patriarchy is to stoopid as feminist is to... cats? wtf.
I didn't post about my Inauguration Ball because I've been having a Hopegasm ever since the big O took office (come on! how can I NOT make that joke?!). Rest assured, I had a great time. JT was in town with his fella Chris, and a fellow Southern expatriate was throwing a party that involved fire acts, a person in a weather balloon, body paint (mixed feelings on that), and other feats of freakdom. Of course we went.
One of the most amusing points in the night was when Joe Biden's image appeared on the tv and someone yelled, "Biden!" This, of course, prompted more "BIDEN!" cheers. Biden as a rally cry. What planet am I on, again? One I love. Oh, and one where Aretha Franklin's hat has its own gravitational pull (*ba dum bum*).
The flirtation highlight of the night (people! want to avoid conservative WASPy types? go to a Dem event. god why didn't I think of that before now?) has been summed up for your reading pleasure a la Craigslist. Yes, I really posted this on Thursday.
Title: Peter, we should be celebrating the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - w4m - 29 (Midtown East)
I must say, I've never shared a unisex bathroom with a man *quite* as adamant about equal pay for equal work as you. You're a gentleman and a feminist, sir.
Inauguration night wasn't enough. Tell me where we met and let me know if we can continue this conversation. I'm thinking hot chocolate and C-Span.
-Kate
Sadly, my sweet, equality talking baboo has yet to respond. The person who DID respond (and I effin' hate that Craigslist peanut gallery shit) wrote --
"Unfortunately most superliberal guys are overcompensating for something ;)"
Oh it's ON! I responded:
"Ah. The ol' "guys who think differently than the dominant paradigm have small penises" routine. Charming.
What do you stand to lose from people being paid equally for their work? How is agreeing with that "liberal" and not simply "fair"? Perhaps those threatened by such ideas are the ones who are compensating for something."
To which he replied:
"First of all, I was just being a smartass...don't take it personally.
As far as the Ledbetter Act, I don't know all the specifics. Of course women should get paid as much as men for the same work, but that's already the law. As a matter of fact, in NYC, young women are making more than young men on average. It seems like the bill will probably just cause more frivolous lawsuits, or even make businesses afraid to hire more women, ironically.
I don't think there'a anyone who will admit to being for women getting paid less than men for the same exact work. What offends me is that this "77 cents per dollar" which keeps getting cited is very misleading; it doesn't take into account that men and women concentrate in different jobs and that women take off more time to be with family. No doubt the feminist groups know this, so it seems what they are after is government-sanctioned equal pay for "lesser" work."
Kate's smirking rage said:
"Even better! Excuse pay discrimination on the biological fact that women bear children, therefore MIGHT have one and miss work. Fathers, meanwhile, don't *carry* the baby, much less help raise said baby. In fact, because their mommy is at home with baby, they NEED to be at work, making more money than women.
And to clarify, those statistics take into large account the difference in pay within the same field. However, it's no secret that "women dominated fields" like teaching and nursing are lower paying than lesser-skilled, lesser-educated, male-dominated fields like construction and driving.
You should educate yourself on the details of the Ledbetter case. This was a statute of limitations issue. The bill signed yesterday enables those discriminated against (not just women, though I'd love to hear your justification for discriminating against racial minorities) to file within 180 days of the LAST act of discrimination rather than the first.
I truly hope you find someone who enjoys your knuckle dragging and will make your cave a cozy place."
The tool then said,
"Apparently you didn't understand what I was saying. I never said women should be discriminated against. No one does. But more frivolous lawsuits and all sorts of extra tangential damages (a result of these bills) doesn't really help. Again, it is ILLEGAL to pay someone less just because she is a woman. Already.
"And to clarify, those statistics take into large account the difference in pay within the same field. "
No they don't. They just say that women make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. The media repeats this ridiculous stat over and over, but it does not take into account different jobs and experience levels. My point about taking time off for family is not that women "have" to do this, it is that they usually "want" to more than men. Therefore, women might work part-time or miss some years, lowering their ultimate salary.
From what you say about Ledbetter, it sounds pretty accurate. I'm not even sure how I feel about it - the statute of limitations change sounds ok but I think there's more to the bill.
Perhaps you'll learn to argue without personal attacks. Maybe you can practice on your cats?"
Oh yay. Haven't heard the "feminists are ugly, angry, lonely, crazy cat people" stereotype in a while. Vintage! At this point I open the debate to the floor (*ahem* Jules? MLE?). I feel further response to such profoundly aggressive stupidity is beneath me, but I can probably be coerced into flaming this guy, should my strident and snarky friend--whom I hold so dear--feed me some choice lines.
One of the most amusing points in the night was when Joe Biden's image appeared on the tv and someone yelled, "Biden!" This, of course, prompted more "BIDEN!" cheers. Biden as a rally cry. What planet am I on, again? One I love. Oh, and one where Aretha Franklin's hat has its own gravitational pull (*ba dum bum*).
The flirtation highlight of the night (people! want to avoid conservative WASPy types? go to a Dem event. god why didn't I think of that before now?) has been summed up for your reading pleasure a la Craigslist. Yes, I really posted this on Thursday.
Title: Peter, we should be celebrating the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - w4m - 29 (Midtown East)
I must say, I've never shared a unisex bathroom with a man *quite* as adamant about equal pay for equal work as you. You're a gentleman and a feminist, sir.
Inauguration night wasn't enough. Tell me where we met and let me know if we can continue this conversation. I'm thinking hot chocolate and C-Span.
-Kate
Sadly, my sweet, equality talking baboo has yet to respond. The person who DID respond (and I effin' hate that Craigslist peanut gallery shit) wrote --
"Unfortunately most superliberal guys are overcompensating for something ;)"
Oh it's ON! I responded:
"Ah. The ol' "guys who think differently than the dominant paradigm have small penises" routine. Charming.
What do you stand to lose from people being paid equally for their work? How is agreeing with that "liberal" and not simply "fair"? Perhaps those threatened by such ideas are the ones who are compensating for something."
To which he replied:
"First of all, I was just being a smartass...don't take it personally.
As far as the Ledbetter Act, I don't know all the specifics. Of course women should get paid as much as men for the same work, but that's already the law. As a matter of fact, in NYC, young women are making more than young men on average. It seems like the bill will probably just cause more frivolous lawsuits, or even make businesses afraid to hire more women, ironically.
I don't think there'a anyone who will admit to being for women getting paid less than men for the same exact work. What offends me is that this "77 cents per dollar" which keeps getting cited is very misleading; it doesn't take into account that men and women concentrate in different jobs and that women take off more time to be with family. No doubt the feminist groups know this, so it seems what they are after is government-sanctioned equal pay for "lesser" work."
Kate's smirking rage said:
"Even better! Excuse pay discrimination on the biological fact that women bear children, therefore MIGHT have one and miss work. Fathers, meanwhile, don't *carry* the baby, much less help raise said baby. In fact, because their mommy is at home with baby, they NEED to be at work, making more money than women.
And to clarify, those statistics take into large account the difference in pay within the same field. However, it's no secret that "women dominated fields" like teaching and nursing are lower paying than lesser-skilled, lesser-educated, male-dominated fields like construction and driving.
You should educate yourself on the details of the Ledbetter case. This was a statute of limitations issue. The bill signed yesterday enables those discriminated against (not just women, though I'd love to hear your justification for discriminating against racial minorities) to file within 180 days of the LAST act of discrimination rather than the first.
I truly hope you find someone who enjoys your knuckle dragging and will make your cave a cozy place."
The tool then said,
"Apparently you didn't understand what I was saying. I never said women should be discriminated against. No one does. But more frivolous lawsuits and all sorts of extra tangential damages (a result of these bills) doesn't really help. Again, it is ILLEGAL to pay someone less just because she is a woman. Already.
"And to clarify, those statistics take into large account the difference in pay within the same field. "
No they don't. They just say that women make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. The media repeats this ridiculous stat over and over, but it does not take into account different jobs and experience levels. My point about taking time off for family is not that women "have" to do this, it is that they usually "want" to more than men. Therefore, women might work part-time or miss some years, lowering their ultimate salary.
From what you say about Ledbetter, it sounds pretty accurate. I'm not even sure how I feel about it - the statute of limitations change sounds ok but I think there's more to the bill.
Perhaps you'll learn to argue without personal attacks. Maybe you can practice on your cats?"
Oh yay. Haven't heard the "feminists are ugly, angry, lonely, crazy cat people" stereotype in a while. Vintage! At this point I open the debate to the floor (*ahem* Jules? MLE?). I feel further response to such profoundly aggressive stupidity is beneath me, but I can probably be coerced into flaming this guy, should my strident and snarky friend--whom I hold so dear--feed me some choice lines.