Romney a Lock - You Can Put it On the Board YESSSS!!

So, if they're not giving things out, then why do the men have higher salaries? Why not just pay them less?

 

Well, unless you think the legislation is just nice sounding gobblygook, designed to make people feel better, but which won't solve the problem, and will instead lead to more lawsuits, and higher costs for business as they attempt to comply with the law.

 

It all goes to the idea that government can solve all problems by passing a law.

Affordable housing, healthcare, wages, discrimination, renewable energy, etc.

Just pass a law and the problem will be solved. And, if you oppose the law, you oppose solving the problem.

 

If the business pays men and women equally, then there won't be any reason to have a lawsuit.

And if it costs the business more to pay women the same as men, well, boo frickin' hoo. They should be paying them equally for doing the same job in the first place.

 

What two jobs are the exact same?

What two people have the exact same experience?

Do unions negotiate higher salaries for workers with more experience? Does that violate the principle of "equal pay"?

 

Plenty of businesses. Wal-Mart. Fast-food. Newspapers even (yeah, yeah, I know).

And it has nothing to do with experience. It has to do with hiring two people for the same job, and paying one more than the other. And doing it over and over again.

 

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

 

Since laws cannot solve all problems, ergo we should not pass any laws.

Except those shoving ultrasound probes up vaginas and keeping teh gayz away, of course.

We want our countree back.

 

Do you honestly think businesses don't hire two people at the same time for two openings?

I'll give a hint: A newspaper copy desk has two openings. They hire two kids out of college. One male, one female. Should they make the same amount?

 

The preference in the Republican Party is for the traditional household setup and the return to 1950s values when everything was better for people who could vote and go to college and stuff. And as shown, there have been clues dropped all over the place that toe right up to the line (and I think over it) into a declaration on the fair pay issue. Given that, it would be quite naive to think there's a groundswell of support for "yes everyone should be paid equally if only we could figure out how to do it, by golly!"

The women in the evangelical/hardcore Christian base would not argue too strenuously against the notion that their husbands should make more than a single woman with no kids.

 

Basically, yes.

But, does one have better internships? Did one do better on the editing test they were given, or have better clips? Did one go to a better school, get better grades?

Did one have job offers from other papers, and you decided to match the salary, because you wanted them -- maybe even for diversification reasons?

See, I can see why they might receive offers that contained different salaries. I don't see why gender would play any roll in why they would be different.

And, I'm not sure how any law would take all of these potential factors into consideration.

 

Absurd.

You stereotype evangelical women in a way that is really unfortunate. As if they are less "modern" in their thinking because of their religious beliefs.

What other groups would you be comfortable describing in such despairing terms? Likely none.

And, I'm not trying to say anything bad about you. Honestly. But, it's just as wrong to stereotype evangelical women as it is to stereotype anyone else.

You can be evangelical in your religious beliefs, and thoroughly "modern" in your thinking on women's issues.

Hell, take Laura Bush as an example. She (along with maybe Donald Evans) was responsible for her husband's religious "awakening".

She's as big a proponent on women's issues as anyone you will find. She's religious, and fully modern. Evangelical, and feminist. And, without contradiction.