I recently picked up this book second hand. I really think it deserves more intrest. I'm sure you've all heard the myth that woman earn 75 cents for evrey dollar a man earns.

Well this book is all about that, and shows why this myth isn't true, and in fact the average woman will earn 95 cents for evrey dollar a man earns. It then further shows why, with relevant information and statistics.

It's a very good book, but might be considored anti-feminist.

Why men earn more

No, leave animal right activists and enviromentalists alone. Feel free to b**** about the feminists though.

Feminism is a capitalist conspiracy to split the working class and make it fight amongst itself rather than tackling the overwhelming evils of international conrporations and freemarket economy

Environmentalists are heroes fighting for the campaign to save our homeworld

I would call it more fighting a battle thats already won. I would say it's a battle to split man and woman apart, then to elevate men further above woman.

Talon, if you're an anti-feminist, stay tuned to my feminist debate. I'm saveing up a trump card that you would find really intresting.

What is wrong with animal rights? That is my cause.

Stop being off-topic, please. This threads already contraversial.

Yeah, theirs a line between anti-feminist and sexist and you crossed it. Please don't do that again or just don't post in this thread or you'll get it closed.

Well there's a line between having a sense of humor and...well, not having a sense of humor, too. And you just crossed it. I'll be good from now on, sweetums, I promise.

Smooches.

Whoa whoa whoa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah I talk a hell of a lot, and yes I spend money that is not mine, but without girls, what the hell would you complain about all day?

Walken is trying to be fair and equal and you are having a go at women.

Also, are you gay?

Okay, enougth. Back on topic.

That Republicans thing had better be a joke too. I am from Northern Ireland after all, we do not take things like that lightly. People die all the time because of 'jokes' like that.

About the women thing, you had better treat them better or you are gonna be a very very lonely old man.

Okay enougth. Get back on-topic.

Ok, one last thing. I don't treat women badly at all, and frankly I'm pretty disgusted by the way they're treated regularly. I hate to say something so corny, but if you were to ask any of the women I know, they'd tell you exactly what I feel. And I'm a Republican myself, it just seems to me that it's very popular to blame them for everything in the world. People just like to go "Ooh, evil corporations, evil Republicans, let me go buy a prepackaged image at Hot Topic now."

Now here you go.

Walken, you remember anything specifically that's of particular note, or should we just pick it up? Your description was kinda vague.

About what? The contents of the book?

What is feminist about a woman wanting to earn the same amount as a man for the same task? I think that's a valid request.

And what, pray tell, did this book list as the reasons why a woman should/should not, does/does not make as much as a man? I am very curious what the argument could be.

Yeah, like did anything stand out that was shocking or anything? Did they give specific reasons or was it just "Men make more than women"?

Some of Farrell's findings: Women are 15 times as likely as men to become top executives in major corporations before the age of 40. Never-married, college-educated males who work full time make only 85 percent of what comparable women earn. Female pay exceeds male pay in more than 80 different fields, 39 of them large fields that offer good jobs, like financial analyst, engineering manager, sales engineer, statistician, surveying and mapping technicians, agricultural and food scientists, and aerospace engineers. A female investment banker's starting salary is 116 percent of a male's. Part-time female workers make $1.10 for every $1 earned by part-time males.

A feminist is someone willing to take advantage of aspects of law and societey in her favour, but should there be one against her all hell breaks loose. A feminist is a hypocritical sexist.

Did you know a man is 20X as likley to get the death penalty for the same crime as a woman? Do you see feminists complaining about that? Working for mens rights? Do you see feminists allieing themselves with fathers 4 justice or demanding equallity in child custordy laws? Do you see feminists complaining when woman slap or hit men in movies? But arent they protesting the minute its the over way around?

EQUALLITY is not what the feminists want, it's FEMALE EMPOWERMENT.

More findings in the book:

Surprisingly, Farrell argues that comparable males and females have been earning similar salaries for decades, though the press has yet to notice. As long ago as the early 1980s, he writes, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics found that companies paid men and women equal money when their titles and responsibilities were the same. In 1969, data from the American Council on Education showed that female professors who had never been married and had never published earned 145 percent of their male counterparts. Even during the 1950s, Farrell says, the gender pay gap for all never-married workers was less than 2 percent while never-married white women between 45 and 54 earned 106 percent of what their white male counterparts made.

Exactly, just like I said about Malcolm X/KKK. Neither were right, in fact both were very, very wrong.

But then again, how many women have been killed for being female? How many guys have been killed for being male?

I would say more men.

Sufferagettes were never killed, were they?

But didn;t they lead the white feather campagin, meaning 20,000,000 men would die at war and 10,000,000 would come home wounded, as well as 07,000,000 going missing, presumded dead, to this very day?

That kind of backfired didn't it?

It certainly did. But even I will say that women were dumb back then. The Suffragettes weren't all bad, they opened up doors of opportunity for all women. Even so, as you said dearies, feminists are only after power, not true freedom and equality.

Okay. Let's not talk about the vote anymore as I need to save my trump card for my debate.

And what is the debate? I don't understand what the issue here is. Ok, so women can be just as successful as men, great. What's the problem?

Some people just can't take that, Jenn.

Well, I do hope that is not the case. I'm sure the fellas on the board have evolved past the "women are the lesser sex" mentality.

Have you heard that really good song by No Doubt, I'm Just a Girl? Totally applies here. unfortunately (and you can't deny this Walken) some men do still look down on women, I don't know why. At the end of the day, we are all just people.

The issue is our sexist societey.

Breat cancer gets 14x as much federal funding than Prostate cancer. Both are lethal, both genders pay taxes. Why is this?

Men pay more into social securtity than woman. They then have only 6 years of retirement to claim a pension. Woman have, on average, 14 years. That shows a huge transfer of taxes from men to woman. Why?

Men die earlier from all 8 magor causes of death. Theres never been a study as to why. But isn't there an office of womans health?

Funny how women have a choice when it comes to abortion, raising a kid, and/or giving it up for adoption, but men have none. But if a woman decides to keep the kid, to men still pay child support? But if she doesn't want it and he does, he doesn't get a say.

How about that Violence Against Women act? It's created an entire industry of lawyers, social workers, and counsellors. Funny that men never objected to this kind of law that is gender-specific, that only protects women.



But you can say 'All guys have sick minds' and 'Guys have much sicker minds than girls'? And this isn't discrimination? A lot more men are looked down upon than what woman are, I think.



No ones not takeing anything. The only sexist thing here is our societey and you.

Whoa, easy there Walken. So now I am not part of 'our society'? That guys have sick minds thing was cruel stereotyping, but it was true for every guy I know. I know very well how different you are to them, believe me you are in about a million good ways.

I am not sexist, but yes, if I am messing around, I will say 'boys' or make stereotypical jokes. I am so sorry we can't all be as good as you, Walken. There is no need to brand me sexist, when you know I had agreed with what you said about the fathers for Justice.

There are worse things in the world than me making a joke about boys having sick minds. I have a ruder mind than most boys I know any way!

Ok, first off, the rate of mortality for breast cancer is MUCH higher than for prostate cancer. Prostate cancer, on average, is a much slower growing cancer and more localized.

And yes, there have been MANY studies as to why men die earlier than women. (It's not our fault you guys do.) There have been no conclusions reached, but in general it is accepted that men take more dangerous risks (higher rate of accidental death), internalize emotion (higher stress levels leading to stroke and heart disease) and tend to ignore dangerous symptons that could be treated if caught earlier.

As for the treatment in court regarding child care/custody and such, that point I will give you. These things need to be handled on a case by case basis. Being female doesn't mean you are going to be a good mother.

And we can make men-bashing jokes because, well, noblisse oblige. There are certain drawbacks to being the dominating power. White, straight men are at the top of the power pyramid, but are therefore open to the most criticism.

The only group with no special rights, no considerations, are the straight white middle aged males.

But can't both Cancers lethal? And don't BOTH genders pay taxes? So why shouldn't there be an equal amount put into the research of each one. I fail to see how a cancer being faster growing warrants THAT much less funding than it's female equivilant.

There has never been a goverment funded study. Likewise, until JUST LAST MONTH, there was never an office of mens health, only womans. Likewise, womans health clubs are protected and encouraged, MENS ARE ILLEGAL.

Exactly.

Don't you see that you are complaining just like the Suffragettes? I'm not calling you hypocritical, but what would you do if a guy walked up to one of you female friends and started shouting at her for wearing a short skirt, when she had complained about boys the day before? Would you stand up for her, or say, "Oh well this is justified," and walk on?

Explain. Where am I complaining?

About girls complaining about boys.

It's the same reason leukemia is more well know than, say, cervical dysplasia. Both are cancers and both can BE deadly, but you have a hell of a lot better chance of recovering from cervical dysplasia then leukemia. Therefore, leukemia warrants a more serious study and allotment of funds. And if it is such a big concern, why don't men get together and organize walks and fundraisers and raise awareness for prostate cancer? Most of the news coverage on breast cancer is brought about by women, for women.

And for heaven's sake, yes, there are men only clubs. Shriners, boy scouts, masons, fraternity's. And as far as Women's Health goes, sorry, but we have more specific health needs than do men.

In order to stablize the status quo, steps have to be taken that will make the group previously in power feel violated. Same thing how the white people felt when our schools here in America were integrated in the 60's. Women have just been able to make bigger strides than many protected classes.

Funded by the goverment. Funded by woman AND men.



Boy scouts accept girls. They are subject to lawsuit if they don't. But the Brownies are protected by law should they choose to deny a guy entry.

WHY do you have more specific health needs than men, that you need a health office funded by the goverment and men don't, hmm?

And Why is it that it's illegal to charge women, who have more accidents, higher premiums, but legal to charge men, who die sooner, higher premiums for life insurance? Doesnt that seem a little unfair?

And what about the draft laws? They only apply to men, right?

When was the last time a guy gave birth? Oh wait, I guess its sexist that there are maternity wards?

"When was the last time a guy gave birth? Oh wait, I guess its sexist that there are maternity wards? "

When was the last time 27,000,000 men died so that woman could stay home, demanding equal rights in all the POSITIVE areas? And who was it who initiated the white feather campagin to shame men into joining the army?

Trying to be funny and ignoreing the arguements put foward is, I'm sorry, really lame. If you don't have anything constructive to add, leave the debate to me and Jenn.

You are just reusing the same old argument, even though Jenn has provided lots of valid evidence that you are taking things too far. I am so very sorry if we can't all be as mature as you. I am sorry for being so lame with my jokes, and for caring.

No, what I am referring to are non-profit organizations that are funded by donations and charity drives. It's not funded by the government at all.

And it must be a UK thing, because I don't know what you mean by a health office for women but not men. Women's health needs are more varying than mens. are reproductive systems are more complex and subject to more health problems. Pregnancy is it's own nightmare of health concerns. Menstrual and menopausal problems, fertility...

And again, it must a UK thing bc the life insurance policy I have is based on my income and what I pay in, not my gender. And what sort of accidents are you referring to that women have more of?

The draft laws are actually something that some women (for some odd reason) have been voting to become a part of. I think it is considered an honor---leaders of the country if you will. That's why they were put in place, because women weren't useful enough in combat situations (which, in my case, I am inclined to agree with).

So why is breast cancer 14X as federally funded?



Don't underestimate my ammunition because I have a lot more on the ready. I'm holding back my best for my debate because I don't want my opponent to know it. HE has to bring it up (which im sure he will) for me to use this.

Are these all UK figures in this book? I think they must be because that seems awfully skewed for the U.S., but I could be wrong.

And I edited off my last paragragh, I didn't like the way it sounded right after I posted it (sounding a little condescending, which I wasn't trying to be), but now I am curious. Who is this 'HE' to whom you are referring?

Oh, I should've been more clear. It's in the debates board, lol.

They are UK figures.

The issue is not sexism against women, stop being paraniod. If you bother to read the issue you'd find it sexist females (femanists) spreading lies about male earnings to further benifit themselves.





Yet if anyone makes female or black-bashin jokes they get branded sexist or reacist. You and your ilk are nothing but fascist hypocrits




Yep, we just can't win. And nobody seems to care about our interests




The Suffragettes are not an issue here. The Suffragettes wre not femanists. Suffragettism was a intergrationalist ideology as are all civil/equal rights movements, femanism is a seperatists one blaming another group for all there problems just as all fascist movements do. A true suffregette would be turning in their graves over femanism.





... why would anyone complain about girl's wearing a short skirt.






So what your saying is our health is second? All people's are equal, just woman are more equal than others.





Rubbish. The answer to equality does not lie in persecuting a group of people who we're even alive at the time of the persectuting, in fact not only are the men suffering under female sexism today not responsible for the actions of their grandfathrs, but the females benifiting from female sexism today are not suffering the way their grandmothers did.
This arguement is nothing less that 'punish the son for the sins of the father'





That is intergration, and does not involve giving another group more rights than another.

All your trying to do is replace one form of sexism with another which you benifit from.




So your arguement is because we don't carry our child, we don't have as much say in the matter. You are such a sexist. Yet I bet you'd go insane if some guy argued because your smaller and weaker on average you should stay at home and be submissive you'd go balistic.




People once said that about the suffregettes. You might think sexism isn't a big deal, but it is.

No, in no way was I being paranoid, I just didn't know what the issue was. It wasn't clear until Walken listed some of the points. And I do wish you wouldn't throw around lables like you know anything of my beliefs. I am not fascist, nor a hypocrite and I am FAR from a feminist. I have listed my points well, and not resorted to name-calling. I would appreciate the same respect. It only makes you sound petulant and takes away from your argument.

My only point is that women should be guranteed the same priveledges of power that men are. Women are every bit as intelligent as men. If a woman can do the same work as a man, then she should be alloted the same rewards and respect. But women can't necessarily do the same things as men, I am not afraid to admit that. I have a problem with areas like firefighters and law enforcment lowering their standards to allowing a certain number of women into a program. I don't want a weak person who was placed to meet a requirement trying to save me from a burning building.

And please, give me a break. No one cares about men's interests? Who is being paranoid now? My only point with women having more specific health concerns (if you had read my next post, it was explained) is that women have MANY more health issues that are gender-specific than do men. I didn't say anything about men being less important, or deserving of less medical facilities.

And I never said anything at all about persecuting any group. What I said was, when a group that has become used to the idea of dominating has another, lower group raised to equal power, it feels violated. It loses its leverage, and feels therefore like it has been 'persecuted' when instead things are beginning to balance. As with my earlier post regarding intergration, at that time the white people felt they were losing power because what had previously been a priviledge only for them had been given to another, (and considered then inferior) group of people.

Is this to say that there is no reverse sexism? No, I'm not saying that. As I said in an earlier post, I think the court system is very off when they rule based on a parent being a mother or father rather than what kind of care they could give their children. And I don't think it's fair that any group get 'bashed' just for a shared trait, be it gender, color, race, religion, etc. There are other examples of this reverse sexism, I'm sure, but it's far from a conspiracy against men.

The only men that seem to tbe really upset on this thread are from the UK. Maybe you guys have experienced harsher goverenment laws than we in the US.

Yup. Dureing WW1 while the men were off dieing for their country the woman were saying that. 'Look at us. In mens absence we've worked in the factorys, and done just as good jobs'. So why couldn't they go to war?



I don't think so. In fact, this book wasn't even written in the UK, it was written in the US, hence the dollar-cent statistics.

Even today, there are few females in the army when compared to the numbers of men. Back during the World Wars, women were the stay at home kind, and were seen as the lesser sex. No wonder they did not want to go to war, they might have got dirt on their shoes. When I learnt about what the women did during the war when I was only 8 years old, I remember being so pleased. I didn't know about that feather thing, but the times were very, very different.

Men and women will never be truly equal, and I don't think I would ever like to be treated as a man would be, but that again is different to who gets paid more.

I dont see what the fuss is all about? So what if men get paid a bit more than women........We spend enough on them......dont we???

Oooooh! That was not necessary.

But a fair statement, as gender stereotypes portray a man spending money on his lady.

You were so pleased that woman stayed home cosy while men were dieing painfully in god foresaken trenchs? You would be.