Woman to Woman

By norman

January 7, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this

Of course women expect to be paid the same as men. But those filled with Christian theological nonsense will find it easy to claim otherwise. They will refer to Mary and Martha of Bethany and their different ways of working in the presence of Jesus.

There is no nonsense which cannot be supported by Christian theological nonsense.

By moveon

January 7, 2005 04:38 PM | Link to this

Noman, Go back to your Kudzu League school and quit trying to pick fights when there was no reference to your argument in the piece.

By Akeya

January 7, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

If they are doing the exact same job they should receive the exact same pay. Simple….

By norman

January 7, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

moveon: you must be a clone of Zack.

By norman

January 10, 2005 07:05 AM | Link to this

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see the underlying theological foundation for everything Shaunti writes.

By john

January 10, 2005 07:14 AM | Link to this

To me it’s simple - women earn less because they will work for less. Demand more and get more.

By Gayle Wright

January 10, 2005 07:53 AM | Link to this

Good grief! What a dumb question! Wait a minute, maybe there are some women out there who want to remain at the bottom of the pay scale totem pole, but this woman is not one of them. If I do the same job as a man, and perform the duties just as well, absolutely I should earn as much.

By Randy

January 10, 2005 08:55 AM | Link to this

Gender should not matter, should be same pay for the same work produced! Case closed.

By Randy

January 10, 2005 08:56 AM | Link to this

How Norman interjects Christianity into this conversation is amazingly bigoted. He still remains “THE VILLAGE IDIOT”.

By Whiley

January 10, 2005 09:18 AM | Link to this

Women earn less because we have to take time off work to pick up sick kids, take them to Dr. appointments, dentist appointments, school registrations, teachers meetings, holiday’s, teachers work days. Have to leave work right at 5 or earlier to get to the store before you pick up the kids, get homework done & dinner started before 7pm. etc etc etc.

Even married working moms are usually the ones that are expected to deal with these issues. Less hours means less pay.

Do women really want to earn as much as men? What kind of rediculous question is that?

By Lyrazel

January 10, 2005 09:24 AM | Link to this

I remember being told at a place hiring me that the man I was working with who had the exact skills and also a recent hiree would be making more money because he had kids to support. (In the old days printing pre-press plants were a men dominated industry and women were hired for the front desk not in the shop or at presses.) Of course, I took the job. Employment and paychecks are why people work and good secure jobs are few. Within a year my ex-husband took a job at the shop and was paid equal to what the first man was paid—however we had no children to support. I said nothing and kept working—all the way through both men quitting abruptly leaving me at the shop to carry on business as usual. I learned my bosses arguments for paying men more were decided by the myth women dont stay at jobs, and women dont like to work overtime late nights which is standard practice in the print industry. My wage was not compensated to equal the same wage both men got—yet I remained believing reliablitiy would change their opinions. New hirees were both men and again they were making more than I was even with the overtime. I was moved to a new department where computers were replacing typesetting machines, and in soon I was at the helm during a change in print. Now computers do not just typesetting but layout, and final films and plate making equipment have replaced the jobs those men used to do. I remember trying to train some men—and they didnt want to learn, almost like they did not want to learn it from a girl. Years go by. I have a very comfortable business. Breaking into an all-male trade is a thrilling challenge one these new generations of women workers will never experience. The new generations like Shaunti & Diane belittle the efforts of women who came before with their flex time demands and their flights to nurture their children or to have meaningful relationships…etc. The blood on the work floor is mine and women like me who fought for equal rights to be paid for equal work but never got it. Now women are paid 74 cents to every dollar—and in Shaunti and Diane’s twisted world that is somehow choice—the gains my generation achieved mean little to their complacent opinions that it was work always equal and open. With all their trivialization in praise of flex-time they slight all the women who gave up so much to open these male dominated occupations. Wall Street was a tie-only club Shaunti and it took a lot of women to break it open. Your qualifications would have meant jack; even ivy league colleges had to be cracked open by women who would be paid less, even if they became executives. When will both writers ever show respect for women who work? The myths women are told by employers about why men make better employees are just that and to read puffy opinions that side with those defunct old boy networks is upsetting. Obviously both women dont need to rely on their incomes for a paycheck. Must be nice to be so comfortably numb.

By moveon

January 10, 2005 09:31 AM | Link to this

Women won’t get equal pay until they are required by law to sign up for the “Selective Service” on their 18th birthday. Sorry, but men who don’t are excluded from goverment employment and federal financial aide.

Consider the extra funds “reparations” for us being drafted.

By Whiley

January 10, 2005 09:42 AM | Link to this

Thank you Moveon for giving us another example of stupid excuses men will come up to justify the unfair wages women are paid.

By Michael D.

January 10, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this

If the Equal Rights Amendment becomes law, then females should have to register with the Selective Service System, but not until then.

By moveon

January 10, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this

Whiley,

What’s unfair about it? There’s 50,000+ names on a wall in D.C. who’d glady trade to be able to work for your “unfair” wages.

You can’t separate the two issues, and I’ve never met a woman who’d be willing to add the requirement to sign up with the Selective Service to this discussion.

By Whiley

January 10, 2005 10:17 AM | Link to this

Michael, Men start wars, so men will have to fight in wars.

I’m all for requiring women to sign up for the draft the day men have to suffer through monthly menstrual cycles because there isn’t a cure for it.

By Whiley

January 10, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this

OK Moveon, I’ll glady sign up for a draft the day men take all the responsiblity for paying the bill to keep all the male murderers & sex offenders in prison. I’m tierd of paying that bill by the way. Talk about UNFAIR.

Ok so, back to the real reasons women stuggle to make equal wages. Not do women really want to earn as much as men that’s pretty silly.

By E. Lewis

January 10, 2005 10:35 AM | Link to this

As a almost 40 year old woman with no children, I have been at the mercy of this type of discimination. On one hand, the assumption is made that because I am single, I can ‘hold the fort’ when something comes up with one of my married coworkers who are mostly men. The assumption is also made that I do not have a family to support so my financial priorities are not as important. I am paid less than my male supervisor even though I do the same level of work.

By Michael D

January 10, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this

Of course women do not want to earn as much as men. If they did then they would.

By Randy

January 10, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this

Women are great, I think they should make as much as men. Afterall they go to work, then many come home to children and have to do that job also. Maybe they should make more?

By RS

January 10, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this

Wha???? Why would anyone not WANT to earn what they’re worth??? I’m a woman & work full time, have made the choice NOT to have kids, EVER & I’ve made sure I get paid the same as my male co-workers. Case closed

By Tim

January 10, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this

The only thing I have say is that I hope next weeks question is as compelling as this one! :)

By w.one

January 10, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel, I feel your pain. I too started working in a male dominated field in the ’70s and was paid $200 a month less than a guy who started 3 months after me. I was given the same reason….he has a family, blah, blah, blah, but also a few spicier ones regarding women missing a couple of days of work every month (!) and women will leave to follow their husband.

You are also correct in that this generation of working women has no clue what it was like for those that came before them. They want EVERYTHING — money, promotions, prestige, flexibility, and they want the family too. The simple fact is: YOU CANNOT HAVE IT ALL. It is impossible to be the best parent AND be the best employee with unlimited opportunities in the professional world. You have to make a choice and decide what is most important for you individually and as a family. Many women have to make the hard choice of scaling back what they might want from a professional career standpoint, if it makes more sense for the husband to concentrate on his career. However, times are changing, and many couples are finding that the opposite is true…that the women have the better career opportunity and the man is sacrificing his career to make it possible for the woman to reach her goals.

The fact is, women are biologically different from men. They have the ability (and the joy) of bringing new life into the world. That is an element that will not change. Many women will feel the need to nurture the children they bring into the world, and will adjust their careers accordingly.

By Lyrazel

January 10, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

Why not require military service for all Americans regardless of sex or income—and service being a manditory thing? After all shouldnt every American want to help its country in its hour of need?

By vincent

January 10, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this

Most of the women I know do want to earn the same as men. And more. .74 cents to the dollar in equal jobs is not progress. During WWII, women earned an average of .83 to every earned dollar of a man in the same job. The idea that women are paid less due to maternity leave, or being sick alot, or leaving work to take care of children is hogwash. People who buy into that are fooling themselves into bigotry. Statistically, women are less absent from work than men (US Dept. Of Labor 2003), women live longer lives than men in the USA, and saying that a parent is due less wages because they may be expected to rush off to aid for a sick child is not only driving the myth that women are expected to do everything, but it is making some women think that is acceptable. Genitals ought not dictate salaries. The job description, duties, years of experience and performance ought to. Period.

By Randy

January 10, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this

Tim It would have to be as compelling, whatever they asked.

By Akeya

January 10, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

So basically women should earn less because they are more responsible parents than fathers?

By Whiley

January 10, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

Lets face facts, only till very recently women in THIS country were allowed to even vote. This planet is sexist & we are forced to live in it.
All women should get educated, start their own businesses, work for only women, or seek out companies that are clearly female fair.

Otherwise you have no choice but to put up with sexual harassment, double standards & less pay. Unfortunately most of us are used to doing just that.

By AllaboutME

January 10, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this

…guess if Shaunti and Diane were women without cozy backup support…they might understand one doesnt get to play June Cleaver housewife in 21st century America without a hubby making a 3 figure salary….one starts to wonder if either woman could make ends meet as writers…alone without husbands salaries…certainly might they demand equal wages then?…flex time is afforded to the wealthy…your average McDonalds server does not get cozy days off for sunshine, nor do bank tellers, and the plethora of business laborers…stuck in the 9-5 chore of earning a buck….

By Neben El

January 10, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this

Alot of women do make more than men. In Atlanta….. there are probably more women making more than $30K than men.

Men: we need raises! :-)

By Lozen

January 10, 2005 05:18 PM | Link to this

“Do women really want to earn as much as men?” has to be the most stupid question ever on this forum! There have been many good comments already… and of course, the ubiquitous sexist male who doesn’t think women should get equal pay because blah, blah, blah. The reasons vary but this one wants women to go off to fight the old men’s wars. (The lack of logic, not to mention empathy for others or compassion, on this board is unbelievable.) There are many women fighting in a war already; will they get equal pay when (and if) they return from Iraq? Low paying, untrained jobs don’t usually offer flex time for males or females. How we love to pretend in this country that everyone is middle class and has all these benefits! Most single parents are poor. How we love to ignore how many children live in single parent households. How quickly we do forget how things were just a short 40 years ago (as Lyrazel points out) when women had three career paths - teacher, secretary, and nurse - none of which paid a decent living wage because the jobs were all filled by women. But there have always been women who worked outside the home as well as in the home. They worked in cotton mills, fields, restaurants, offices, cafeterias, other women’s houses, hotels, for pitiful wages. The second wave of feminism of the 60’s and 70’s managed through very hard work by many women to open doors that had been closed to women up until then. And we don’t even appreciate them for that! Feminists … uh, they burned bras, right?

By norman

January 11, 2005 07:42 AM | Link to this

Everyone here agrees that the question is a stupid one. So let’s change it to: why did so many women who are underpaid vote for George W. Bush whose economic and social policies will only make their plight worse? I think you can guess my answer. They think that faith in God, individualism, and self-reliance will put bread on the table. That used to be called “pie in the sky” which Christian preachers specialized in shoveling around. These GOP voting women have only themselves to blame.

By Terry

January 11, 2005 07:59 AM | Link to this

As opposed to many of you - I happen to think the question of this topic is a very good one!

And the answer is: No.

The question doesn’t pertain to picking apples: A man and woman pick the same amount - they should be paid the same. The question pertains to the overall objective of women as it differs from men. Generally speaking, women don’t set out with the same career objectives as do men - nor should they as women have more options for financial security than do men. Men and wome ARE different - believe it or not!

Our society has acquired a taste for living in a pretend world where every perceived shortcoming or difference is automatically attributed to: Racism, Bigotry or Discrimination. In the real world though - those things rarely exist. And the fact that women might make less than men - has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination.

All jobs are not like picking apples. Many companies are not just paying you for the work you do - but for the value and worth that you bring to the company. It’s only natural then, that men would bring more value to the company and be a better investment than women, if for no other reason: Men have to work!

Nothing is guaranteed, but on balance, a company can reasonably expect a man to be there much longer, do what it takes to move up the ladder and become more valuable to the organization. Men are not likely to get pregnant and miss a few months of work. Men are not as likely as women to need more time off to take care of the kids. And men are not nearly as likely to suddenly give notice of quitting the job because they’re going to stay home and the raise the kids. Because of these types of things - men are a better investment to the company than are women. On balance.

This is reality - a fact of life. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with discrimination against women because of some dislike of women.

By moveon

January 11, 2005 09:38 AM | Link to this

Are women afraid to ask for top dollar when negotiating salary?

I’m a professional and know when I’m interviewing that if I don’t get offered the money I’m worth at company A, then I’ll just go over to company B for the money.

From what I’m seeing here it seems that men will leave for more money and women will take less money for fear they won’t get another job making as much.

Is that the real problem?

By Debora

January 11, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this

Terry, single life must be really lonely as you undoubtedly know.

By Terry

January 11, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this

Debora,

I see that you are another with the mystical powers of observation - for that which you can’t possibly observe.

But please don’t try to part so much wisdom on my next time - it’s far more than I can handle!

By Hugh Jorgan

January 11, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this

The enormity of absurdity in Terry’s post can only be matched by the effort it would take to describe it.

By Texas

January 11, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this

One day a fisherman was lying on a beautiful beach, with his fishing pole propped up in the sand and his solitary line cast out into the sparkling blue surf. He was enjoying the warmth of the afternoon sun and the prospect of catching a fish.

About that time, a businessman came walking down the beach, trying to relieve some of the stress of his workday. He noticed the fisherman sitting on the beach and decided to find out why this fisherman was fishing instead of working harder to make a living for himself and his family.

“You aren’t going to catch many fish that way,” said the businessman to the fisherman, “you should be working rather than lying on the beach!”

The fisherman looked up at the businessman, smiled and replied, “And what will my reward be?” “Well, you can get bigger nets and catch more fish!” was the businessman’s answer.

“And then what will my reward be?” asked the fisherman, still smiling. The businessman replied, “You will make money and you’ll be able to buy a boat, which will then result in larger catches of fish!”

“And then what will my reward be?” asked the fisherman again. The businessman was beginning to get a little irritated with the fisherman’s questions. “You can buy a bigger boat, and hire some people to work for you!” he said.

“And then what will my reward be?” repeated the fisherman. The businessman was getting angry. “Don’t you understand? You can build up a fleet of fishing boats, sail all over the world, and let all your employees catch fish for you!”

Once again the fisherman asked, “And then what will my reward be?” The businessman was red with rage and shouted at the fisherman, “Don’t you understand that you can become so rich that you will never have to work for your living again! You can spend all the rest of your days sitting on this beach, looking at the sunset. You won’t have a care in the world!”

The fisherman, still smiling, looked up and said, “And what do you think I’m doing right now?”

Contentment is a difficult attitude to learn, but so important. It’s easy to get caught in the world’s trap of working harder and harder to earn more and more, when we may well already have what can provide us with the greatest possible happiness.

May you know true contentment today.

“Now Godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain that we can carry nothing out. And having food and clothing, with these we shall be content.” (1 Timothy 6:6-8).

By norman

January 11, 2005 10:51 AM | Link to this

More religious obfuscation from Texas. (But what would you expect from Texas?)

By Lozen

January 11, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this

Texas, An Italian man told me that fisherman story in 1970 to illustrate the difference between Italians and Americans! It’s a good story.

By Texas

January 11, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this

Aspire to inspire before you expire!

By Whiley

January 11, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this

women will take less money for fear they won’t get another job making as much.

EXACTLY. Been there done that. Had to. Out of work means no food & roof over head for myself & children. And stay at a “going nowhere” company because we can’t go without insurance.

By norman

January 11, 2005 11:49 AM | Link to this

Fisherman and contentment. Saw a bumper sticker the other day here in fishing country proclaiming the virtue of fishing, namely idleness. But I go one step further. Fishing is for those Puritan spirits who feel funny about doing nothing; they need to pretend they are doing something. Fishing is a way of doing nothing while pretending you are doing something. What is wrong with doing nothing and not pretending anything else?

Zack hasn’t contributed his daily scream about me yet. In explaining let me say that my hero is Voltaire, and at the end of every letter he wrote Voltaire added: “ecrasons l’infame,” which is to say “let us crush that infamous thing.” Most scholars think the infamous thing was Christianity or the Church or something like that. As the French say, Moi Aussi!

By Lozen

January 11, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this

Norman, you make some excellent points but you turn people off with your way of doing it. Hugh Jordan, you got it going on! We don’t seem to be living in a “kinder, gentler world” do we?

By RokChik

January 11, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this

I’ve heard many men try and make the arguement that men are more valuable to a company b/c they don’t take off to take care of sick children or other family members. They don’t need leave for pregnancy or any of that, etc. But this thinking so incrediably illogical and unfair.

If we expect women to do all these things for their family, why do we punish them by paying less when they do?

If there’s a woman that forgoes all of this for JUST a career, she’s critized for not being “feminine” and normal for wanting a family.

You can’t have it both ways.

Just b/c a woman MIGHT decide to get married and MIGHT decide to have children is NO excuse for paying her less. To assume that she will do so shows extreme ignorance on the companies and their counterparts who agree. Besides, paying her less is just more incentive to get her out of their in the first place. So if you’re going to hire her only to pay her less for something she MIGHT do, why hire a woman at all?

And even if she MIGHT do this (and it is secretly expected of her), shouldn’t we look at this as something that’s normal and allow for it? Instead acting like it’s some damn suprise? And wouldn’t the woman NEED more money for these children?

All the arguements aganist paying women an equal amount are bunk, illogical, mysognistic bull crap.

By norman

January 11, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this

Lozen: Voltaire taught me that logic gets you nowhere with bibliolators. He recommended satire and that is what I am trying to cultivate. I know my skills in satire need work. But turning people off is inevitable if those people are thick-headed Christians. The reason satire works is that while many people are impervious to thought, they are afraid of being ridiculed. Voltaire turned many of the educated classes away from superstition by having them fear ridicule. Of course this does not work with redneck Christians who wouldn’t know ridicule from faith-healing.

By Texas

January 11, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

You have the job skills. The employer has the jobs. If the employer can make a profit by purchasing your job skills to perform his job then you get a paycheck. If your job skills cost the employer too much, or if your job skills don’t meet the employer’s needs, then you don’t get a paycheck If you charge too much for your job skills, you won’t get hired. The matter of wages paid for services rendered is something to be resolved in negotiations between the employer and employee and then expressed in the terms of a contract between the parties. If you accept less than you co-worker, doing the same job, it’s no ones fault but your own. Knowledge is obtained, and the next time you are on the market, you should be wiser, negotiate your terms and bingo, you make the same! How’s that for logic Norman?

By RS

January 11, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

Rok Chik, you made some very compelling points. I am a working woman who is employed full time & has chosen a field & a (wonderful) company where men & women are paid & treated equally. OK, not everyone is that lucky, I understand that. My husband & I have decided we never want children so I guess that’s another reason I’m in a good position, career-wise. Because that is my choice, I have no regrets nor do I apply the term “trade-off” to my situation. Yes, I HAVE had people (usually religious zealots, Norman! Surprised? Neither am I) criticize me for being “unnatural”, “unfeminine” (oh that is SO not true!) & “going against God’s will”. Uh, no, I just know what my priorities are & am honest enough to make them happen.

By Texas

January 11, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

Oh, by the way, Employers usually get incentives from the government for fair hiring practices. (IE, In Normans case Handicapped. Naw, just kidding Norm Hee Hee Hee).

By Zack

January 11, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this

RS and Norman—Shaunti does have a theological parallel to her posts, yes, but that’s because God created this world, and there’s not one square inch of it that the Bible does not apply to. Period.

Again, we have Norman going on and on with his childish temper tantrums against Christians. You don’t have a problem with it, do you, RS? No, you sure don’t. My, you’re such a hypocrite.

As for the earning factor, just because two people are doing the same job doesn’t mean they’re equally qualified/productive. There are indeed other factors to be taken into consideration. Also, RS, you said something about women deserving more money if they’re single parents. If there’s a divorce involved, they receive alimony, although the current system of this is an unfair as it gets. Children are NOT the property of their mothers, as the feminists of the world would love for us to believe. If a woman has sex with a man and is left by him, that’s not good. I have sympathy for her and her kids, yes, and this is why people need to do something that I always advocate and that you NEVER advocate: Take sexual responsibility. Realize that these possibilities are indeed possibilities, and do not expect your employer or the government to bail you out if you assume these risks.

This, of course, is in stark contrast to the beliefs of RS, where she advocates having sex and then just killing your baby if you don’t feel like raising it.

By Zack

January 11, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

You talk about the fear of being ridiculed. Well, three words come to mind: Consider the source. In other words, you can spout off your babble and hatred against Christians all you want, but we all know that you have no credibility. The same applies to RS. You two take turns attacking traditional, Christian beliefs, and all you do is show your ignorance.

I’m tired of the double standards in society. Christians face them. Men face them. Others face them in certain avenues as well, but we hear about those; very seldom do we hear about the first two.

ZACK’S UNOFFICIAL GALLUP POLL:

Who is the biggest bigot on this blog?

Norman———————————————— 50% RS——————————————————-50%

Margin of error + or - 2 points.

By the way, ever notice how feminists, if a man doesn’t provide for his family, call him a deadbeat dad, but if he does provide for his family he’s allegedly oppressing his wife’s career pursuits? Please. These are 99.9% (if not 100%) of the time the same people who say that the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional. My, the insane, twisted worldviews of some people.

By Hugh Jorgan

January 11, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this

In my opinion, Norman, the problem isn’t with Jesus and the concept of Christianity. The problem is all the damn Christians.

By Zack

January 11, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this

Hugh—Watch your mouth. Like Diane Glass, you wouldn’t dare say that against any other religious group. (The devil knows who his one enemy is.) Oh, Christians have a lot of flaws, no question, and there’s a lot of hypocrisy out there, no question. I’m condoning none of it. I just don’t like your terminology. I’m tired of people being attacked simply for supporting the Christian values this nation was founded upon.

By Hugh Jorgan

January 11, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this

Zack, please don’t use percentages when you can’t back them up. Same goes with your obnoxious use of “statistics” which, to real statistician, is cartoonish.

What makes you so mockable is not your belief in Christianity but your thin arguments presented with much arrogance and little substance. It almost appears to be a joke.

By Tim

January 11, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this

Hugh… yes we Christians are all bad bad bad people… we should all be exterminated!

A lot of times I disagree with Zack but I do have say that he does make one very good point… there are a lot of people who call for acceptance and understanding of others views (I hear this from those on the left and the right) when they themselves don’t practice this… would be nice if ALL of us could do this

By Randy

January 11, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this

Yea those damn Christians, doing what the bible and Jesus called them to do. Making everyone else see that they need to get right with God, when the non Christians what to do only what they want to do. Shame on Christians. Really all the greatest people I know in the world, many not famous are Christians. They have their heart and mind right, even when they are not perfect and make mistakes. Sorry for those who don’t know JESUS.

By Zack

January 11, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

Hugh—It’s not my fault if you don’t understand reason. I’ve seen your comments on here many times and can’t say I’m too impressed by them. I don’t see that changing anytime soon. One reason why this country is in such bad shape right now is because we’ve had people like yourself since the Sixties trying to spew their babble all over the place and impose your stupid worldviews on everyone else.

By norman

January 11, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

Randy: the Jesus you know is the Jesus presented by those Hellenistic novels we call the Gospels. They convey very little historical material and a lot of theology written two generations later. We don’t really know that Jesus told his followers to go out and baptize all the world. In fact at the beginning of Acts the disciples ask Jesus, now alledgedly resurrected, whether he would now restore the kingdom to Israel. This shows that even the author of Acts, who was writing propaganda not history, could not leave out that Jesus’ disciples were and remained Jews, indifferent to the gentiles and expecting the restoration of the Israelite theocracy, not the church.

By RS

January 11, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

Uh oh..It’s ba-a-a-ack! (Norman, you just HAD to invoke his name, didn’t you??) Zack, why would you think I’d have a problem with Norman’s posts? You should know better by now. And where did you get this that I feel single parents deserve more money just for being single parents? FAR from it! True, there are cases where a married couple has kids & the husband leaves. That’s very unfortunate & I feel for any woman put in that unenviable position. However I have NO sympathy for irresponsible women & girls (yes, girls) who pop out baby after illegitimate baby so that they can live off the government. THAT is why I favour abortion. I, for one, am sick of working my !@$% off to support a bunch of worthless crack/AIDS brats that will carjack me (well, any of us!) in 15 years. I’ve always been adamantly opposed to welfare & other useless social programs that use our tax dollars to subsidize crackheads, welfare moochers & other societal dregs. You really “think”(??) you know me but you don’t. And I am against alimony, believe it or not. I’ve seen too many women (“legal” prostitutes) use their looks to trap a rich man & then divorce him only to walk away with everything HE’S earned. Now, when you say this nation was founded on Christian values, where does that leave those of other faiths? Are we dirt, not deserving of the same rights? Hugh, I don’t think Zack actually has Christian beliefs. He’s too hateful. A real Christian isn’t supposed to be like that.

By norman

January 11, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

I read the other day that a treaty between the USA and the Tripoli authorities in 1797 specifically denied that the United States was founded on the Christian religion. A treaty ratified by the Senate has the force of law for all of us, even for Christians.

By Randy

January 11, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this

Norman,
There is where you are wrong, I know Jesus through a personal experience when I was almost 11 years old. I remember being in vacation Bible school not even thinking about anything, suddenly the holy spirit(yes it exists) took me and I was up at the front of the church before I knew it(there was 2 other boys my age up at the front also)one is a deacon now. I accepted Jesus as my lord and savior and he changed my heart. It is as solid a commitment as any possible. The good thing is it makes me know that all he said is good and true and I really don’t have to worry about anything. Like Mel Gibson said, even if things are bad, they are not really bad, i’m totally protected. I learn to turn over my problems to Jesus and he takes care of them, all I have to do is pray. I’m I never going to have problems? Absolutely, but they are not really problems. If you are not a Christian you won’t understand what I have said, but I know it to be true, I would not say anything I if had any doubts. I wish each and everyone the same peace of mind and eternal destiny I have before me.

By Hugh Jorgan

January 11, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

I see my comment about Christians ruffled some feathers though few people understood the gist of what I meant. And there is the consensus that I am anti-Christian, which is untrue. I, while not believing that Jesus was the son of God (any more than I am) or that belief that he was is required to be in accord with God’s edict for us, I do believe he is the most influential spiritual leader, possible ever, that he was certainly a great man and a true prophet. To ignore his teachings would be silly.

Still, I stand by my original statement about Christians, sweeping generalization that it is.

By Whiley

January 11, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this

Gee I wonder how much “religious guilt” keeps women from achieving what they really want?

I wonder why “religious guilt” isn’t thrown all over fathers?

By Hugh Jorgan

January 11, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

Zack, you can’t be serious that you are using reason when you post fake percentages and list results from a “poll”, even including a “margin of error”. You’ve no data, you’ve no methods, and you likely don’t even know HOW to calculate a margin of error much less what it means.

By Tim

January 11, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this

Hugh… your comments would have ‘ruffled my feathers’ (I prefer mine to look like a boa) if they had been about any other religious group in general as well

By Hugh Jorgan

January 11, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this

It was an ironic sweeping generalization about people, not the Christian faith, which no one got.

By Randy

January 11, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

Hugh, Why if Jesus isn’t the son of God, would 11 of the 12 disciples go through horrible deaths, when all they had to do was deny him being the messiah(people don’t die for a lie). Where is his body? There have been enough people who don’t want to answer to God thoroughout the ages, that someone would have dug it up. Who fulfilled all of the old testament scriptures on what the messiah would be like(all 400 plus) Also, why if you murder someone and there is only one witness, you are in big trouble at court(guilty for sure) and yet over 500 people talked to and met Jesus after he rose from the grave and you still don’t believe. What does Jesus need to do to prove to you he is the messiah? Because he may have done it already! Some people would not believe in him, if he came down from heaven and shook their hand. They would say, well he can’t be the son of God, or he would never have came down and shook my hand. So in those peoples eyes, HE CAN’T WIN, no matter what he does. When Jesus doesn’t win, you lose.

By Hugh Jorgan

January 11, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this

Randy, I can account for what happened a couple of millenia ago. I certainly don’t have faith that the Bible isn’t errant. I don’t believe it was inspired by God, meaning it’s God’s written word. I believe it was written by men who were enlightened in their time periods. But they were just men, subject to the flaws of humanity and the norms and wares of their society and time.

I’ve no problems with the man Jesus. I agree with a lot of his sentiments. I just don’t worship the man. I don’t believe idolatry of Jesus to be necessary to his teaching or even the goal of his existence, if he were indeed the Son of God. But you know what, this is my faith, and it doesn’t impact me if you agree or disagree with it. And your faith doesn’t offend me at all. What I generally find offensive is the giant hippocrisy of most all the major organized religions. To have the arrogance to tell the world that you’re only worth anything to God if you believe in this one way (another fallacy since each Christian religion insists it’s the right one) is hippocritical to the teachings of the man you contend to follow. I know, you won’t agree, and that’s fine. You don’t have to. You just believe whatever it is you need to believe to get through the night and to be a better person tomorrow.

By Whiley

January 11, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

Since we are all the children of God….what’s so great about Jesus?

By Randy

January 11, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

Hugh, I would probably think the same thing you think, if I hadn’t had a life changing experience when I was young. That experience let me know that Jesus was absolutely the right way. I guess the way God looks at it is, someone is drowning in a lake, he throws that person a lifeline, the person doesn’t like that lifeline and wants others. God feels he doesn’t need to supply any other lifelines, one should be sufficient, as it does the job 100%. Accept God’s gift or reject it, your choice.

By Randy

January 11, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this

Whiley, I can’t argue anyone into heaven, its a heart thing. Jesus is great for those who know him, but they have accepted him as their lord and savior. Its a bonding thing, between you and the creator of this universe. I highly recommend it.

By Hugh Jorgan

January 11, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this

Randy, how do you know that a life-changing event isn’t behind my faith? Most people’s faiths are based upon the evidence in their lives and the catastrophic events have the most impact. I’m not saying that something terrible happened to me that made me “lose faith” or made me angry at God. But the biggest life-changing event for me, having a child, opened my faith up. Believe you me, I believe in God.

By Whiley

January 11, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this

Thanks but no thanks, I have my own mind & idea about what God is what happens after we are gone.

So anyway, another big reason women are unfairly paid is because for thousands of years it’s been accepted to treat us as second class citizens. Thank you again organized religion for assisting in that.

Whatever rights we DO have is because we had to fight for them, which is rediculous.

(thank you ALL FEMINISTS !)

By Randy

January 11, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this

Whiley, So what you are doing by having your own idea of what God is like is violating one of the 10 commandments. No Graven images. Obviously God exists and to think he would not make himself known is crazy. Think if through.

By Hugh Jorgan

January 11, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this

In my marriage, my wife and I are true partners. Neither one of us holds more load at home over the other. I’m just as driven to be there for my son as I am to succeed in my work. I know this is rare.

I disagree with the arguements that women are less productive in the workplace and that it’s reflected in their paycheck. While I expect women without children will be more productive than women with I also expect that of men. But the reality is, that men with children make more than women with children at the same job. And men without children make more than women without children at the same job.

It’s a crock.

By Hugh Jorgan

January 11, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this

I’m a feminist.

By RS

January 11, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this

Hugh, I like how you think! Your wife is a very fortunate lady

By Texas

January 11, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

Whiley, I don’t know where you work, but I’m 99% certain that you had an interview before accepting your position. Within that interview, you listed your qualifications and agreed on a base salary/wage and subsequent adjustments. Only later would anyone find out how much someone else is making, which basically isn’t any of your business. That’s between the employer and that employee. If you feel you deserve more, you can renegotiate with said employer, or quit. Why, do people feel it is their right to make as much as someone else when upfront you agreed on a set salary/wage?? Which by the way has nothing to do with your gender. It happens to men all the time.

By Hugh Jorgan

January 11, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this

Yeah, well, she doesn’t always think so.. ;)

But you know, that’s what happens, ladies, when you marry a liberal (I’m an academic - research and teaching). You get an enlightened partner in marriage…..

Just a little plug for the single liberal men out there.

By Whiley

January 11, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

Oh yea? tell that to ALL the men with the upper level jobs. There are NO women in those positions. None of us were even notified about openings. Go figure.

as far as the other conversation, OBVIOUSLY a lot of religious people don’t have minds of their own & believe anything anyone tells them instead of being more logical about the whole thing. Who are ANY OF US to claim WE know what the big picture is? You believe the logic of what was written thousands of years ago without question? Of COURSE the bible was written so if you question it you’re in the wrong.

It’s the “rules” in the bible that keeps people in line, especially women.

By Texas

January 11, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this

Hugh, your generalizations of people has no bounds. What makes you think your a minority when it comes to shareing the load at home. It might suprise you, but I believe more men than not help out more than you think my friend.

By Hugh Jorgan

January 11, 2005 05:05 PM | Link to this

here’s another generalization: I most men in this country don’t shoulder the same domestic load as their partner.

here’s another: sweeping generalizations are generally correct

how much more general can you get? That’s a triple generalization.

By Jodi

January 11, 2005 05:14 PM | Link to this

I also feel that wages should not be determined by what a woman might do with her life (i.e. kids). When a man goes into a job interview, the interviewer is most likely not thinking about the man’s family, kids, etc. They’re just thinking about the man. Period. I am a childless married woman myself whose husband takes care of the home. Why should I be paid any less than a man? I am doing what men do traditionally (pretty well, too) and yet I could be penalized because I have ovaries. Doesn’t really seem fair. On the flip side, instead of talking about women going out into the workplace, why not talk about men being more involved at home? If working men were as involved with home life as much as working women are, we wouldn’t even be having this argument. Companies would recognize that their employees need to have a healthy life away from work as well as one on the job in order to be happy and fulfilled (thus creating less turnover, training costs, etc.) How about it guys? If we all worked together, you men would get more time off for your families and we women would get paid what we’re worth! How’s that for a plan?

By Lozen

January 11, 2005 05:16 PM | Link to this

Randy I’ve known someone who told me she had a life changing experience when she was abducted by aliens, another who had a L.C.E. when she saw her parents sacrificing babies during satanic rituals, another who had a L.C.E. when she realized after reading a book that the Archangel Michael is the Captain of all the space ships that are always around earth and will pick us all up when the end comes if our hearts are filled with light. (What can I say; I lived in California for a while!) How can you prove that your L.C.E. was authentic and theirs were not? I had a similar experience to yours actually. When I was 11 or 12 I was sitting in the pew after a week of bible school and suddenly found myself up in front of the church ready to be saved. But I realized later that I had been listening to the minister cry and yell and scare us all to death about hell if we weren’t saved. I sure didn’t want to go to hell. It was not the holy spirit that pulled me up to the front, it was fear. I didn’t meet Jesus that night or any other night. I cried and felt better because I wasn’t afraid of going to hell. What happened to me then I now consider brainwashing of innocent children who haven’t had time to develop an ego strong enough to know what is happening to them. If you scare people to death you can get them to do anything. And that’s the answer to your question, Norman, about why women voted for G.W.

By Texas

January 12, 2005 07:42 AM | Link to this

I have to agree with Terry. Most post are missing the point. I went back and read for a third time Shaunti and Diane’s commentary/rebuttal. DO WOMEN REALLY WANT TO EARN AS MUCH AS MEN? NOT Should women get paid the same as men for the same job. Both Shaunti and Diane agree that in most cases women who perform same job task get paid the same. The issue is, are most women willing to sacrifice family, marriage etc. to obtain the goal of CEO. Which would mean 60 plus hours a week. Dinners with associates, etc. etc.

Go back and read the commentary/rebuttal for yourself. “The biggest misconception is that there’s a wage gap for the same work.”

By Hugh Jorgan

January 12, 2005 08:40 AM | Link to this

I’m sorry, TX, but you are not correct. Women do not earn the same wage as men for the same work. In these studies the wages are figured on relative terms, each person being their own control.

Besides, the glass ceiling does still exist, though it’s thinner and more easily broken than before. I’ve known many women on the high-rank track, women without kids, who’ve had to work longer and be more productive at the same job as their male counterparts to get the promotion.

There are still men who don’t like having women in a position of authority. While the people who make the decisions to promote might not feel this way they might know that some of the subordinates feel that way, don’t want the conflict it would inevitable involve, and so avoid it by not promoting the woman.

By Bruce

January 12, 2005 08:41 AM | Link to this

In my present profession I earn about two thirds less than others (both male and female) in the same profession with other employers. However, my employer has a great compensation package. I could leave this job to earn more money but I would have to miss out on a lot where my family is concerned. I chose this job, it didn’t choose me. I chose the compensation, and yes I would like to earn as much as others in the same profession, but it is my choice to stay here. I believe if you choose the job you also choose the compensation. If you are not happy with your compensation package find another job. If more money can truly make you happy.

Why is it these days that it is always someone else’s fault because your own life isn’t what you want it to be? In case you forgot this is America and you have the right to PURSUE happiness, not BE GIVEN happiness. If you are not happy it is your own responsibility to find happiness not your employers, or anyone else’s, to find it for you. Instead of complaining, do something about it.

By Lyrazel

January 12, 2005 08:58 AM | Link to this

Texas, you read it right. Do women WANT to be paid equal? Its a no brainer that women DO want equal wage to their counterparts for equal work. Had Shaunti remained in New York she would have reached the limits of what a jr. female executive (if that was her path, she is vague) makes. She would not have been offered the helm of the corporation, her opportunities to advance would have been less for every year she remained whereas a male in the same situation is more frequently rewarded. Why? Would she have screamed if her co-worker Ed got paid more than she was for the same work? Loud! Dont ever think great moral values allow a well educated intellegent woman to accept lower pay. Dont think its true? Find women who broke through the corporate barriers and ask them: paid the same? given same benefits? given same career advancements? Most will say no. Why? Because women frequently drop out, like Shaunti did and all corporations, even ones offering flex-time know it.

I stand firm on that statement because I do know several women who achieved executive status at law firms, at corporations and in government jobs. All of these women had children…and husbands with careers. Their kids got daycare and nannies…the sacrifce in being a careerist…the myth of super mom peetered out when the truth was known that daycare was more responsible for career families succeeding than money. In the 90s there was a huge swing of daughters of career women stepping back and taking over childcare from the home again at the same time there was a huge population of women who for whatever reason decided they would raise children as a single parent. Shaunti was blessed with the luxury of being a stay-to-home mom…her leaving the workplace disqualifies her for passing judgements on the women who remain noses to the grindstone and what they want. There is a dull unexpected concequence women who leave work will have to face: If Shaunti ever has to return to the corporate world, she would have to take all those baby steps all over, she would have to prove via resume and interview that she wont again leave for reasons of family. She would be paid less than the jr. executive right out of college (male or female) and not given the same opportunities she was afforded in her youth. Take it from an elder woman, competing against fresh faced college becomes more of an obstacle the older you get. Hiring for those great positions never comes back to the ones who abandoned them…which is why so many women dont quit even with kids. Should these women who re-enter the workplace be paid as much as a man who is just starting up? Sure, but they arent. They are seldom advanced beyond lower rungs of the ladder…some dont care…some resent it terribly…but its a way of working life that exists. Name one woman CEO who returned to the workplace to assume duties at the helm of a major organization. Aint none. The women who made it high up, stayed through the course—like men did.
Age makes women lower paid than male counterparts and thats where significant differences in salary occur.

By vincent

January 12, 2005 09:04 AM | Link to this

Bruce: Good point, but the problem here is that most women do not have the choices offered to them. Corporate structure has strict rules about employees discussing compensation, so most people do not know if they are earning the same wages or not, until after the fact. Women are still making less per dollar on equal jobs as men. That has to change. But the change will not occur by simply going across the street for a better paying job, as the earned wages per dollar remains a constant.

This issue about women wanting to earn the same as men was brought up on this board as a way of recognizing that this is still a problem. As I said before, the women I know want to earn what they deserve, and genital distinction ought not play a part in a company’s allocation of salary.

Just as an experiment, Dianne & Shaunti, could you post a forum question next week with a question such as, “How many portabello mushrooms are used at a good outdoor barbeque?” I’m interested in finding out how quickly the board moves from grilling vegetables to what was served at the Last Supper. Thanks.

By norman

January 12, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this

Cousin Vinnie: What was served at the Last Supper is indeed important. George Carlin has a new book with a picture of himself at the Last Supper entitled “When will Jesus bring the pork chops?”

Many of you redneck Christians probably think the disciples had a Crown Roast for dinner, along with Baptist iced tea and Key Lime Pie.

By Bruce

January 12, 2005 09:33 AM | Link to this

Vincent, getting paid what you think you deserve, no matter if male or female, is your own opinion. If it was a proven fact that your were the best at what you do, you could name your own price. Just because your employer thinks different doesn’t make him responsible for your opinion. If you (male or female) except the compensation package offered for the work to be preformed when hired that is your responsibility. Making the employer responsible after the fact doesn’t cut it. If you (male or female) think you deserve more find someone willing to compensate you more. (it happens all the time in professional sports)
I do agree with you on your last statement. I wonder where the subject would turn if the discussion was on Christianity.

By Tim

January 12, 2005 09:46 AM | Link to this

Norman… actually I think they had red velvet cake instead of key lime pie… and certainly not crown roast… it was fried chicken all the way!

dang now I am hungry

By Johnson

January 12, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this

This discussion should differentiate between the types of jobs that men and women do, specifically blue collar vs white collar jobs. I imagine that most blue collar jobs have specific compensation rules with little variability. Does a female line worker in an automotive factory make the same as a man (given equal time on the job, etc)? I imagine it’s pretty close. However, the compensation for most white collar jobs is negotiated. You know what the value of your skills are in the open market and that, or more, is what you ask for? Are men better at this than women? And what about promotions, this glass ceiling? Should most of us be upset if a woman has a harder time making a six or seven figure salary than a man. I mean, boo hoo…most of the world doesn’t make that regardless of sex. My point is, making it to the top of the corporate ladder has nothing to do with fairness, and mostly to do with the types of relationships you form and the positions you take. Do women want to schmooze with the right people, play golf with the boss, go on deer hunting trips with the executive team. Probably not. Is that fair?..no. Was it fair for my dad to get canned after 30 years as an executive for a large company that decided to merge with another one…no. But he had integrity and didn’t pander to the appropriate people. Perhaps, this is why women don’t want to earn what men do.

By Randy

January 12, 2005 09:52 AM | Link to this

Lozen, Sorry to hear your experience was based on fear. Mine was the opposite, I really didn’t know what the preacher was saying, or even who he was(guest). Mine was one of love for the creator. Have a great day.

By vincent

January 12, 2005 10:27 AM | Link to this

Hi Bruce,

My point is based on fact, not opinion. (US Dept. of Labor 2003 Report)Women in corporate American are still getting paid less on the same job as their male counterparts.

Women actually made 84 cents to every dollar men earned in equal jobs during WWII. Today its closer to 79 cents.

By Texas

January 12, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this

In the morning-anchor sweepstakes, the 44-year-old Lauer will reportedly earn about $5 million less than Couric’s annual $13 million paycheck (that’s about $8 million a year, natch)—or about double the $4 million he was previously making.

The bottom line, not all cases are the same. When in the market, if your someone with the creditentials, you get the bucks. Like I said earlier, you negotiate your worth upfront. If your worth it, you get it. The end.

By Hugh Jorgan

January 12, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this

Portabello mushrooms should be marinated in an oregeno, romano cheese, butter sauce for 24 hours before grilling.

Bruce, what is your experience with getting a job? Have you been able to just waltz around town, waiting for the best job to show up during an economy in which corporations are enforcing hiring freezes while at home your mortgage arrives unpaid month after month? Or whatever bills you have?

Don’t you think,that with the shear number of applicants for jobs that these recruiters can’t just pass on anyone who won’t fall to their terms?

You’d have to be some hot shot in your field, or belong to an elite field, like a pro-athlete or my wife (she’s a statistician, a high specialized education that is essential to research….SHE can work wherever she wants) to be able to quit your job today knowing a new and better one is a phone call away.

Are you able to just up and move across the country, or to another country, for a job? No wife or kids to bargain that out with?

You don’t sound like you’ve actually been a part of the work force, or not for very long. How long did it take you to get your first real career job?

By Tim

January 12, 2005 12:15 PM | Link to this

Texas… Couric has also been there longer than Lauer has

By Texas

January 12, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

That’s right Tim. Katie started in 1991, Matt in 1997, almost 1 Million a year difference for the 6 years. However, their new contracts where negotiated in 2003. The point is, Women who do the same work in this example make as much or more based on experience, etc. but more importantly based on worth to their employer. The Today Show earns approximately $250 Million a year and are willing to pay Katie and Matt the value for their #1 status. You can bet, if the show was not rated # 1 they would not earn as much. So, back to the bottom line, you should be aware of what your value is, negotiate up front regardless of your gender. The same holds true in most other occupations. If you are the best Surgeon in town, and the board of directors of that hospital wants you, regardless of your gender, you pretty much get the value of your status. Where I work, (Aircraft Industry) the VP of Programs is a Woman. Go figure.

By Bruce

January 12, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this

Hugh, First I would not be stupid enough to quit a job without having one to go to. And yes I have just waltzed around town looking and getting better pay for my services. I call it bettering yourself while looking for better. I have changed professions 4 times over the last 20 years trying to do just that. But I have come to a point in my life where I belive the amount of money a person is paid does not define their worth. You made my point for me though, in order for someone to demand they be paid “what they think deserve” they would have to be Highly Speicalized, as you put it or proven to be the best at what they do, as I put it. In either case there really aren’t many of those type people around.

By Zack

January 12, 2005 01:59 PM | Link to this

If I were to congratulate women who do work fewer hours in an effort to take on more responsibility at home, I would expect some, if not many, on the left to would act like there’s something wrong with that.

However, I’ll do it anyway. Congratulations. Money isn’t everything; that’s for sure.

In a grocery store recently during the morning, I saw many women buying groceries who obviously had that housewife-with-two-kids look to them. They didn’t look oppressed at all. In fact, they looked very fulfilled. The liberal stigma is wrong again.

By Tim

January 12, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this

Zack… for someone who is the first to tell someone not to ‘put words in your mouth’… you sure do a great job at doing that for others

By Whiley

January 12, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this

Zack I’d feel a lot better if husbands took more time out of their careers to take care of their children. Such as, picking them up from school, GROCERY shopping, car pools, homework, cooking ,cleaning, laundry, ETC ETC ETC ! And not on occasion, EVERY day. Why is the guilt to stay home with the kids ONLY put on the wife?

And money is EVERYTHING when you husband leaves you for a young girl. Especially when you “did the right thing” by being the ONLY one to put your career on the back burner.

And Zack, those mothers at the store were probably on anti depressant drugs & that’s why they looked content.

By Hugh Jorgan

January 12, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this

Right, and lots of time, as in my wife’s case, the high specialization isn’t easy to achieve. But those people are the outliers here, or rather, they skew the distribution from the typical bell curve, pulling at the upper tail. They pull the average towards equality. Thinking about this logically, I’d bet at the bottom of the payscale, the most menial work, the pay differences are minimal, as mentioned before in blue collar work where pay scales are set by rank. Then, at the opposite extreme, you have the most elite jobs (doctors, pro-athletes, lawyers, CEOs, highly specialized skills such as physics or statistics, etc) where the pay is again equal for the genders because they have transcended the normal working environment to one that requires either the best or the only. But in the middle, where MOST people are, is where you’ll find the bigger discrepancies, ie, in entry-level white collar, middle management, upper management.

These people make up the working middle class. They’re educated and often need two incomes to survive, if married. These are the women who most need the equality, who most don’t have it, and are most mad about it, rightly so. There’s little they can do since there’s millions of other women, just like them, willing to take their place jsut to have a job.

By Hugh Jorgan

January 12, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this

Let’s not assume that the women in the store are repressed or on drugs. They look happy because they wanted to be at home and they are and they got what they wanted thus making them happy.

but not all women feel the same way. Many women would be very unhappy if they stayed home and didn’t really want to. And there’s NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. I mean, come on, the children would rather have a happy mom who works and comes home and plays with them than a cranky mom who resents having to stay at home while her education and hard-earned skills fade from her brain.

It’s what she wants that matters. What will make her a happy woman, a happy wife, a happy mom. My wife loves being a mom, and would love to be able to work part time, have the best of both worlds. She loves her work, really she does, and she loves our son. Hell, I’d love to do that, too, but I set out on a career path that won’t allow it before I had my son. But I know if I came home and told her that I wanted her to quit her job, stay home and raise the boy, she would first laugh a lot and ask me what I was smoking, but if she complied because she thought it was what I wanted, ignoring what she wants, then it wouldn’t take long for her to get into that pergatory state of loving being around your child but bored out of your mind longing for some intellectual stimulation, some involvement in the work you love to do. Sweet and sour.

Bad for the marriage, bad for the boy, bad for her. Right now we’re balanced and it makes everyone happy. It’s not your place, Zack, or yours, Whiley, to decide what’s best for the individual relationship. I know you guys are just hammering at each other because you dont’ like each other but you’re both so ridiculously wrong.

By Whiley

January 12, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this

There’s little they can do since there’s millions of other women, just like them, willing to take their place just to have a job.

Hugh, that’s it. EXACTLY. Wow.

By Bruce

January 12, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

And what about the employer? If we demand/require the employer to pay those that work for them (male or female) “what they think they deserve” where will it end? The first car I can remember my dad buying cost $2000. But because the workers that build the cars demand to be paid “what they think they deserve” we now pay $30,000 for basically the same car. We pay Doctors what they think they deserve (although it is the same virus they are treating)and look at healthcare. Again, where will it end?

Don’t get me wrong, I do believe in equal pay for equal work. Women should be treated with the utmost respect, on and off the job. But because you and I do the same thing does it automatically mean I do it as well as you?

And another point, aren’t enough jobs going overseas because of cheaper labor? What will demanding higher pay because of our opinion of ourselves do? But I guess 25 to 50% unemployment will be fine as long as we all are making the same wages.

By RS

January 12, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

Zack, you’re right; I’ve always had a problem with the whole stay-at-home-mom thing. My, how convenient to trap a man with one’s looks/popping out baby after baby so she can stay home & be supported while the poor slob she’s married to takes on the financial burden of the whole family. I bet if you ever had to struggle, the words “Money isn’t everything” would have never left your lips. When you’re being evicted, the kids are lacking for food, warm clothes & medical care, you’d best believe money counts for a lot. No, it’s never happened to me, but I’ve seen it happen to poor, deluded fools who made stupid choices based on some misguided sentimental idea of “family togetherness”. Furthermore, don’t breed em if you can’t feed em. And these housewives looking happy & fulfilled are that way because they’re sneering at those of us women who “have to” work. Hey, I enjoy being part of the work force. I’d be bored stiff being a brainless, baby-making incubator whose reason for being is just belonging to some man.

By Hugh Jorgan

January 12, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this

Geezus, RS, you got a load of vitriol. How old are you? 20? 22?

Marriage means different things to different people. For some, it’s traditional. As long as they both like it that way then who are you to get pissed off, much less care at all?

For others, it’s a more equal partnership deal. As long as both parties enter into it agreeing that’s how it’s going to be, then again, whose the traditional mom to get all snotty, much less care at all?

Bottom line, stop worrying about what other people are thinking about your situation. Just make sure your situation is the situation you and yours both want. The rest of it is a distraction neither of you need. Shake it off, get a thick skin, IGNORE IT.

By RS

January 12, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this

Hugh, the reason alliances like that bother me is what I was referring to when people scrimp on basic necessities for their kids in order to have more “family time”. Sure, family time is nice but you’ve got to keep body & soul together first. Oh I really don’t care if someone is an empty-headed, simpering “trophy wife” because youth & beauty don’t last forever. One day, these women will have a rude awakening when they’re older, no longer thin & beautiful and are subsequently abandoned with no skills or resources. Who’ll want to take care of them then?

By Texas

January 13, 2005 09:44 AM | Link to this

Please forgive me, but no one was saying anything. This is a story in response to some of y’all’s post about special children.

Trying not to be biased, I was hiring a handicapped person. His placement counselor assured me that he would be a good, reliable busboy. I had never had a mentally handicapped employee, and I wasn’t sure I wanted one. I wasn’t sure how my customers would react to Stevie. He was short, a little dumpy, and had the smooth facial features and thick-tongued speech of Down Syndrome.

I wasn’t worried about most of my trucker customers, because truckers don’t generally care who buses tables as long as the meatloaf platter is good and the pies are homemade. The four-wheeler drivers were the ones who concerned me; the mouthy college kids travelling to school; the yuppie snobs that secretly polish their silverware with their napkins for fear of catching some dreaded “truck-stop germ;” the pairs of white-shirted business men on expense accounts, who think every truck-stop waitress wants to be flirted with.

It was these people that I was concerned might be uncomfortable around Stevie. So, I watched him closely for the first few weeks. I shouldn’t have worried though. After the first week, Stevie had my entire staff wrapped around his stubby little finger, and within a month my truck regulars had adopted him as their official truck-stop mascot. After that, I really didn’t care what the rest of the customers thought of him.

He was like a 21-year-old in blue jeans and Nikes, eager to attend to his duties. Every salt and pepper shaker was exactly in its place, not a bread crumb or coffee spill was visible when Stevie got done with table. Our only problem was convincing him to wait until after the customers were finished. He would hover in the background, shifting his weight from one foot to the other, scanning the dining room until a table was empty. Then he would scurry to the empty table and carefully bus the dishes and glasses onto a cart and meticulously wipe the table with a practiced flourish of his rag. If he thought a customer was watching, his brow would pucker with added concentration. He took pride in doing his job exactly right, and you had to love how hard he tried to please each and every person he met.

Over time, we learned that he lived with his mother, a widow who was disabled after repeated surgeries for cancer. They lived on their Social Security benefits in public housing two miles away from the truck-stop. Their social worker, who stopped in to check on him every so often, admitted they had fallen between the cracks. Money was tight and what we paid him was probably the difference between them being able to live together and Stevie being sent to a group home. That is why the restaurant was a gloomy place that morning last August, the first morning in three years that Stevie had missed work.

He was at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester getting a new valve or something put in his heart. His social worker said that people with Down Syndrome often had heart problems at an early age so this wasn’t unexpected, and there was a good chance he would come through the surgery in good shape and be back to work in a few months. A ripple of excitement ran through the staff later that morning when word came that he was out of surgery, in recovery, and doing fine. Frannie, my head waitress, let out a war hoop and did a little dance in the aisle when she heard the good news.

Belle Ringer, one of our regular trucker customers, stared at the sight of the 50-year-old grandmother of four doing a victory shimmy beside his table. Frannie blushed, smoothed her apron and shot Belle Ringer a withering look. He grinned, “OK, Frannie, what was that all about?” he asked. “We just got word that Stevie is out of surgery and going to be okay.” I was wondering where he was. I had a new joke to tell him. What was the surgery about?” Frannie quickly told Belle Ringer and the other two drivers sitting at his booth about Stevie’s surgery, then sighed. “Yeah I am glad he is going to be okay, but I don’t know how he and his mom are going to handle all the bills, from what I hear they’re barely getting by as it is.”

Belle Ringer nodded thoughtfully, and Frannie hurried off to wait on the rest of her tables. Since I hadn’t had time to round up a busboy to replace Stevie and really didn’t want to replace him, the girls were bussing their own tables until we decided what to do. After the morning rush, Frannie walked into my office. She had a couple of paper napkins in her hand and a funny look on her face. What’s up?” I asked. “I didn’t get that table where Belle Ringer and his friends were sitting cleared off until after they left, and Pony Pete and Tony Tipper were sitting there when I got back to clean it off,” she said. “This was folded and tucked under a coffee cup.” She handed the napkin to me, and three $20 bills fell on my desk when I opened it. On the outside, in big, bold letters, was printed “Something for Stevie”.

“Pony Pete asked me what that was about,” she said, “so I told him about Stevie and his mom and everything, and Pete and they ended up giving me this.” She handed me another paper napkin that had “Something for Stevie” scrawled on its outside. Two $50 bills were tucked within its folds. Frannie looked at me with wet shiny eyes, shook her head and said simply, “truckers” — ‘ya got to love ‘em.

That was three months ago. Today is Thanksgiving, the first day Stevie is supposed to be back to work. His placement worker said he’s been counting the days until the doctor said he could work, and it didn’t matter that it was a holiday. He called 10 times in the last week, making sure we knew he was coming, fearful that we had forgotten him or his job was in jeopardy. I arranged to have his mother bring him to work, met them in the parking lot, and invited them both in to celebrate his being back at work. Stevie was thinner and paler, but couldn’t stop grinning as he pushed through the door and headed for the back room where his apron and busing cart were waiting.

“Hold up there, Stevie — not so fast,” I said, as I took him and his mother by the arms. “Work can wait for a minute. To celebrate your coming back, breakfast for you and your mother is on me.” I led them toward a large corner booth at the rear of the room. I could feel the rest of the staff following behind as we marched through the dining room. Glancing over my shoulder, I saw booth after booth of grinning truckers get up and join the procession. We stopped in front of the big table. Its surface was covered with coffee cups, saucers and dinner plates, all sitting slightly crooked on dozens of folded napkins.

First thing you have to do, Stevie, is clean up this mess,” I said; trying to sound stern. Stevie looked at me, and then his mother, then pulled out one of the napkins. It had “Something for Stevie” printed on the outside. As he picked it up, two $10 bills fell onto the table. Stevie stared at the money, then at all the napkins peeking from beneath the tableware, each with his name printed or scrawled on it. I turned to his mother. “There’s more than $10,000 in cash and checks on that table, all from truckers and trucking companies that heard about your problems. Happy Thanksgiving!”

Well, It got really noisy about that time, with everybody hollering and shouting, and there were a few tears, as well. But you know what’s funny? While everybody else was busy shaking hands and hugging each other, Stevie, with a big, big smile on his face, was busy clearing all the cups and dishes from the table. Best worker I ever hired!

Plant a seed and watch it grow.

By chuck

January 13, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this

Excuse me “Allaboutverylittle”. Even in the 21st century it is very possible to live on a single income…even that of a lowly teacher. Prior to our marriage, my wife and I agreed that if we were to be blessed with children, she would stay home as the primary care giver. She worked until then, but when we actually had our first child she never looked back. She stayed home as full time Mom. It took planning and saving and foresight, but it worked great. I was in business at the time (1988) making decent money but NOWHERE near 6 figures. I quit my job and went into business for myself part time so that I could go back and finish school to become a teacher. It took a year, and we lived off of our meager savings and half of my usual pay until I graduated and became a teacher. She remained a full time Mom until our 2 kids were 15 and 12. She then went back to school and got her degree (she needed a year to finish) and is now a first year math teacher. She will never make as much money as me because of her later start. Do we regret that? Absolutely NOT. We BOTH made sacrifices so that she could stay home. It is all about priorities. Life is about choices. So many are totally wrapped up in materialism that they lose sight of what is important. In one of my classes, only 9 of 26 students live at home with BOTH of their parents. What are we doing to our kids? It really is a national tragedy. “What profiteth a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul?”

By Tim

January 13, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this

Texas… I don’t know if that story is true or not but it was incredible! It shines a good light on the disabled as well as truckers (my grandfather is retired… he drove a truck for over 50 years!) and he is the greatest man on the face of the earth! (obviously I am a bit biased)

Last night when I was on my way home I stopped at the grocery store… and being that everyone was just getting off of work the store was quite busy and the lines were somewhat long… some people were complaining that there were not enough lanes open… when I got to the cash register I noticed the boy bagging groceries was mentally handicapped… it did take him a little longer to bag my groceries but I didn’t mind the wait… because he took such pride in what he was doing! he made sure the everything was bagged properly and that things that should be bagged separately were… I have never seen someone smile so big when he finished and handed me my bags… not only did he feel good, he put a smile on my face as well!! if we all took that much pride in what we did

thanks for the story Texas!

By Steve

January 13, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this

I have not read all of the comments, but I did skim through most of them. I do not understand why some have resentment toward women who stay at home to raise children. My wife stays home and takes care of our children during the day. What is wrong with that? I recognize that she has a full-time job. We are not rich by any means. In fact, I am looking at my W-2 form right now. I made just over 43,000 last year. I support a family of 5. We do not “scrimp on basic necessities for (our) kids”. I think most of the reason that people feel the mother has to work is because we confuse “wants” and “necessities”.

Back to the original debate. Yes woman in the workforce should not be paid less than their male counterparts. No one seems to disagree with that (not even Shaunti and Diane). But women who choose not to climb the corporate ladder and focus more on their families should be respected as well. My wife has a full-time job. Just because she did not get a W-2 form does not make it any less of a job. And you want to know something….she would not have it any other way.

By Michael D

January 13, 2005 12:18 PM | Link to this

Hmmm…Diane is prettier but Shaunti is more intelligent. My oh my…which came first, the chicken or the egg?

By chuck

January 13, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this

Wiley, I have to disagree with your statement about the rules in the Bible keeping people in line. That could not be farther from the truth. “Rules” as you call them are made to be broken. The Children of Israel, God’s chosen people, violated his laws and covenents on a regular basis. So much so, that at the time of the birth of Christ, Judaism had become nothing more than a set of laws. It no longer resembled the covenent relationship that God had intended. He sent His only Son, Jesus for a couple of reasons. First, He would be the bridge that enabled mankind to reach God. He was sacrificed for our sins so that we could have a relationship with God, through Him. Second, God wanted to show man what that covenent relationship was like. Christ, who was both fully human and fully God, lived a sinless human life even though he faced the same temptations we face. He expeienced hunger, pain, sexual temptations and yet never betrayed His Father because He didn’t want to violate the relationship. One person said it like this, “God treated Jesus on the cross as if He had lived our sinful lives, so that He could treat us as if we had lived Jesus’ Sinless life.” We keep the covenent because He loved us enough to die for us. We are not perfect, but when we do sin or violate that relationship of trust we ask for forgiveness and are forgiven because the blood of Jesus covers our sins. I don’t cheat on my wife with another woman because I love my wife and would not think of violating that trust for momentary pleasure. Our relationship is way too important for that. That’s what “keeps us in line”. Not any set of rules.

By Whiley

January 13, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this

He was sacrificed for our sins so that we could have a relationship with God, through Him.

OK, if God has so much power, why did anything have to be sacrificed? Sounds like child abuse to me. And Illogical. But of course, the rules of God were created by man long ago when logic wasn’t completely possible. After all, the world was flat back then wasn’t it?

I also meant rules as in the way to get to heaven. If it was that cut & dry about how to get to heaven, then there wouldn’t be so many different religions.

By Jack

January 13, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this

Norman,

The way you hide behind your computer and make these hurtful statements about others exposes the true coward that you are. We have all seen your kind before, so lonely that you will argue with a brick wall to get the attention that you were denied while being a weirdo playing dungeons and dragons at a coffee house in highschool. The truth is that you are just an anti-conformist and from the looks of your comments, if everyone was opposed to religion you would be supporting it. Just go crawl under a rock somewhere and do us all a favor.

By chuck

January 13, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this

Whiley, To answer your first question: You are right…God is Powerful, but that is just ONE attribute of God. Another is that God is HOLY and JUST. God is not going to be in the presence of sin. God is also NOT going to LIE. He created a PERFECT world. He populated it with every living thing so that when He made His crowning creation, Man, nothing was lacking. He could have made man in such a way as to give him no choice. Man could have been a robot carrying out the will of God without hesitation or thought. Instead, God wanted mankind to love Him out of CHOICE, not obligation. Man, however, chose to turn his back on God, choosing his own way rather than God’s way. This led to the loss of all that he had. Man was eternally separated from God by sin. God had mercy on us. He made a way for us to bridge that gap between Himself and us. That Bridge is Jesus. I could go back into the old testament history of sacrifice, but not in 300 words. Rather, God said that that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. In the Old Testament that sacrifice was made using animals. When God made a new covenent with man, it was through His Son Jesus…a once and for all sacrifice that made any further sacrifice unnecessary.

As for your question about the “number of religions”, you are right…there are MANY RELIGIONS. Religion is man’s attempt to reach God. He is not impressed by religion. He made ONE WAY to heaven through His Son Jesus Christ. He watched His own Son suffer one of the cruelist deaths imagineable so that we could have a relationship with Him. Don’t you think that would be important enough to Him to make trust in Jesus a requirement? When we accept Christ as our Savior and Lord, God no longer sees our sinful lives. Rather He sees us through the Blood of Christ that washes away all of our sins. You are right. To us, it isn’t logical. I am pretty certain I would not choose to die in your place. I’m glad Jesus didn’t think like me.

By chuck

January 13, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this

Jack, You are right on the button about old ABNormal Norman. He is just a 20 something wannabe intellectual trying to get a rise out of the people on the board. I’m surprised he hasn’t jumped in here attacking you by telling you that he graduated from a prestigious Ivy League school. It’s pathetic. Most of us have learned to ignore him.

By RS

January 13, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

I LIKE Norman!

By AllaboutME

January 13, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

…chuck…making a happy life is possible with one salary…and if I got the choice too I would want a stay-to-home-parent because its the BEST for the kid…its not the things in a house or the cars on the lawn! its the time and hours put into childrearing and nurturing…who needs stuff when you can have love and attention? my point was the glorious flex-time jobs are rare and our global market has moved 1.2 million jobs to china…so its a mean world for many people who would love to have hours to devote to nurturing their spawn but cant…shaunti cleaver is lost in her rose-colored glasses world…she would have a real hard time if she ever has to re-enter the job market…her full resume of child rearing amounts to bunk in business circles, she has been out of the loop and the longer she stays out of circulation the less she will earn when she jumps back into the fray…unless she gets her ph.d and becomes an educator…the future looks bleak for old women returning to business as usual…especially women who pack on pounds…nope Im not prejudice just know some women who say weight is a factor to getting employed…or not…and I still believe that she wouldnt be as self-rightous if she didnt have the comfy nest of a hubby paycheck…

By chuck

January 13, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

Your point is somewhat valid as it applies to SINGLE parents who have no choice but to work to feed their children. As for us, we would have moved into a trailer or in with parents in order to allow my wife to stay at home with our kids. That was our priority, so we would have done what was necessary to make it happen.

By whiley

January 13, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this

Chuck why didn’t YOU stay home with the kids? Just wondering.

And are you saying that anyone that doesn’t go to church or believe in Jesus is not going to end up in heaven? (I’ve got some beachfront property in Kansas for you if that’s so)

I wish someone had the guts to shout out to the world, “ARE YOU KIDDING ME WITH ALL THIS? Get a grip we are not cave people anymore, Think logical ! Stop being such followers without questioning any of it.”

By norman

January 13, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this

Chuck: don’t give us all that b.s. about Jesus, we don’t need it.

By the way, the Georgia Supreme court has ordered those creationist disclaimers removed from textbooks. Looks like Georgia can breathe again, not having to suffer the odor of piety and sanctity and pseudo-scientific nonsense. Hooray for Scopes, Clarence Darrow, and Free Thought. Who’d a thought we should have to review this eighty years later. Those believers should be put in mental wards.

By chuck

January 13, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

Whiley, I didn’t stay home with the kids because 1)I was in a higher paying job than my wife. 2)It was her desire to be a stay at home Mom and we made that happen 3) My wife nursed our kids until about 15 months, so it would have been a real burden on her to try to do that AND work full time.

As for your question about heaven, Church has NOTHING to do with salvation. Church is a place where believers meet together to worship God. It is also a place that equips Christians to live the Christian life, and to share their Faith as they become Mature believers. There is ONE WAY to heaven and that is through Faith in Jesus Christ. Anyone who rejects Christ is doomed to eternity in Hell.

Norman, Darwin rejected his own theory of evolution and became a Christian, so hooray for him would be in order. When you grow up and really want to debate the issue of Creation/Intelligent Design vs. Evolution, let me know. Before you do so however, you should consider the fact that your junior high school education hasn’t prepared you for the onslaught of scientific facts about creation that await you. I warn you now…you may just become a believer. Maybe you should do some reading on stratification, young earth theory and plate tectonics before we begin.

By norman

January 13, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

Chuck: Darwin never became what you call a Christian, namely someone who believes that somehow a dead Jewish carpenter can save your soul. There is nothing to save. But as a result of belief in this Jewish carpenter many of his blood brothers and sisters have been persecuted and killed for 2000 years without reason. Christianity is a terrible judgment on the stupidity of mankind and its proclivity for violence and hatred.

It is beyond me how someone can believe this s**t. I know, people will say they have been turned around by this belief, but actually they have simply opted for fantasy.

By Whiley

January 13, 2005 05:05 PM | Link to this

So all those fossils we’ve found mean absolutely nothing. As a matter of fact they were probably placed there by devil worshipers.

OK isn’t that special that YOU know who is going to hell & who isn’t. It’s so sad to see so many people wasting so much time on something NOBODY has proof of (the afterlife & what this all means).

I have no doubt it’s all about controlling people.
Especially women. I can’t seem to remember ANY religion where women could have 10 husbands. Which religion said…the more wives the better chance for the afterlife? How stupid & controlling is that?

By norman

January 14, 2005 07:18 AM | Link to this

The school boards of Georgia should place stickers on all history and social studies books which read: “Christianity is just a theory, not a fact.” How ‘bout that?

By norman

January 14, 2005 08:41 AM | Link to this

That the earth rotates on its axis………………………. Is just a theory of praxis………………………. We’re flat as a chaise…………………………… That’s what the Good Book says, Scientists shall receive no more taxes.

By Lyrazel

January 14, 2005 09:10 AM | Link to this

Wiley, women arent stupid enough to want 10 husbands faith-based or not. Imagine having to cook and clean and sort socks for 10 husbands for all of eternity? And think about it the other way—that man with 10 wives for all eternity—is going to suffer—o how he will learn 10 wives does not make a happy eternity but a hellish one. I see God smirking through the whole thing. AllaboutME, you raised a good point about weight and age being a factor in hiring women—one I hope Shaunti and Diane might pick up on. Chuck, congrats on knowing the rugrats were more important than all the Ipods the world has to offer…if more parents thought like that there would be fewer disfunctional families…fewer kids needing remedial classes before kindergarden and maybe fewer teachers stressed out by teaching 30 kids per class how to wipe their noses….muchless how to read. Faith or Creation the Cobb stickers project was a waste of taxpayer money. They had to be printed, put in the books, cut out of books all leaving me to believe Cobb taxpayers have money to burn. At what cost did the legislative action come, too?

By Dane

January 14, 2005 09:14 AM | Link to this

Ah, so good to be back after a long holiday break! I hope everyone had a wonderful Christmas/Hannukah/New Year, I know I did! I managed to go skiing and not break anything and to make it back to Georgia with only minor bruises!

This is the first time I’ve checked the opinion column in over two weeks, nice to know some things never change! I see that once again the topic has become a sounding board for religion, both pro and con.

By chuck

January 14, 2005 10:14 AM | Link to this

Whiley, You really don’t want to ge me started on the whole issue of fossils. Let me just say this. Fossils are real. Dinosaurs WERE REAL. The question is WHEN did they appear and disappear? Scientists tell you in evolution that the ONLY way we (meaning humans) could be here is through evolution. They show you these nice neat fossil charts that purport to show evolution through billions of years of layers of earth. Accordingly, the oldest fossils are found in the lowest layers of earth and the newest fossils in the layers nearest the surface of the earth. What they DON’T teach is that there are hundreds of instances that they cannot explain where the fossil record is out of order. One of the most famous “scientific” hoaxes is the evolutionary chart of the horse. This nice chart shows the horse from early fossils and how it eventually became the modern horse through evolutionary means, much like the process they try to convince us that humans went through. This still appears in science textbooks today EVEN THOUGH it was proven to be a fabrication over 30 years ago. NO SUCH fossil record exists. The author of the cart ADMITTED that he made the whole thing up based on what he believed the fossil record SHOULD show. Another famous hoax promulgated by the evolutionists is that babies inside their mothers wombs have gills and develop just like fish through the first few weeks of gestation. They show what is purported to be pictures of the baby developing. This too was proven to be a hoax, yet it still appears in biology texts. I could go on and on, but I’ve found that people like you and Norman, in spite of your rhetoric, are completely CLOSE-MINDED. If you sincerely want answers to your questions I will be glad to answer them in detail. If all you want to do is argue…well, life is just too short.

By chuck

January 14, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this

BTW Norman,

You claim to be a great intellectual, though most of us doubt that, Do you know the difference between macro evolution and micro evolution? Which one is claimed to be true by those of us who believe God created the earth and all that is in it? Why do we believe it to be true? If you can answer these questions we may be able to have a real discussion about the issue. If not, go back to the minor leagues boy.

By norman

January 14, 2005 11:00 AM | Link to this

Chuck: don’t patronize me. The question is whether evolution shows a direction or not. Most scientists find it does not show a direction. As for Creationism, it is like the Fairy Godmother.

You are ignorant, vicious, credulous, and a real pain in the posterior.

By chuck

January 14, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this

I have to patronize you Norman. I knew that you could not possibly carry on a civilized conversation on this topic because you don’t know anything about it.

By Zack

January 14, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this

Norman—There you go again, lying about the Bible. You disgust me greatly. (I am glad you finally quit e-mailing me and throwing the “f” word around. I guess my threat of suing you for harassment sunk in finally.)

Actually, there are tons and tons of evidence in favor of Creationism and none in favor of evolution. Please re-read the previous sentence. I’m sick of the people in the world like yourself who are so dead-set on imposing your will on the rest of us that you become adamant against the other side even being considered. Creationism should be in every textbook in every school. Evolution should be removed completely. We’re not doing ourselves any good preaching a myth to students.

It’s like the myth that contraceptives work against STDs. According to Dr. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, there is no clinical evidence to show that contraceptives work at all against the vast majority of STDs. Please re-read the previous sentence (again). (Even if contraceptives were effective, they wouldn’t suddenly make sexual immorality moral.) Even though sexual abstinence is 100% effective and moral, we have people like yourself (and others on this forum) who are staunchly against it. Where’s the reason in this line of thinking? People say it’s unrealistic. Not at all. It’s very realistic to see benefits in teaching a 100%-effective method as opposed to promoting more immorality and falsely teaching it as being safe against diseases. The latter makes no sense at all.

Do women really want to make as much as men? I think we should ask if women want the same responsibilities in life that men have to shoulder. I think we should mention more the double standards of women automatically getting child custody, alimonmy, etc. and having the state fund them along the way. No two ways about it: Men are stepped on by society.

A former Sociology professor of mine once said that polygamy was legal in many countries but not here (as though we’re missing out—he was full of liberal propaganda, not atypical of a Sociology professor or a professor, period). I replied, “That’s because a man can’t afford to be divorced by more than one woman.”

By Zack

January 14, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

alimony

By norman

January 14, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

Out of the woodwork have come the same insects and poisonous creatures against whom reasonable men and women have struggled for centuries. These believers are of the same ilk as that “Preacher” in Philadelphia, Mississippi who has finally been apprehended for the murder of three civil rights workers over forty years ago. With a bible in one hand, a cross and matches in another they are ready to do their work, whether it be against school boards trying to teach children real science or scientists trying to find cures for terrible disaease. Their cry is the same always: the bible, the bible, the bible. I would like to see them apply bible medicine and bible science when they themselvesare in need. Let them cure cancer and diabetes with faith healers. No matter, what they truly want is to create a theocracy here, or I should say to recreate it, since in much of this country they succeeded in the wake of the Great Awakenings.

There was one thing that the Soviet Union did that was admirable and we should perhaps emulate: placing believers in insane asylums. For what could truly be more appropriate for people who are clinically insane.

By Tim

January 14, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this

Zack… that was one of your funniest post to date… thanks for always making me smile :)

By Jodi

January 14, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this

Please…don’t give me that crap about men having more responsibilities than women! I have FAR more responsibilites than my husband (who I love and adore, by the way) and I suspect there are many women who do also, especially single parents. Men who complain about being downtrodden in this country are like someone in a car accident who gets a piece of glass in his eye saying he’s hurt when someone next to him has two broken legs and a lacerated spleen! There’s no doubt that to the man with the glass in his eye, he really feels injured. However, put in perspective, the person with the lacerated spleen and broken legs is obviously more injured. Give me a break. As for there being no evidence of evolution, the theory is around for a reason. There is AMPLE evidence of natural selection all around us. Having said that, there’s no reason God couldn’t use evolution. I never understood why it has to be either creationism or evolution. To me its not an either or question. They work simultaneously.

By Johnson

January 14, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this

Chuck,

I don’t know what obscure part of the internet you get your info from, but as one who’s background is in biology and has extensively studied evolution, developmental biology, and genetics I can tell you that no college course in evolution purports the differentiation of human embryological tissue into gills. I also challenge your support of the pseudo-science of young earth theory which basically tries to show that the world is only about six thousand years old. That hogwash tries to say that current accepted scientific aging methods are wrong. It also throws out the lunacy that geoscapes that took millions of years to form, really were formed much more quickly due to catastrophic changes, none of which has been documented. The age of the fossil record is well established if you stay in the realm of scientific circles, despite what christian apologists posing as scientist say. You can do your searches on the net for articles supporting your absurd position as I can find just as many refuting them with real science. The fact is, dinosaurs and man did not walk the earth together. The world is much older than 6000 years old meaning that Genesis is wrong.

By Bruce

January 14, 2005 12:00 PM | Link to this

I believe Norman is the Anti-Christ! But then again even the Anti-Christ knows God. I cannot give much credit to any one that thinks George Carlin has the answer……

By Michael D

January 14, 2005 12:07 PM | Link to this

SHADDUP and get me a beer.

By Johnson

January 14, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this

Zack,

Can you cite some of the “evidence” for Creationism?

By Zack

January 14, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this

Please go to www.answersingenesis.org

So, textbooks can’t even have a disclaimer saying that evolution is a theory and not fact, huh? I hate to say it, but I’m not surprised. Evolution is merely a theory. We need to break the liberal media’s stranglehold on the truth and not just accept what we’re told. Evolution is sensationalism at best.

By Tim

January 14, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this

Zack, if there is a disclaimer about evolution being a theory then shouldn’t there also be one about gravity, or relativity, or numerous other ‘theories’… why only pick evolution… there are plenty of ‘theories’ we should have disclaimers for in the front of text books… why only evolution?

By Zack

January 14, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

Tim—Gravity isn’t a theory. Please don’t jump off a cliff in an effort to disprove me.

Talk about bigotry. Even the idea of having Creationism in textbooks as a THEORY receives a furious comeback from liberals.

By Johnson

January 14, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this

Everyone that respects the scientific method and fears the rise of the christian right should go to this site www.answersingenesis.org that Zack has referenced. I now know the kind of person on the other side of that keyboard. The “evidence” is cited, of course, bibilical scripture, and it advises a type of circular logic to argue for creation. There is no evidence, in the scientific sense, that a supernatural being somehow created all of the some billion types of species on the six day, except that the bible said it. Again, it is still faith. Zack, if I have described this site inaccurately please feel free to correct me…I’m still waiting for actual scientific evidence for creation…and not a “it couldn’t be this so it must be that” explanation. That is not evidence, that is a hypothesis, that may be proved by EVIDENCE.

By Johnson

January 14, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

Zack,

Do you know the eight biological principles that make up the process of evolution?

By Tim

January 14, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this

Zack… technically gravity IS a theory… and you still didn’t answer my question… why only evolution?… as usual you just side step and don’t answer the question… also I would have absolutely no problem with Creationism being taught as a theory IF there were some sort of scientific evidence (after all we are talking about a science class) to back it up… NOT using the Bible

I certainly wouldn’t describe that as bigotry… you love throwing that word around incorrectly

By Hugh Jorgan

January 14, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this

Theory: (1) a well tested (as opposed to a hypothesis which is less well tested) explanation for observed events. A theory must allow one to make predictions which can be tested by experiment. When the results of those experiments are as predicted, it lends support to the theory as a good explanation. If the results are not as predicted, they may lead to the eventual modification of the theory, or even its replacement. (2) A theory is a logical explanation or model based on observation, facts hypotheses, experimentation, and reasoning that attempts to explain a range of natural phenomena. Theories are constantly subject to testing, modification, and refutation as new evidence and ideas emerge. Theories also have predictive capabilities that guide further investigation.

One unique property of a theory is that it can NEVER be PROVEN. Only evidence can be shown to support it. There are, in fact, very few scientific FACTS, most all are theories. Medicine is built upon it. Most all drugs used to treat mental illness, such as manic depression, work by mechanisms that are not known by scientists. They have ideas about it, but they have not been able to show any strong evidence to any one path.

Gravity: also known as Newton’s theory of the Universal Law of Gravitation,

F = G[(m1m2)/r^2],

where F = gravitational force between two objects, m1 = mass of first object, m2 = mass of second object, r = distance between the objects G = universal constant of gravitation

Now, this is Newtons’ theory, which has been replaced, in most cases, with Albert Einstein’s theory of General relativity.

Now, while you and I know that this theory is true, it’s only because we feel the effects of gravity. Both Newton’s and Einstein’s theories can’t be proven bar-none. They are generally held to be true until evidence can outright contradict them. At that point they are then held to be true in all cases but that one. Currently, Newton’s theory is still held to be true for weak gravitational fields, while Einstein’s is true in broader cases.

However, note, in Newton’s theory, that gravity only exits when there are two objects that have mass. Not easily testable…

Also, there’s this “universal constant of gravitation”, which is equal to 6.664 x 10-11 m3[/su[] / kg-sec2.

He didn’t pull that out of his a*s. It’s another testable part of the theory.

Many things we take for granted are theories but we know they are generally true because we live with the effects of them.

Why, oh, why does this forum always regress into arguements from crazies on both sides about religion? We need a forum god to delete this crap.

By norman

January 14, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this

Glad to be considered the anti-christ. All who have brains should be glad to counter the noxious notion of a christ, a saviour to die to save men from their sins. A most pernicious and ridiculous notion.

By Dane

January 14, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

There’s no reason that creationism and evolution cannot exist side by side. I think that as far as dates go, who knows how long a day is to the Almighty? Can we really comprehend the Infinite? And why only the Judeo/Christian version of Creation? What if a Hindu child is sitting in class being told that Jehovah created the universe and not Brahma, or is it Shiva, or Ganesha? I don’t know, but I have four Hindu students in my class, and I cannot treat them any different. I teach in a large, ethnically diverse high school. Should their beliefs be brushed aside? Shouldn’t, then, text books contain creation stories from several different major cultures?

By Whiley

January 14, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

OK SO ANYWAY !,

Do we WISH we had the help & support at home so we can do what we need to do to succeed all the way in our professions? YES ! Do we? uhh, not really, no.

Which equals lower pay. Kind of a trap isn’t it.

By Dane

January 14, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this

Hugh—- because there are those who believe that everything can be explained by religion, and that no matter what the topic, it’s in the bible.

By Hugh Jorgan

January 14, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this

I’ve lived in the South my entire life (LA), in GA for the past 4 years. I have never seen a more visible, vocal, and obnoxious religious set as here. I don’t know why people are always in each other’s faces about it. I mean goddamn, religion is a private thing, I thought, something between you and your God. You should be focusing your energies on it, not on prosletyze everyone you meet who’s different from you. Geezus.

By Akeya

January 14, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this

MOveon- The selective service is a joke and the idea of it should be terminated. Why should women be paid less simply because GOVERNMENT enacted the selective services and men are FORCED to sign up for it?

And Terry- how can you speak for all women? Do you have any idea about what most women’s objectives are?

Chuck- This is not the 1950’s. Not all women want to stay home. The fact that your wife stayed home until your children were in their teens is commendable. I personally would be bored.
That is still no justification for women being paid lower.

By norman

January 14, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this

Hugh: the biggest problem of the South is not racism. It is too much religion.

It must be eliminated.

By Hugh Jorgan

January 14, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this

Norman, I have no problems with religion. It’s been around forever and it’s not going away. It doesn’t even bother me. They’re not intended to be malicious, only to guide you through life in a relatively painless manner. Problem is, they’re man-made and man-operated, making them subject to the flaws of mankind. Now, that’s the truth, for me. I find it to be self-evident. to me, God never intended religion.

I think the discussion about women being paid unfairly has run out of steam. It’s a short discussion. Yes, women aren’t paid as well as men. Yes, it’s unfair. Yes, the question above this forum, as it’s worded, is ridiculous. What can we do about? Not much, just keep chipping away at it. As generations of people are born more tolerant of others and differences then these problems will fade. Just like racism against the Black community is slowing disappearing with each generation. So, too, will this problem for women, the problems gays have, and our current administration.