The republicans war on women continues

It's not that the government was in the way, it was a matter of how they could get there to get in the way; https://www.google.com/search?q=ima...-gridlock-20140129%2C0%2C257302.story;372;525 What a bubble you people live in.

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah....What if this, what if that..... nothing changes Mother and Father need to be held accountable and be responsible. There is always family somewhere to get help from. Make up all the corner cases you want, but the it all leads to the fact that these cases a very few and there are avenues, such as churches where they can receive support and help..

 

Or if she cannot provide for them and take care of them put them in an orphanage where they will get proper care and require her to work to help offset the cost and to visit them and when she can afford to care for them then they go back to live with her.

 

If democrats want to "fight back in the war on women" they should donate their own money to planned parenthood and run their own lets abort the next generation campaign. They don't need to force others to subsidize their war against the unborn.

 

Where do women not have an equal right to the same wages and how is your new law going to help that?

Your don doesn't have any say about abandoning their responsibility should they play a part in creating new life. Are you saying you are anti abortion so they have equal responsibility? Or do you want males abandonment to be codified as a right too?

Do you daughters and granddaughters do anything other then abort their children? If so, are they being discriminated against there and how?

 

Sounds like he knows more than you since he is not spouting such fallacious nonsense.

No one is making such a fight but if you are so concerned I suggest you send an email to the Obama White House where women average a lower salary by a substantial amount.

You can as long as another body is not involved.

You do have the same access and BC is a LOT cheaper than the two drugs you listed.

It's your side that believes women are so out of control that government must step in else we look like a third world country with all the helpless women out on the street.

Equal "potential" for what? You think "potential" is genetically equal or something?

 

Of course not, an orphanage where they can get proper care and discipline until the mother can provide for them hopefully with a husband in the house who can become the father for them. In the meantime she can work and contribute to the cost of their care.

 

The statistics show that women make 77 cents on the dollar less than men. That's where!

 

Not when you compare equal work and equal hours.

"One reason women earn less than men on average is that women work fewer hours on average than men even when they work full-time. As Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler noted in February, government data shows women work fewer hours than men, which explains much of the apparent pay gap: “since women in general work fewer hours than men in a year, the statistics [such as this one] used by the White House [to push for passage of the proposed Paycheck Fairness Act, discussed at this link] may be less reliable for examining the key focus of the legislation — wage discrimination.” As Ramesh Ponnuru noted at Bloomberg News, the gap gap between men and women “reflects the fact that women, on average, work fewer hours than men.” Family responsibilities also play a role. Diana Furchtgott-Roth cites a 2005 study which found that “There is no gender gap in wages among men and women with similar family roles.” In addition to being more likely to seek part-time work, women are also more likely to have gaps in their employment history and to enter lower-paying fields, she notes, and “a 2009 report for the Labor Department, found that these factors account for most of the pay gap.”

In any event, it’s just obvious that employers don’t pay women 23 percent less for the exact same work. If they did, employers could (and some would) crush their competitors just by hiring only women, who cost less to employ, to reap a huge cost advantage. But no major employer has ever done so. As one commenter notes, if this massive pay disparity actually existed, “why wouldn’t any company seeking to enhance its competitive position (i.e. all of them) simply hire only women? After all, such a company could offer, say, 90 cents and attract untold numbers of female applicants for employment and still have a distinct advantage in the cost of its labor.” The supposed 23 percent pay disparity is vastly bigger than the profit margin of most major companies."
http://www.examiner.com/article/oba...hat-women-get-only-77-cents-on-a-man-s-dollar

 

Same job, same hours? What law again will fix this, please post text.

 

Taking into account women work fewer hours because family responsibilities and other reasons you failed to mention, which we all know why that is, you just painted a perfect picture of discrimination. Taking into account those circumstances you just mentioned shows two things; 1. a male dominated society where corporations are mostly owned and controlled by men, who dictate their own policies, and 2. the simple fact that women are females who bear children. You are essentially penalizing them because they are women taking into account these circumstances. Your post points this out perfectly, except you stumbled when you never gave the explanation about why women were working less hours, in the absence of having children. What's your excuse for that?

So no, the wage disparity of women is a direct result of discrimination. No doubt about it. What you also revealed in your post even though you didn't actually say it, is essentially women are not really suited for the work force in many capacities, which is why they receive fewer hours. Taking into consideration you are correct, wouldn't that suggest our society is setup to cater mostly to males? Because everything you said implies just that.

 

It's one of the few repsonisbilities that the government does have, that's how.

Not libearl thinking, just a liberal program that has been implemented that would require others to do for them and their children, what they could do for themselves....Too bad they couldn't make the Department of Education be responisble and be useful by sending them.

 

Next time read to what you are responding

Originally Posted by Bluesguy View Post
Not when you compare equal work and equal hours.

"One reason women earn less than men on average is that women work fewer hours on average than men even when they work full-time................... Family responsibilities also play a role."

 

With all of the "War on Women" rhetoric that the Democrats spew, you'd think that Republicans were going door to door, rounding up women, raping them, beheading them, sending disobedient women to death camps, imposing segregation based on gender, throwing girl babies into lakes, etc. Nope, they just oppose abortion.

 

It's also big government. Don't forget that.

 

I got a political call last night about Charlie Christ's "War on Women" and how I should vote for some woman I don't remember the name of. What is this, a Liberal talking point for the perennially stupid? They're going phone to phone spreading this stupid lie.

 

I did. That's why I'm going to repeat it. You can't be that dense not to see what you are typing. If women work fewer hours on average, there has to be a reason. You just addressed it. So if a woman has a baby and needs to fulfill child hood obligations for a certain period, are you saying she should get paid less? If your answer is yes, it's discrimination, because you are putting the female in a work category not equal to men because she is a female. Which just is another way of saying she is less than a man and should be docked for bearing a child. Very shallow indeed!

There are millions of women who work in offices along side men in this country. If they are doing equal work as men should they be entitled to the same salary? Because right now, many are not making the same.

- - - Updated - - -

You didn't vote for the woman?

 

I think the fact is that she should be paid for what time she has put in. Are you saying that she should be paid the same as another person who continued working, learning more, gaining more experience and who's skills are current?

Yes, and they are for the most part.

Maybe because right now, many are not working in offices along side men and putting in the same hours--- that's what I believe's the point.

 

You know it is funny how women in this society claim that it is THEIR BODY when it comes to abortion and men have no say. But when it comes to protection they like to point the finger at men and come up that both of them made the baby. Crazy world we live in. I am a woman by the way.

 

No, I never said that. You said that.She should be able to come back to work at her same salary at the same job picking up where she left off furthuring her career. . Anything different than that is discrimination.

Yes, and they are for the most part. Maybe because right now, many are not working in offices along side men and putting in the same hours--- that's what I believe's the point.[/QUOTE] Maybe many are not putting in the same hours because this is a male dominated society too. And if a male dominated society can get away with keeping it like that and get away with it, they will do it.

 

And the women are exactly right, and you being a woman, are very wrong. It is the woman's body who has and carries the burden of the child. She tots the health risks for her and the child. If something is wrong with her or her unborn child that needs attention such as an abortion, then it is her body and her life that are in jeopardy. But when the decision is made mutually by the man and woman to have a child, she does have that right to point the finger at the man. In other words, if she decided to have a child, she already was pointing the finger at herself, and that she was willing to take responsibility. And if the man agrees in the beginning then bails on her, she has a right to point that finger at him then.

 

I was not trying to put words in your mouth, but if there are two sides to every statement and if one side is true, then the opposite must be true as well.

Not necessarily. It depends on the circumstances.... like the duration of absence. If it is a matter of a couple of months I would tend to agree, but should the absence extend to several months, a year or more, then I would disagree.

I have found the parity in the workforce is better than some would interpret the statistics to represent. This myth about a "War On Women" is no more a war than the "war" being waged on women by the democrats. Only the democrats have the innate assumption that women are weak, ignorant, unable to represent or stand up for themselves and their self interests. Where is the wage parity in the current administration or in the staff of ALL democrat politicians? You can't blame it on just the "male domination" since the same is true with female democrat leaders and their staff wages.

 

Who are you to judge? Is this an example of that "male domination" you spoke out against?

Only liberals and democrats would consider the gift of child bearing as a burden. Should we call this the Liberal/Democrat War On Unborn Children?

She put herself in such jeopardy, no?

Again, you are speaking out both sides of your mouth at the same time. If this is a male dominated society as you insist, then how is it that the man has no say in this matter since, last I heard, the woman needed that man to get pregnant in his society?

 

No that is Socialism/fascism because it forces individuals to pay the cost of government mandated health insurance and mandated benefits(oops Obama care does this)and you get benefits regulated by the Federal Government(oops again, ACA does this) the only thing ACA doesn't include that would make it socialized medicine is that Physicians aren't forced to work for the Government and the Government doesn't own Hospitals, Clinics and Nursing Homes and individuals can still opt out of buying insurance through the ACA and pay a small penalty(oops not a penalty even though Obama and Dems assured it wasn't a tax but a penalty) so now determined to be a tax as re-written by the Supreme Court.)

And another reason it is socialism/fascism is it redistributes once again earnings from those above the poverty level as defined under ACA/IRS giving to those below poverty level, but not all of them, just the ones, within there definition, if earn an amount "way below" the poverty level defined you don't qualify for assistance, only a substandard welfare plan, Medicaid, if you qualify under your States guidelines.. And if you have young adults between the ages of 20 and 26 you can keep them on your policies when they don't earn enough to pay their own premiums only told to apply for Medicaid, that they likely will not qualify for if they live at home or are full-time students working part-time to pay college costs. No , I believe the ACA is much closer to Socialized medicine the more we begin to understand it, it is far from being capitalism, democratic republic concept. It was passed by ignoring major objections from 50%+ of the public and by ignoring those who objected to it and passing it by questionable measures, shutting out Republicans; over half the American public regardless of party affiliation want it either repealed or amended to correct the many problems that have resulted in cancellation of good policies, increased premiums and deductibles and loss of doctors that have treated many of us for possibly the majority of our adult lives, physicians we have grown accustom to and faith in and who know our medical history.

 

Seems all your problems will be answered with 100% National health care. Capitalists have such hard time when they try to create health care and then try to defend it. lol