reading your prejudices again?
The reason I care about women's rights is not to get laid (need no help there, thanks, I've got some great girlfriends). It's because my mother is a woman; my grandmothers were women; many of my friends are women; every woman I've ever loved has been a woman. What affects those I love, affects me.
Uh, didn't I say exactly that? Yep: "While it's wonderful (and well past due) that the professionals in the space program don't care about the gender of their colleagues..."
Perhaps you've not heard of pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions? Or the FDA blocking the safe and effective morning-after pill because of pressure from extremist opponents of birth control? Or the continuing attempts to restrict abortion, by means ranging from legislation to terrorism?
I didn't say a damn thing about "affirmative action", thank you.
While it's wonderful (and well past due) that the professionals in the space program don't care about the gender of their colleagues, women still suffer plenty of discrimination in the workplace, are underpaid relative to men doing the same job with the same experience, and are still threatened with religious wackos cutting off access to healthcare services. Women are still underrepresented in the top levels of government and industry.
Much progress has been made, no doubt of that, but much work remains.
Bullshit. That's like saying "I do not fear nor hold contempt for {Christians, Jews, Muslims, Pagans}, I just hate the act of {churchgoing, attending synagogue, going to a mosque, holding a Circle} and believe it is destructive to society as a whole."
I refuse to give you and other homophobes a pass about your intolerance. You of course have the right to be a bigot, and I would defend most strongly your right to your ignorance and your right to express it (as I would for Klansman or Neo-Nazis); but I decline to remain silent about it.
homphobia n. 1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men. 2. Behavior based on such a feeling.
Certainly the original poster's tone fits that definition, as does your implication that homosexuals are "sinners".
I'm tired of giving homophobia a pass. It's no more acceptable than any other form of bigotry.
No, it's used to refute the arguement that homosexual behavior is unnatural.
Geez, talk about circular reasoning:
Homophobe: Homosexuality is unnatural!
Rational person: No it's not. There are many non-human animals that engage in homosexuality.
Homophobe: Are you suggesting we model our behavior on that of animals? Disgusting!
Gee, wouldn't a good place to start that spiritual development be more tolerance and less fear and hatred?
And sex can be a powerful tool for spiritual development.
"Programmatically accessible" means accessible by a computer program.
I.e., software that not only hs a user interface (GUI or CLI) but has a function library, or TCP protocol suite, or web services, or RPC, or REST, or some other way to access the data and functionality of the software, from other software.
Perhaps you missed this?
Unless my job involves interacting with the public, I am not a "representitive" of my employer; and even then, only when I'm on the clock.
My sole resposibility to my employer is to produce professional quality results that give a fair exchance for my pay. No more, no less.
Those would be rude and stupid things to do, and they may upset me, but so what? They are absolutely 100% protected speech. I don't have a right to not be upset that trumps someone else's free speech rights.
In the sense that they have a lot of guns, yes. In the sense of respecting the law, no. Citizens have the right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances" - you cannot do that from a "free speech zone" blocks away.
It is my right to get as close as practical considerations allow to members of the US Government and let them know exactly what I think of them (an opinion that, in many cases, requires the use of rude, foul, and "obsene" language).
First, may I refer you to Amendment XIV? States (from whom cities derive power) are bound to respect the civil rights of citizens, including those enumerated in Amendment I: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Second, censorship is NEVER in the best interest of citizens.
You're reading into his statement more than was said. China and the U.S. need not be similar in the degree to which they oppress free speech for someone in the U.S. to have legitimate need for
Geez. Those who are ignorant of history...
Try the Alien and Sedition of 1798 and the Sedition Act of 1918 for starters. Also the Espionage Act which was used to send labor leader and presidential candidate Eugene Debs to jail for a decade.
We can dance around semantics as to whether HUAC's actions during the 1950s constituted "censorship", but certainly it was government action in supression of certain viewpoints.
More recently the Istook Amendment attempted to deny federal transportation funds to localities that accept advertisements critical of federal drug policy.
Heavy handed and illegal tactics by the state and by owners are also nothing new, indeed are far more common.
Do you leave the door open when you take a crap, or leave the shades up when you make love? Some people simply prefer privacy for some parts of their lives - that is, part of "what they want to do" is do X in private. They don't need to justify it to your self-righteous ass.
Of course there are far more serious reasons for keeping some things private. Anyone who is in a minority that may face bias or repression may want to keep some things to themselves. Many homosexuals stay "in the closet" out of fear - which, considering that people are beaten and killed because of their sexual orientation, is not unreasonable.
I know many Pagans who are in the "broom closet" because they are worried about discrimination - and given a recent court case in which parents were forbidden from exposing their kid to Wicca or "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals", again that's not unreasonable.
It's not always that "Big Brother" stops you from doing what you want, sometimes it's your neighbors.
This is available on the new clamshell Z's - which, unfortunately, aren't directly available in the US. But there are distributors who export them.
Why would integrated wifi use less power than a CF card?
Just got an SL-C3000. (Not my site, just to be clear.)
It rocks. This is the droid I've been looking for.
There will always be conflict and violence, since it only takes one person to create violence.
War, though, is an organized action of states. I think it is not too much to hope for that at some point in the future, well-structured democratic forms of government will spread to all nations, and that a majority of the people of each nation will decide to spend their nations' resources on something better than killing people who live between a different set of lines on the map. But I'm not holding my breath for that to happen soon.
(Ideally, of course, eventually Universal Enlightenment will prevail and all the governments with wither away, but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen soon either...)
Then TFA is blowing smoke. There is only one TCM acupoint located on the sole of the foot, Kidney 1; and CM has no relation at all to reflexology.
Of course. The same is true for any treatment, conventional or complementary. Western physicians aren't immune to believing in treatments that don't work. Hell, just a few decades ago your doctor would be telling you to take up smoking to help lose weight.
But very few of the treatments used in standard Western medicine have been so tested! Please show me a controlled double-blind study of coronary bypass surgery.
A study with only two fatal flaws:
So you've cited a study that has no bearing on clinical acupuncture.
A better example of a double-blind controlled methodology for acupuncture research is that developed by Allen and Schnyer, where the control is geniune acupuncture adminstered for a condition other than that under investigation. They found:
(Here is another study using that methodology.)