Posted 29 October 2012 - 08:49 AM
Posted 29 October 2012 - 09:06 AM
1- for someone as enlightened as you, you sure depend on putting words in others' mouths to make your own point.
Haha... yeah, that's one of Cantrolls favorite ploys along with "quickly change the subject" and "repeat things ad naseum"...
Although I'm sure you meant to put "enlightened" in quotation marks, right?
Posted 30 October 2012 - 01:27 AM
Posted 30 October 2012 - 01:49 AM
lol you're still assuming the pay data is based on "equal pay for equal work"
the only assumption i'm making is that extending the statute of limitations to cover the most recent discriminatory act is a good thing for a person who has been discriminated against
you're desperate to spin this discussion, to the point that you're projecting that desire upon me. resetting the statute of limitations to include the most recent discriminatory act seems like a pretty cut and dry "good thing" so i can see why you wouldn't want to talk about that. don't worry though, tubs is here to cheer lead for you
Posted 30 October 2012 - 01:55 AM
My point was that, like everything Obama has tried, the legislation has, so far, had the opposite of its intended effect.
Posted 30 October 2012 - 02:05 AM
for someone whining about someone else supposedly "putting words in your mouth," you sure are putting a lot of words in this law
Posted 30 October 2012 - 02:22 AM
OK, if you say so. You're the enlightened one.
Posted 30 October 2012 - 05:53 AM
the legislation has, so far, had the opposite of its intended effect.
Obama signs the Ledbetter Act into law. Immediately the trend reverses and the gap begins to widen.
as if now allowing women to take employers to court whenever they find out they're being discriminated against, rather than within the first 6 months of their employment, somehow widened the gap
i hate to break it to you but there are tons of variables at work and i've even said (in this very thread) that more legislation is needed. i never suggested that the lilly ledbetter act ended discrimination, in the same way that i've never suggested that the rest of the civil rights act ended discrimination. but allowing someone to file suit whenever they've been discriminated against, rather than just saying "sorry but even though you were discriminated against as recently as last friday, when you received your check, it's gone on for 2 years now so you're gonna have to deal with it," is somehow totally hurting women. flawless logic there
Posted 30 October 2012 - 11:13 AM
Posted 30 October 2012 - 04:37 PM
Variables at work? No, it's sexism, plain and simple. You've told us that yourself.
sexism shows itself in different ways and lilly ledbetter does not protect against all instances of discrimination in the workplace. you truly have no idea what you're talking about, and i don't understand what exactly you're attempting to prove by clinging to your anti-"increasing the statute of limitations" stance on instances discrimination. while it is highly unlikely that the entire wage gap can be attributed to outright discrimination, about half of it has no other explanation (when controlling for job experience, hours, education, etc.)
i know it is very difficult for you to sympathize for women when you yourself come from the most discriminated against group in america, the straight white male, but by helping women achieve equality, you yourself may break the chains that bind you to the ground