Is There a "War On Women" in the U.S.A.?

[Odins Scandinavia]

Is there a "War On Women" in the U.S.A.?

Is it really a war on women when subsidies from a going-broke government are considered for reduction or elimination? (My health insurance doesn't cover viagra, so are they attacking my wife through me?)

Is it really a war on women when, because of national economic policies, after the initial loss of traditionally male jobs, that the market would eventualy lose of female jobs?

Don't you just want to laugh at political spin? http://gawker.com/5901621/the-gop-flips-the-war-on-women-script-and-stephen-colbert-is-loving-it

I think the War on Women is about as real as the World of Warcraft.

No. There is, however, a war for women on NSG.

dude. that is.. you for president. you for FUCKING PRESIDENT!


anyway, women make just as much as men do in identical jobs. they just work less, and in less high paying fields. so when you look at the TOTAL money made by women and the TOTAL money made by men, the 70% idea is true. when you compare identical jobs, it is not.

unmarried, childless 'womyn' (whatever the hell is the point of this, by the way?) actually make more than men

a sause

Men are far more likely to choose careers that are more dangerous, so they naturally pay more. Top 10 most dangerous jobs (from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics): Fishers, loggers, aircraft pilots, farmers and ranchers, roofers, iron and steel workers, refuse and recyclable material collectors, industrial machinery installation and repair, truck drivers, construction laborers. They're all male-dominated jobs.
Men are far more likely to work in higher-paying fields and occupations (by choice). According to the White House report, "In 2009, only 7 percent of female professionals were employed in the relatively high paying computer and engineering fields, compared with 38 percent of male professionals." Professional women, on the other hand, are far more prevalent "in the relatively low-paying education and health care occupations."
Men are far more likely to take work in uncomfortable, isolated, and undesirable locations that pay more.
Men work longer hours than women do. The average fulltime working man works 6 hours per week or 15 percent longer than the average fulltime working woman.
Men are more likely to take jobs that require work on weekends and evenings and therefore pay more.
Even within the same career category, men are more likely to pursue high-stress and higher-paid areas of specialization. For example, within the medical profession, men gravitate to relatively high-stress and high-paying areas of specialization, like surgery, while women are more likely to pursue relatively lower-paid areas of specialization like pediatrician or dentist.
Despite all of the above, unmarried women who've never had a child actually earn more than unmarried men, according to Nemko and data compiled from the Census Bureau.
Women business owners make less than half of what male business owners make, which, since they have no boss, means it's independent of discrimination. The reason for the disparity, according to a Rochester Institute of Technology study, is that money is the primary motivator for 76% of men versus only 29% of women. Women place a higher premium on shorter work weeks, proximity to home, fulfillment, autonomy, and safety, according to Nemko.

It's hard to argue with Nemko's position which, simply put, is this: When women make the same career choices as men, they earn the same amount as men. As far as I'm concerned, this is one myth that has been officially and completely busted. Maybe you should celebrate International Women's Day 2011 by empowering women with the truth instead of treating them like victims ... which they're not.

from the department of fucking labor

"This study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers."

[Running Dog Capitalists]

We do all the time. It is just hard to get past the prejudice that you and your Democrat brothers and sisters show at the first sign of any Conservative or Libertarian policy stance. Talk of tax cuts instantly turns into 'You hate poor people." and talk of people taking responsibility for their lifestyles turns into 'You hate <add group here>!' Hard to believe that you don't get the full story.

when the republican party officially supports gay rights you will have a point. until then anti-gay is the republican position.

No. Traditional family and traditional marriage is their position. As Mitt Romney has stated: "Gov. Romney believes a family with one mother and one father is the ideal setting to raise a child. That doesn't mean adoption by other parents — whether they be single or same-sex — should be outlawed. States have to make decisions that are in the best interests of children, and where possible that should be in a home with one mother and one father."

See? A defense of marriage combined with a defense of state rights and also with a recognition of the child's best interests. Wow. It's almost like a complex issue or something like that.

You should also consider that in almost every state that has had a vote on gay marriage the amount it lose by is overwhelming. You have a fair number of Democrats voting against it as well. It would almost be that I actually understand that the Democrat party is not monolithic in pursuing a pro-gay agenda. Many Democrats do not toe that party line on that issue.

[Laerod]

There are those in America serious about reducing sex strictly to reproduction - hence their opposition to abortion, birth control and so on. I don't know if this constitutes a "war on women" so much as women's rights and freedoms being collateral damage in this effort. Whether this movement can be taken at face value when they affirm the "sanctity of life" or some such platitude as their true motive is debatable. I think movements to restrict abortion, contraception and birth control court disaster. But to say they're a "war on women" is a stretch. Not out of the question - again, I think the true motives of pro lifers are questionalbe - but a stretch never the less.

It's easy to tell. There's limited outcry against condoms (though there is disaproval) and virtually none against viagra (though if anything this really encourages having a promiscuous lifestyle far more than taking the pill). Coupled with bitching about how "traditional families" are under attack, the movement seeks to undo the sexual liberation that females enjoy due to the pill and not being expected to be gentle housewives.

[Odins Scandinavia]

We do all the time. It is just hard to get past the prejudice that you and your Democrat brothers and sisters show at the first sign of any Conservative or Libertarian policy stance. Talk of tax cuts instantly turns into 'You hate poor people." and talk of people taking responsibility for their lifestyles turns into 'You hate <add group here>!' Hard to believe that you don't get the full story.

when the republican party officially supports gay rights you will have a point. until then anti-gay is the republican position.

they have the right to be gay. what the fuck else do you/they need?

[Laerod]

when the republican party officially supports gay rights you will have a point. until then anti-gay is the republican position.

they have the right to be gay. what the fuck else do you/they need?

For you to be on topic?

[Odins Scandinavia]

they have the right to be gay. what the fuck else do you/they need?

For you to be on topic?

i responded to that post. maybe you should complain to that poster. or read about how i (or rather, the department of labor) disproved the 'gender gap' a few posts above.

[The Congregationists]

It's easy to tell. There's limited outcry against condoms (though there is disaproval) and virtually none against viagra (though if anything this really encourages having a promiscuous lifestyle far more than taking the pill). Coupled with bitching about how "traditional families" are under attack, the movement seeks to undo the sexual liberation that females enjoy due to the pill and not being expected to be gentle housewives.

They'd have no reason to disapprove of viagra if their agenda was reduction of sexuality to reproduction. Indeed every reason to encourage its use when needed.

I have no doubt that this movement would trample the rights of women if given the chance. Thing is though, are they doing this for its own sake, or as part of a broader drive to reduce human sexuality to its base function of reproduction? Not that they'd be any less wrong, mind you.

[Ende]

Not really.

I mean, yeah, the far right wingnuts are doing shit, but they're a rare minority that just becomes increasingly wingnut and will soon die out. And there's no such thing as the gender gap. It was disproved up earlier on the page.

Frankly, anyone who believes that there's a "War On Women" that will actually be successful isn't very intelligent. I mean, yes, there are measures "against" women, but they're likely to fail.

[Northern Dominus]

Let's see, multiple "personhood" anti-abortion bills up for vote or being drafted in multiple states, mandatory Trans-vaginal ultrasounds in Pennsylvania before abortions are performed, Susan G Komen attempting to bully Planned Parenthood by cutting off funding for breast screening for low-income women (and I am proud to say I helped negate by donating, go kick rocks Karen Handel) , GOP House bills at the federal and state level that are attempting to redefine rape, plus a bajillion other state bills that take all of the above and crank it to 11...

Hell yes there is a war on women's health and well-being being waged today. Only the blatantly ignorant and woefully foolish declare otherwise. By using the excuses of "radical feminism" and "family values", the ultra-right and their propaganda machines have gone from a war against those who throw a monkey wrench into their narrow view of an "ideal" American and instead have mobilized against the progress women have made over the last half century en masse.

[The Anti-Cosmic Gods]

Anyone paying attention can see that there is, in fact, a war on women. And its nothing new. Its been going on for decades. Generations even. The GOP is currently the standard bearer of the misogynists but they haven't always been and wont always be.

To deny this is to deny reality. Or demonstrate that you are either a misogynist or a Republican stooge.

[Laerod]

For you to be on topic?

i responded to that post. maybe you should complain to that poster. or read about how i (or rather, the department of labor) disproved the 'gender gap' a few posts above.

The gender pay gap thing? Slight problems there. For someone bitching about misleading use of figures, Mr. Tobak (ha! AHAHAHA!... sorry, you're not German enough to understand why that's funny) is misleading with his use of figures (particularly the one comparing unmarried childless women to unmarried men). The other problem with it is that he ignores relevant concerns, such as that women may not have access to the same kinds of jobs men do. He might have a point if women not working the dangerous jobs that earn extra cash was entirely a thing of them not choosing it. But that's not the case so he really doesn't. See, women have been graduating from law firms in equal numbers to men, but somehow they only manage to make up 16-19% of law firm partners. A female lawyer makes about 74% of what a male lawyer makes. (SAUCY!)

[Samuraikoku]

In some of the US, yes. And it's pretty horrible.

This, I believe.

[Laerod]

Not really.

I mean, yeah, the far right wingnuts are doing shit, but they're a rare minority that just becomes increasingly wingnut and will soon die out. And there's no such thing as the gender gap. It was disproved up earlier on the page.

It was not.

Frankly, anyone who believes that there's a "War On Women" that will actually be successful isn't very intelligent. I mean, yes, there are measures "against" women, but they're likely to fail.

They're doing damn well so far. Why would you think they'd fail?

[The Anti-Cosmic Gods]

Not really.

I mean, yeah, the far right wingnuts are doing shit, but they're a rare minority that just becomes increasingly wingnut and will soon die out. And there's no such thing as the gender gap. It was disproved up earlier on the page.

It was not.

Frankly, anyone who believes that there's a "War On Women" that will actually be successful isn't very intelligent. I mean, yes, there are measures "against" women, but they're likely to fail.

They're doing damn well so far. Why would you think they'd fail?

Because if he acknowledge that it may succeed he may have to do something about it. And that doesn't jive with the whole "apathetic" vibe thats so in vogue these days.

[Rubrum Natio]

Personally, I don't think so. Women are actually starting to make more money than the man in the United States. However, sexism will always exist just as racism will exist. As we notice genetics. It's practically in our nature. Another thing is it is not a war.

War: A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.

I just disagree with the term they are using so I decided to put it here just in case. They are overusing the word war. War should be something that touches the heart when you think of it. You should think of disaster, and bravery. Not conflict. That, would be more of a conflict or debate.

Just sayin.

Edit: It's close, but unless they start harming each other. It's not a war.

But yes, I believe we are bringing back dumb issues that were debated before and trying to change on them would not be in the United States favor. Women deserve rights, people of different race deserve rights, and changing it would be PATHETIC and it would probably urge me to leave the United States.

[Laerod]

Personally, I don't think so. Women are actually starting to make more money than the man in the United States. However, sexism will always exist just as racism will exist. As we notice genetics. It's practically in our nature. Another thing is it is not a war.

War: A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.

I just disagree with the term they are using so I decided to put it here just in case. They are overusing the word war. War should be something that touches the heart when you think of it. You should think of disaster, and bravery. Not conflict. That, would be more of a conflict or debate.

Just sayin.

Edit: It's close, but unless they start harming each other. It's not a war.

That's bullshit semantics and easily disproven:

war
noun
4. active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.

[Northern Dominus]

Anyone paying attention can see that there is, in fact, a war on women. And its nothing new. Its been going on for decades. Generations even. The GOP is currently the standard bearer of the misogynists but they haven't always been and wont always be.

To deny this is to deny reality. Or demonstrate that you are either a misogynist or a Republican stooge.

Politicians are one thing. There will always be a wingnut faction of repressives somewhere in politics and it's the job of the rest of us to shout them out of office.

The one that pissed me off royally was the Susan G Komen debacle. This is a supposedly charitable organization dedicated to breast cancer research and prevention, and instead of solidarity Karen Handel decides to be the good little neo-con call girl and cut off funding to Planed Parenthood on a whim, money that was being used to screen for breast cancer in the first place. How was it justified? With the same convoluted logic that governors have used to bully and, for lack of a better term, rape Planned Parenthood of their funds.

You would think with the scrutiny that Susan G Komen comes under for their use of donations and their blanket suing of charitable efforts working towards their same stated goals that use symbols or terminology remotely similar to their own that perhaps such a maneuver would be ill-advised.

[Sensitive New Age Guys]

Wow, that is a terrible poll result. I can only hope it improves as people come home from work.

Seems fine to me. Considering how much politics is hype and soundbite.

[Ende]

It was not.

They're doing damn well so far. Why would you think they'd fail?

Because if he acknowledge that it may succeed he may have to do something about it. And that doesn't jive with the whole "apathetic" vibe thats so in vogue these days.

Apathy is much more interesting than actual involvement. Duh. And I just don't really care that much. It doesn't effect me.

[The Black Forrest]

There are those in America serious about reducing sex strictly to reproduction - hence their opposition to abortion, birth control and so on. I don't know if this constitutes a "war on women" so much as women's rights and freedoms being collateral damage in this effort. Whether this movement can be taken at face value when they affirm the "sanctity of life" or some such platitude as their true motive is debatable. I think movements to restrict abortion, contraception and birth control court disaster. But to say they're a "war on women" is a stretch. Not out of the question - again, I think the true motives of pro lifers are questionalbe - but a stretch never the less.

It's easy to tell. There's limited outcry against condoms (though there is disaproval) and virtually none against viagra (though if anything this really encourages having a promiscuous lifestyle far more than taking the pill). Coupled with bitching about how "traditional families" are under attack, the movement seeks to undo the sexual liberation that females enjoy due to the pill and not being expected to be gentle housewives.

Indeed.

[The Anti-Cosmic Gods]

Because if he acknowledge that it may succeed he may have to do something about it. And that doesn't jive with the whole "apathetic" vibe thats so in vogue these days.

Apathy is much more interesting than actual involvement.

At least you admit that your belief that women wont lose their right to bodily autonomy is based on nothing but you not wanting to care. It makes you easier to dismiss.

[Ende]

Apathy is much more interesting than actual involvement.

At least you admit that your belief that women wont lose their right to bodily autonomy is based on nothing but you not wanting to care. It makes you easier to dismiss.

Well, yes. I'm not effected by this at all. It's not my problem. There are people that this effects, and it's their deal, so they can fix it if they care about it and it effects them. People like you.

See what I mean?

Apathy saves time.

[Rubrum Natio]

Personally, I don't think so. Women are actually starting to make more money than the man in the United States. However, sexism will always exist just as racism will exist. As we notice genetics. It's practically in our nature. Another thing is it is not a war.

War: A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.

I just disagree with the term they are using so I decided to put it here just in case. They are overusing the word war. War should be something that touches the heart when you think of it. You should think of disaster, and bravery. Not conflict. That, would be more of a conflict or debate.

Just sayin.

Edit: It's close, but unless they start harming each other. It's not a war.

That's bullshit semantics and easily disproven:

war
noun
4. active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.

But how are they being hostile? At least as Congress in general? Congress has many representatives. All have different opinions. Obviouslysome people are going to try to get what they want. It's called being an alpha male. But that was besides the point. Whether you call it a war or not, quite frankly I don't care. I just personally think it kinda defames the true meaning of war.

[Laerod]

Because if he acknowledge that it may succeed he may have to do something about it. And that doesn't jive with the whole "apathetic" vibe thats so in vogue these days.

Apathy is much more interesting than actual involvement. Duh. And I just don't really care that much. It doesn't effect me.

The typical response of someone living in the privileged class that need not fear getting their rights trampled.

[The Anti-Cosmic Gods]

At least you admit that your belief that women wont lose their right to bodily autonomy is based on nothing but you not wanting to care. It makes you easier to dismiss.

Well, yes. I'm not effected by this at all. It's not my problem. There are people that this effects, and it's their deal, so they can fix it if they care about it and it effects them. People like you.

See what I mean?

Apathy saves time.

This view reveals the sheltered, privileged life you have led and ensures that as far as I'm concerned you have nothing to contribute to any discussion. It also demonstrated that you are, at least on some level, cool with misogyny.