Utah Republican says equal pay for woman is bad

[Ashmoria]

1. What's NSG?
2. My reaction - :I wish there was a raised eyebrow emoji on the NS forum:
3. Bleh ... just bleh! - are you saying that males are superior? Wow, you really gotta problem there, Green

NSG= Nation States General

This is clearly taken out of context. The man probably never said that women should earn less than men, instead addressing the fact that this wage gap doesn't exist.

"Green said in his letter, published Wednesday by the Park Record and the Wasatch Wave, that men make more than women because they’re “the primary breadwinners” of their families, and paying women equally would somehow ruin the makeup of a traditional family where “the Mother” remains at home raising children."


Nope, it was in context.

well really if you have a house full of children it is hard for the wife to make enough money to pay for child care let alone the other expenses of working. so....if she were paid WELL she might give up all that cooking, cleaning, teaching, transportation, etc and hire someone else to do it and thus save her sanity.

we cant have that now, can we?

[Blorbs]

This is clearly taken out of context. The man probably never said that women should earn less than men, instead addressing the fact that this wage gap doesn't exist. It's a proven fact that men are physically stronger, can handle more work, and are more reliable in getting the job done more than women. Sorry if that makes me a sexist, but it's too obvious. This wage gap bullshit needs to stop. Democrats are pushing this agenda that is misleading the public into thinking that women are still being oppressed. Now, some might argue the whole abortion thing, but that's a separate discussion.

What exists is an earnings gap, though that is less because of physical strength (Since jobs that require strength are usually low pay anyways), and more because in western culture jobs more appealing to women generally get less pay. Taking doctors for example, women doctors on average are payed less, but thats because pediatritians have lower wages (Kids can't really pay that much for medicine now can they), and women are much more likely to be pediatrician than men due to an affinity with children.

As technology progresses, money will increasingly be related to intellegence, and not strength, which is pretty much equal among genders. Because of that, any sort of earnings gap should exist only because culture makes women deviate to lower paying careers.

Now, if those cultural influnces disappeared and the gap still existed, then there would be a real problem, however I very much doubt that is the case.

[Lady Scylla]

What about single women?

Ideally, all women should be married by 21.

Let's not regress two centuries. Thanks.

[Neutraligon]

This is clearly taken out of context. The man probably never said that women should earn less than men, instead addressing the fact that this wage gap doesn't exist. It's a proven fact that men are physically stronger, can handle more work, and are more reliable in getting the job done more than women.

Source for the claimed. I would love to see how a having a penis makes a man better able to handle work as say, an engineer, and makes them more reliable at getting that job done.

[Neutraligon]

This is clearly taken out of context. The man probably never said that women should earn less than men, instead addressing the fact that this wage gap doesn't exist. It's a proven fact that men are physically stronger, can handle more work, and are more reliable in getting the job done more than women. Sorry if that makes me a sexist, but it's too obvious. This wage gap bullshit needs to stop. Democrats are pushing this agenda that is misleading the public into thinking that women are still being oppressed. Now, some might argue the whole abortion thing, but that's a separate discussion.

What exists is an earnings gap, though that is less because of physical strength (Since jobs that require strength are usually low pay anyways), and more because in western culture jobs more appealing to women generally get less pay. Taking doctors for example, women doctors on average are payed less, but thats because pediatritians have lower wages (Kids can't really pay that much for medicine now can they), and women are much more likely to be pediatrician than men due to an affinity with children.

As technology progresses, money will increasingly be related to intellegence, and not strength, which is pretty much equal among genders. Because of that, any sort of earnings gap should exist only because culture makes women deviate to lower paying careers.

Now, if those cultural influnces disappeared and the gap still existed, then there would be a real problem, however I very much doubt that is the case.

So the question is why are women more likely to take those jobs, if that is indeed the case.

[Lanoraie]

>Utah
Figures.

[The Altamont Islands]

>Utah
Figures.

Clearly you haven't been if you lump everyone in Utah to have these views. Visit SLC first then tell us.

[Pope Joan]

This is clearly taken out of context. The man probably never said that women should earn less than men, instead addressing the fact that this wage gap doesn't exist. It's a proven fact that men are physically stronger, can handle more work, and are more reliable in getting the job done more than women. Sorry if that makes me a sexist, but it's too obvious. This wage gap bullshit needs to stop. Democrats are pushing this agenda that is misleading the public into thinking that women are still being oppressed. Now, some might argue the whole abortion thing, but that's a separate discussion.

What exists is an earnings gap, though that is less because of physical strength (Since jobs that require strength are usually low pay anyways), and more because in western culture jobs more appealing to women generally get less pay. Taking doctors for example, women doctors on average are payed less, but thats because pediatritians have lower wages (Kids can't really pay that much for medicine now can they), and women are much more likely to be pediatrician than men due to an affinity with children.

As technology progresses, money will increasingly be related to intellegence, and not strength, which is pretty much equal among genders. Because of that, any sort of earnings gap should exist only because culture makes women deviate to lower paying careers.

Now, if those cultural influnces disappeared and the gap still existed, then there would be a real problem, however I very much doubt that is the case.

In the early nineteenth century, men were secretaries and the position carried respect and good pay. Later in the century, women began working as secretaries and lo an behold, wages plummeted. Early on in our Republic most teachers were men and they received adequate if not wonderful remuneration. When women started working as teachers, the pay rate dropped. It is an observable phenomenon. This demonstrates that the low pay is not related to the nature of the work, but simply to the fact that the workers are women.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upsh ... .html?_r=0

[Hashirajima]

What exists is an earnings gap, though that is less because of physical strength (Since jobs that require strength are usually low pay anyways), and more because in western culture jobs more appealing to women generally get less pay. Taking doctors for example, women doctors on average are payed less, but thats because pediatritians have lower wages (Kids can't really pay that much for medicine now can they), and women are much more likely to be pediatrician than men due to an affinity with children.

As technology progresses, money will increasingly be related to intellegence, and not strength, which is pretty much equal among genders. Because of that, any sort of earnings gap should exist only because culture makes women deviate to lower paying careers.

Now, if those cultural influnces disappeared and the gap still existed, then there would be a real problem, however I very much doubt that is the case.

In the early nineteenth century, men were secretaries and the position carried respect and good pay. Later in the century, women began working as secretaries and lo an behold, wages plummeted. Early on in our Republic most teachers were men and they received adequate if not wonderful remuneration. When women started working as teachers, the pay rate dropped. It is an observable phenomenon. This demonstrates that the low pay is not related to the nature of the work, but simply to the fact that the workers are women.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upsh ... .html?_r=0

Though is it due to simple economics i.e. increased labour supply -> decreased labour price (wages), or gender bias?

[Luminesa]

What if they become nuns? What if a girl is not called, by her vocation, to marriage? What if she is asexual and decides to offer her virginity as a gift to God? What if a girl gets married at 30? What if she gets married at 60? Nothing in the Catechism says that a woman must be married when she turns 21. Shoot, if that's the case, I am in deep trouble. I don't even have a boyfriend!

if she marries later (and some women have to be available to men who marry later, are widowed, or make a terrible first choice and have to try again) then its OK as long as she marries a man who makes more money than she does.

....

one of my college roommates had a doctor who told her that a woman ought not be a virgin after age 20.

she had just turned 20 and he asked her out.

We'll shoot. I'm 20 and I'm a virgin. Fite me mate.

[Luminesa]

What if they become nuns? What if a girl is not called, by her vocation, to marriage? What if she is asexual and decides to offer her virginity as a gift to God? What if a girl gets married at 30? What if she gets married at 60? Nothing in the Catechism says that a woman must be married when she turns 21. Shoot, if that's the case, I am in deep trouble. I don't even have a boyfriend!

I'm 25 and looking.

YOU CAN DO IT!!! ^w^

*Pom poms.*

[Hashirajima]

if she marries later (and some women have to be available to men who marry later, are widowed, or make a terrible first choice and have to try again) then its OK as long as she marries a man who makes more money than she does.

....

one of my college roommates had a doctor who told her that a woman ought not be a virgin after age 20.

she had just turned 20 and he asked her out.

We'll shoot. I'm 20 and I'm a virgin. Fite me mate.

Well... I'm 24. You have my sword IV pole.

[Katganistan]

What about single women?

Ideally, all women should be married by 21.

Ideally, all traditionalists should timetravel back to 1800 and stay there.

[Ashmoria]

if she marries later (and some women have to be available to men who marry later, are widowed, or make a terrible first choice and have to try again) then its OK as long as she marries a man who makes more money than she does.

....

one of my college roommates had a doctor who told her that a woman ought not be a virgin after age 20.

she had just turned 20 and he asked her out.

We'll shoot. I'm 20 and I'm a virgin. Fite me mate.

youre risking your SANITY, lumi. you better get looking for a husband or youre DOOMED, DOOMED i say!

[Des-Bal]

Traditionalist bull. When the old way of doing things is the right way of doing things you generally don't have to convince anyone. We rarely do new and difficult things just because.

[Gyrenaica]

What do you think NSG?

Utah + Republican = not exactly surprised.

What I was going to say

[The Altamont Islands]

Utah + Republican = not exactly surprised.

What I was going to say

Not quite. More like SLC = Rockefeller Republicans and Democrats, Utah (north of Bountiful/Layton/Ogden, south of Lehi/Provo/Orem) = crazy ass Republicans. The former are much more tolerable (Gary Herbert for example).

[Equestria and Griffon]

Utah being Utah.

[Big Jim P]

NSG= Nation States General




"Green said in his letter, published Wednesday by the Park Record and the Wasatch Wave, that men make more than women because they’re “the primary breadwinners” of their families, and paying women equally would somehow ruin the makeup of a traditional family where “the Mother” remains at home raising children."


Nope, it was in context.

well really if you have a house full of children it is hard for the wife to make enough money to pay for child care let alone the other expenses of working. so....if she were paid WELL she might give up all that cooking, cleaning, teaching, transportation, etc and hire someone else to do it and thus save her sanity.

we cant have that now, can we?

When did they start issuing women sanity?

[Jello Biafra]

In the early nineteenth century, men were secretaries and the position carried respect and good pay. Later in the century, women began working as secretaries and lo an behold, wages plummeted. Early on in our Republic most teachers were men and they received adequate if not wonderful remuneration. When women started working as teachers, the pay rate dropped. It is an observable phenomenon. This demonstrates that the low pay is not related to the nature of the work, but simply to the fact that the workers are women.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upsh ... .html?_r=0

This study (or perhaps more accurately, pair of studies conducted by the same person) also boosts the idea that people value the work of women less, simply because it's women performing it.

[Genivaria]

What exists is an earnings gap, though that is less because of physical strength (Since jobs that require strength are usually low pay anyways), and more because in western culture jobs more appealing to women generally get less pay. Taking doctors for example, women doctors on average are payed less, but thats because pediatritians have lower wages (Kids can't really pay that much for medicine now can they), and women are much more likely to be pediatrician than men due to an affinity with children.

As technology progresses, money will increasingly be related to intellegence, and not strength, which is pretty much equal among genders. Because of that, any sort of earnings gap should exist only because culture makes women deviate to lower paying careers.

Now, if those cultural influnces disappeared and the gap still existed, then there would be a real problem, however I very much doubt that is the case.

In the early nineteenth century, men were secretaries and the position carried respect and good pay. Later in the century, women began working as secretaries and lo an behold, wages plummeted. Early on in our Republic most teachers were men and they received adequate if not wonderful remuneration. When women started working as teachers, the pay rate dropped. It is an observable phenomenon. This demonstrates that the low pay is not related to the nature of the work, but simply to the fact that the workers are women.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upsh ... .html?_r=0

K I'm gonna hold onto that post.

[Bheothachadh]

Ideally, all women should be married by 21.

Ideally, all traditionalists should timetravel back to 1800 and stay there.

I wish everyone with dissenting political views would go away too.

In the early nineteenth century, men were secretaries and the position carried respect and good pay. Later in the century, women began working as secretaries and lo an behold, wages plummeted. Early on in our Republic most teachers were men and they received adequate if not wonderful remuneration. When women started working as teachers, the pay rate dropped. It is an observable phenomenon. This demonstrates that the low pay is not related to the nature of the work, but simply to the fact that the workers are women.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upsh ... .html?_r=0

What's wrong with that?

[Ashmoria]

Ideally, all traditionalists should timetravel back to 1800 and stay there.

I wish everyone with dissenting political views would go away too.

In the early nineteenth century, men were secretaries and the position carried respect and good pay. Later in the century, women began working as secretaries and lo an behold, wages plummeted. Early on in our Republic most teachers were men and they received adequate if not wonderful remuneration. When women started working as teachers, the pay rate dropped. It is an observable phenomenon. This demonstrates that the low pay is not related to the nature of the work, but simply to the fact that the workers are women.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upsh ... .html?_r=0

What's wrong with that?

surely if you think about it you already know the answer to that question. you don't have to AGREE with the answer but you do know the answer.

[Cymrea]

What's wrong with that?

What's wrong with paying women less simply because their women? Is that your question?

[Great Minarchistan]

What's wrong with that?

What's wrong with paying women less simply because their women? Is that your question?

You also need to take into account that women have maternity leave and overall productivity is lower than their male counterparts. Women also tend to work less than men since they are used to take care of their children more often than their husband. So yea, taking some factors into consideration we can assume the wage gap is partially justified, if not fully.