I was really tempted to downvote comments for falsehood here, but I think responding to those falsehoods may end up being more valuable. Also because @NetRunner shouldn't have to be the only one arguing in favor of equality.

>> ^Trancecoach:

And my response to that, again, (and let me make this clear, because you seem to think that we're in disagreement on this point) is to accept that there is, in fact, a wage disparity on the basis of gender. What I am suggesting, which I believe Rachel doesn't appreciate in this clip, is that there are other, deeper, societal reasons underlying this wage disparity and, thus, there are other, deeper, societal ways to address these reasons which do not include legislation in the manner in which it's being proposed.

This is demonstrably false -- In fact, they address it in the clip. Using the most complex models with as many variables as possible, there is still a massive gap in pay that cannot be accounted for by economic class, lifestyle choice, occupation, or any other variable. These studies don't just look at aggregate figures, even though the data is almost always presented that way. When you have two people of opposite gender in the same position, the woman will almost always make considerably less than the man.

>> ^Trancecoach:
Farrell does offer some explanations for the wage disparity and, like me, feels it's unacceptable, morally. We (You, Rachel, Warren, and myself) could all, essentially, cite the very same statistics and studies and draw different interpretations and conclusions from the data which clearly demonstrates the disparity in wages on the basis of gender. While I do not side with conservatives or corporatists on this issue (because I do not deny that the wage disparity exists nor do believe that it's the way it should or ought to be), I do believe there are other underlying factors which include both misogyny and misandry that have fostered the problem to its current state.


Your comment that you can draw different conclusions from the same statistics is meaningless unless you actually do it -- That is, produce your own analysis based on the data or find someone who has. Otherwise it's akin to saying "You can use statistics to prove anything, so we should disregard any conclusions people have drawn from them." You can dismiss any conclusion or evidence in this fashion, and it has no place in a rational discussion.

I haven't read Farrell's work, so I'm going to have to infer his arguments based on what you've written about him. It sounds like what he's presenting is a guide to how women end up making less based on lifestyle choices -- Choosing to stay with a child instead of going to work, choosing not to take a better paying job elsewhere to stay near family, choosing (involuntarily) not to fight as hard for a raise as her male coworkers, etc. This information can be used successfully to avoid making those choices or to mitigate them, and avoid falling into the "lower pay" traps.

This is certainly useful information, but it is not a valid basis for justifying a pay gap. The fallacy with that argument is that it necessarily presupposes that your pay for a particular job should depend on how you got that job. Let's say we have a man from a somewhat wealthy family that traveled a lot after college and so entered the workforce late, received adequate performance reviews, changed companies a couple of times, and now is in his mid-30s as a middle manager in a financial firm. Let's also take a woman from a lower-middle class family who worked hard to get a Masters degree and started at a financial services firm but had to take time off to care for an ailing family member and put her career on hold for a few years to have children, and now in her mid-30s has found herself in the same middle manager position at the same firm.

Given that premise, statistics tell us that the man will almost certainly be making more than the woman -- Possibly even 25% more. You could argue that the man likely has more pull at the company because of his family's wealth and that the woman made poor choices (earnings wise) by putting her career on hold for so long, but the fact is that they are both in the same position doing the same thing. The law doesn't care how your career went and how you ended up in your job; it clearly states that for the same work men and women should be paid equally, and the woman in this scenario is the target of discrimination.

It's a nice use of rhetoric, @NetRunner, but my use of the word if in this case was not to postulate that the stem of the sentence (A) is or could be untrue. I'm using a more syllogistic style suggesting that given that the stem (A) is true, then why not B? And my response to that, again, (and let me make this clear, because you seem to think that we're in disagreement on this point) is to accept that there is, in fact, a wage disparity on the basis of gender. What I am suggesting, which I believe Rachel doesn't appreciate in this clip, is that there are other, deeper, societal reasons underlying this wage disparity and, thus, there are other, deeper, societal ways to address these reasons which do not include legislation in the manner in which it's being proposed. (Perhaps legislating on the issue would be, as you say, "harmful to society," but it seems that it would likely be ineffectual with regards to addressing what's at cause of the problem -- which, as I consider it now, tends to be the case with most governmental legislation.)

Farrell does offer some explanations for the wage disparity and, like me, feels it's unacceptable, morally. We (You, Rachel, Warren, and myself) could all, essentially, cite the very same statistics and studies and draw different interpretations and conclusions from the data which clearly demonstrates the disparity in wages on the basis of gender. While I do not side with conservatives or corporatists on this issue (because I do not deny that the wage disparity exists nor do believe that it's the way it should or ought to be), I do believe there are other underlying factors which include both misogyny and misandry that have fostered the problem to its current state.

>> ^Trancecoach:

I'm not denying the existence of misogyny, but I do wonder why, if men are paid more then women, anyone would hire a man? Why not hire a woman in a man's place, pay them 80 cents on the dollar, and make a killing?

The use of the word if suggests that men being paid more than women might not really be happening. You then ask a question whose obvious answer would be "misogyny," as if this was some sort of refutation of the fact that pay discrimination exists.
>> ^Trancecoach:
I don't understand what you mean by accusing someone of misandry as a form of misogyny. You'll have to explain that to me.

Rachel says "it is factually true that women get paid less than men for doing equal work." You respond (in part) "the myth of male power only serves to further propagate both the misogyny and the misandry that are both rampant throughout the society"

Let's make this more abstract:

Rachel asserts that A is true, and cites data from studies to back it up.

You assert that perpetuating the falsehood A is harmful to society.

I am asserting that A really is true, and disputing it is harmful to society.
>> ^Trancecoach:
Personally, I found Warren Farrell's book, Why Men Earn More to be fairly illuminating with regards to these issues.

Does he have data that refutes A? Or does he just have some explanation for why A is happening that makes A seem morally acceptable, and that reversing A through legislation would be harmful to society?

Rachel (and I) always thought the anti-pay equality folks believed some form of the latter. Now they (and you) are implying they have the former. Implying that it is now an established fact that A is not true about the world we live in, and people who repeat A are spreading myths and lies either out of ignorance or misandry.

I'm saying that denying the truth of A is both a lie and dismissal of the legitimate concerns of women that amounts to a misogynist act.

And just to be explicit, Proposition A = Women get paid less than men for doing equal work.

I'm not denying the existence of misogyny, but I do wonder why, if men are paid more then women, anyone would hire a man? Why not hire a woman in a man's place, pay them 80 cents on the dollar, and make a killing?

I don't understand what you mean by accusing someone of misandry as a form of misogyny. You'll have to explain that to me.

Personally, I found Warren Farrell's book, Why Men Earn More to be fairly illuminating with regards to these issues.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Trancecoach:
Not all of the studies and census statistics are as clear cut as Rachel makes it seem in this clip. For one thing, statistically speaking, more men's "value" or "worth" is based on their income, and are therefore willing (or are socially coerced) to work in particular kinds of jobs that women are not (such as physically riskier jobs, longer commutes, more frequent travel, longer hours, for example), for a greater number hours per week and/or days per week, and/or more years over the course of their lives than women. By contrast, women's worth or value is based less on their income and are therefore more willing (or socially allowed) to work in jobs that have a greater range of flexibility in terms of experience, time, and physical impact.
I'm not seeing any data. In any case, we're talking about different pay for equal work. We're not talking about average male salary vs. average female salary in aggregate, we're talking about men and women with the same position, same education,working the same hours, producing equivalent work, under the same working conditions...and they're being paid less.
>> ^Trancecoach:

The question we should be asking is what is lost by the income disparity? If the society is complicit in a gender bias as evidenced by an income disparity, it is just as complicit in the social pressures that are imposed on what is valued on the basis of gender and why.
The confrontation with misandry is a third rail, politically speaking, but, the myth of male power only serves to further propagate both the misogyny and the misandry that are both rampant throughout the society.
A fair point, but we're not talking about the "myth of male power", we're saying "misogyny exists, and we have data that proves it, but Republicans say it's a fairytale."
From where I sit, the a big part of misogyny is the rank dismissal of all claims that misogyny is real, or failing that, that misogyny is bad. To accuse someone, even lightheartedly, of engaging in misandry by presenting hard data saying "misogyny exists, and is widespread", is itself misogyny.
Just like the whole bit where Republicans accuse people of being racist against white people for pointing out that white people discriminate against black people, and that by talking about it we're just perpetuating the problem we're trying to solve...

Jessica Biel AND Kate Beckinsale? Add Milla Jovovich, replace Colin Farrell with me, and it closely resembles one of the most awesome Mitty-esque fantasies I've ever had.

Again with the remakes... jesus, get some originality, hollywood. Granted the original movie was an adaptation but it was it's own unique Verhoven/Arny masterpiece. This'll no doubt be some Len Wiseman/Colin Farrell dreck

I'm a Stooge fan. I own the chronologically released shorts on DVD and I've seen all thier shorts at least 3 or 4 times.

As far as the trailer goes, the Stooges themselves look and sound great. They really seem to have nailed the Stooges' mannerisms, voices, and style. The guy doing Larry Fine is a little taller and thinner than he should be, but for the most part in every other way they are a faithful re-creation of the classic characters. They nailed it. And what slapstick I saw sure looked like it had the punchy, zippy choreography that made the stooges so great when they were on thier game. Kudos.

I'm a bit nervous when I see nuns in slingshot thongs though, and women walking around with 6 inches of cleavage. The Stooges were certainly no strangers to spicing things up a bit and playing the wolf-hounds. But they kept the innuendo pretty subtle, and the pool nun was about as subtle as a crowbar. I liked how they kept Curly innocent though. "Is your hair different?". I sure hope they keep the boys innocent. I'd hate to see the movie become nothing but a scatological, sex humor cesspool. The Stooges should not go there. That's no thier thing. But it IS a Farrel movie, so (sadly) such pandering seems likely.

Boy did you miss the point.

He wasn't making a comment on religion... he was making a comment on the death penalty.

He was explicitly stating how wrong people are to use the bible to justify capital punishment.>> ^A10anis:

So, "an eye for an eye" is gods word, but he has been misunderstood? Hallelujah, we can all rest easy, god was just bad at communicating his tenets. Now, off you go and interpret his word any way that suits you. Religion is so obviously man made and, as such, ambiguous nonsense.

Will Farrell looks old. But his eyebrow slant is great. And this would qualify as *talks* right? Lol.

Belty Bush! Fuck yeah! God this was good! Labia Majoria! Butt-hole! Unconscious! Fucked the best friend and didn't tell you. Cooked! Wow, this was funny!

Did I put in enough *!*s? Wait for a few more beers...

I'm beginning to suspect that a real barrier to moving forward on men's and women's issue is a lack of empathy, a two way lack of empathy.

Maybe my comment should have been -- look past the anger of this post and just take a moment to imagine what it is like to be her, and why she would write this.

I think this is at the heart of all conflict, actually. A lack of empathy.

So forget what she was trying to do. What I am trying to do is to foster some empathy.

Any chance you can go back and read that rant again, with this perspective? To imagine what it would feel like to be frightened of any random woman on the street?


>> ^Jinx:

>> >:
Well, if thats what she was trying to do then she has failed pretty badly.

>> ^bareboards2:

I wonder if you understand that first link, L. "A rant."
Do you understand what she is trying to do? She is trying to instill in men the generalized fear that women live with EVERY SINGLE DAY.
It's awful, isn't it? To think that some random woman might attack you at any moment. That you aren't ever safe.
Get mad at that blog entry -- but understand that perhaps you might save some rage for how women live each day. This is our reality. It's awful, isn't it?
I don't agree with her, though -- I agree more with Warren -- that men have some work to do to save themselves from the cultural trap they are in. They have work to do to reclaim themselves.
This isn't a contest in who has hurt the other more. We all have to take responsibility for ourselves. Women need to walk out of abusive relationships immediately. Men need to learn how to be emotional/have emotions without it seeming like they are less than "manly."
THIS ISN'T A CONTEST.
>> ^LarsaruS:
If you want to rage a bit read these two posts by a feminist blogger:
http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/a-rant/
http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/a-man-is-a-rape-supporter

-if/
Also, on a completely different topic, I wonder if any of you have been to:
http://macholikeme.com/
It seems like a very interesting play/movie and I would like to hear if it is worth shelling out for.


Well, if thats what she was trying to do then she has failed pretty badly. Between accusing all men of being pro-rape and suggesting that we should all go die she has rather set herself up to not be taken seriously. I'm not raging, I'm laughing. This is what a lot of men associate with feminism, and it does their cause more harm than good.

I wonder if you understand that first link, L. "A rant."

Do you understand what she is trying to do? She is trying to instill in men the generalized fear that women live with EVERY SINGLE DAY.

It's awful, isn't it? To think that some random woman might attack you at any moment. That you aren't ever safe.

Get mad at that blog entry -- but understand that perhaps you might save some rage for how women live each day. This is our reality. It's awful, isn't it?

I don't agree with her, though -- I agree more with Warren -- that men have some work to do to save themselves from the cultural trap they are in. They have work to do to reclaim themselves.

This isn't a contest in who has hurt the other more. We all have to take responsibility for ourselves. Women need to walk out of abusive relationships immediately. Men need to learn how to be emotional/have emotions without it seeming like they are less than "manly."

THIS ISN'T A CONTEST.

>> ^LarsaruS:

If you want to rage a bit read these two posts by a feminist blogger:
http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/a-rant/
http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/a-man-is-a-rape-supporter
-if/
Also, on a completely different topic, I wonder if any of you have been to:
http://macholikeme.com/
It seems like a very interesting play/movie and I would like to hear if it is worth shelling out for.

Thank you for the promote. I appreciate it!
In reply to this comment by Raigen:
promote

>> ^Payback:

I don't understand what you guys are blathering about, I've seen this Will Farrell vid with his 2 year old landlady a million times.


Lol yea I got that too, but not on this vid, on the vid that was supposed to be him impersonating Bush.