This is actually the point I'm making: these underlying factors are not separate from the discriminatory effect they have on wage disparity. We do not ameliorate discriminatory practices by imposing equal discrimination on all parties. Rather, we raise awareness and consciousness of the issues impacting men and boys, just as we attend to those impacting women and girls. >> ^davidraine:

>> ^Trancecoach:
There are statistics by which the disparity in wages could be held in the light of (stats which are outside the scope of my work-week to specifically cite here), which indicate, for example, that men are more likely to spend more time away from the families than women, more years of their lives in careers than women, more involved with physically debilitating occupations than women, more likely to be sent to (and die in) wars than women, more likely to be held financially liable for the support of children with or without legal custody, etc. What I am suggesting is that while each of these taken individually might be considered an "lifestyle choice," as a whole, they are part of a much larger underlying societal expectation which then holds men accountable if they are unable to serve their male function as "providers" or "protectors."
I think there's merit in this argument, but I have an issue with it. I don't think we can adequately measure the impact these factors have and the effects on compensation they should be given without first closing the pay gap. Discrimination plays such a large and varied role in the wage gap that it completely dominates the effects of the other variables you cite below. Furthermore, many of those variables them have substantive effects on job performance. If discrimination's effects are removed from wages, those variables' effects on wages should become self-evident.

>> ^Trancecoach:
There are statistics by which the disparity in wages could be held in the light of (stats which are outside the scope of my work-week to specifically cite here), which indicate, for example, that men are more likely to spend more time away from the families than women, more years of their lives in careers than women, more involved with physically debilitating occupations than women, more likely to be sent to (and die in) wars than women, more likely to be held financially liable for the support of children with or without legal custody, etc. What I am suggesting is that while each of these taken individually might be considered an "lifestyle choice," as a whole, they are part of a much larger underlying societal expectation which then holds men accountable if they are unable to serve their male function as "providers" or "protectors."

I think there's merit in this argument, but I have an issue with it. I don't think we can adequately measure the impact these factors have and the effects on compensation they should be given without first closing the pay gap. Discrimination plays such a large and varied role in the wage gap that it completely dominates the effects of the other variables you cite below. Furthermore, many of those variables them have substantive effects on job performance. If discrimination's effects are removed from wages, those variables' effects on wages should become self-evident.

@NetRunner, you wrote: "In other words, you don't dispute that women are being paid less as a group, you just believe that this is because women as a group aren't doing equal work. They stay at home to raise children, don't pursue advanced degrees, or maybe they just weren't raised to be as outspoken/competitive/aggressive as men. Whatever the cause, you posit that it is this deficit in quality or quantity of work from women which is the primary reason women get paid less than men on average. That's not a basic agreement with A, that's a wholly different assertion."

>>>Actually, that's not my argument. There is a disparity between the ways in which men and women are expected to contribute value to the society and this disparity is reflected, generally speaking, in the kinds of jobs that are sought/provided, responsibilities that are sought/provided, and roles or identities that are sought/provided by and for the genders. This is a distinction from lifestyle choice, which is not as socio-culturally pernicious as what I'm attempting to convey. However, if you are suggesting that I disagree with PL for EW, you're only partially correct. There are statistics by which the disparity in wages could be held in the light of (stats which are outside the scope of my work-week to specifically cite here), which indicate, for example, that men are more likely to spend more time away from the families than women, more years of their lives in careers than women, more involved with physically debilitating occupations than women, more likely to be sent to (and die in) wars than women, more likely to be held financially liable for the support of children with or without legal custody, etc. What I am suggesting is that while each of these taken individually might be considered an "lifestyle choice," as a whole, they are part of a much larger underlying societal expectation which then holds men accountable if they are unable to serve their male function as "providers" or "protectors."
As I asked before, what value is lost by the wage disparity?

@NetRunner, you wrote: And yes, I get that you're saying it in a soft, non-accusatory tone -- it's not that women are intrinsically inferior, it's that our society as a whole is shaping them into less valuable workers, whether they want that or not.

>>>Closer. The society is also shaping men into 'wage earners' whether they want that or not.


@NetRunner: Still, I think anytime you go around saying pay discrimination is in any sense justified, you're wading into some dangerously misogynistic waters. Worse, I think if you use the word "myth" to describe the idea that women face unjust pay discrimination, you've pretty much jumped in with both feet.

>>>Show me where I have posited that the pay discrimination is justified! I will immediately retract it. There are ingrained habits of this argument into which you seem to want to place me, but that is not the position I am taking. It is, by no means, a "myth," that women get paid less than men for equal work. That much is mathematically accurate. What is "mythical" about it is that circumstances under which that wage disparity exists is identical between the genders. It is not, but is instead indicative of a much larger, deeper, societal disparity between the genders... one that did/does not get adequate attention.

Thanks I had to watch it again myself. Their myspace page doesn't list any upcoming shows at all... but you could go there to click on the bring them here button.

Thank you also for upvoting so many of my older ones
In reply to this comment by hpqp:
*quality kick-ass music. I so wish I could see them live... (come to Switzerland godammit!)

Seasons greetings. Here have a dark christmassy animated video:

Video makes me smile.

I can see why you're enthusiastic about that video. It makes me laugh that you messed it up so bad.

Much love from my house,
marinara

In reply to this comment by enoch:
>> ^Confucius:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/enoch" title="member since April 22nd, 2009" class="profilelink">enoch...why the hell would you post such personal backstory about this girl?


because danny made me realize that the post alone might leave it open to ridicule.that people would see it for far different reasons than what my intentions were.
i should have anticipated this but my imagination failed.
i was rummaging through my old archives and came upon this old video and was just flooded with such great memories and wanted to share.
i thought the video was funny and the whole idea behind it just cracks me up but after my conversation with danny i realized that it doesnt make much sense without a backstory.

why would it be a bad thing?because it is personal?
this is my dear heart and knowing from where she came to where she is now is one of my greatest success stories and i am so very proud of her.

but now i am beginning to question my initial exhuburence.while my desire was to share, much is lost in translation and the thought of people ridiculing this wonderful person sickens me.
i was her protector for years and i find the instinct to protect her is still strong.

i live my life openly and honestly so the idea of personal information does not hinder my courage to just throw it out there, BUT the thought of people ridiculing this lovely free-spirit is a whole different matter.
i know she wouldnt care.she would most likely laugh.
but i care.
i think i may have made a mistake by posting this.
ah..
hindsight you are a bitch.

>> ^Confucius:

@enoch...why the hell would you post such personal backstory about this girl?


because danny made me realize that the post alone might leave it open to ridicule.that people would see it for far different reasons than what my intentions were.
i should have anticipated this but my imagination failed.
i was rummaging through my old archives and came upon this old video and was just flooded with such great memories and wanted to share.
i thought the video was funny and the whole idea behind it just cracks me up but after my conversation with danny i realized that it doesnt make much sense without a backstory.

why would it be a bad thing?because it is personal?
this is my dear heart and knowing from where she came to where she is now is one of my greatest success stories and i am so very proud of her.

but now i am beginning to question my initial exhuburence.while my desire was to share, much is lost in translation and the thought of people ridiculing this wonderful person sickens me.
i was her protector for years and i find the instinct to protect her is still strong.

i live my life openly and honestly so the idea of personal information does not hinder my courage to just throw it out there, BUT the thought of people ridiculing this lovely free-spirit is a whole different matter.
i know she wouldnt care.she would most likely laugh.
but i care.
i think i may have made a mistake by posting this.
ah..
hindsight you are a bitch.

All this right wing nonsense about the unregulated free market being our savior is just downright laughable. Especially when you consider the content of this very video.

These people aren't greedy, they are passionately recognizing that the interests of the people of the state are not being represented or sought by the government of that state.

To bring up the tired old neo-classical bullshit about "efficiency" is absolutely uncalled for.

Entertain the following scenario: The most efficient market processes are adapted, do we now live in a utopia? Or do we realize a society where joblessness is at all time highs, corporate profits are through the roof, and a crumbling social infrastructure and middle class threatens nations' abilities to pay their debts.
Sound familiar?

I would suggest that the neo-classical free(est) market mantra is about efficiency only, and ignores the human side of economics. Economics should not rule us, it should serve us. This is currently not the case, and the 99% are waking up to this nightmare.

Finally, I would note that judging by the unfolding ecological crisis, and the crippling of economies by outdated, overpriced, low EROEI energy sources, the movement to change economic theory and purpose will only grow stronger. If occupy falters now, it won't be long before it bubbles to the surface once again (without vast changes to our democracy and economic practices). Don't be fooled by the mainstream media, history doesn't always repeat itself, the youth and disenfranchised will be the vanguard and protectorate of a new era. It would seem to be inevitable.

This is very cute but you have your facts wrong though. They are competing in Taekwondo and not kickboxing. The commands are in Korean and the chest protector and helmet are the official WTF TKD protectors. I mean even the sign at 2:20 says Taekwondo match... but it is ok dystopianfuturetoday. I like you anyway

Dag rocking the King beard. I like it.

I pledge my sword to thee, if it pleases m'lord, dag of the House VideoSift, the First of his Name, King of the dramatic chipmunks and the Shimabukuros, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms and Protector of the Realm

I'm confused. You say that your definition of "corruption" is literal "not working that way it's supposed to" but then link me to a definition that matches what I think corruption means -- actual, well, corruption.

We're not going to get far if we can't agree on the meaning of corruption. Heck, we can't even get started.

I just don't agree with any of your base assumptions, honey bunny.

I don't agree with this: "Both the institutions of US government & police don't function in the way that they claim to be designed. i.e. maximizing liberty while minimizing suffering"

And I REALLY don't agree with this: "the literal daily suffering of innocent people for no good reason i.e. dancing in protest." Those activists didn't suffer, they aren't innocent, there was a good reason. They are so thrilled they got thrown to the ground -- they set out to be thrown to the ground. They couldn't be more pleased. They won.

I'm sorry, I just don't even want to answer the two questions you posed. I can't get past the first one. "Who or what do you feel the police are protectors of? (proof?)" Google it. I don't think anything different than anyone who has had a problem and called the police for help.

I'm sorry, Genji, I just don't have the energy for this conversation if that is the question you have to ask me. I know you think that is a serious question, however for me it is proof of too big a divide between us.

I suspect we agree on many things. Citizens United, for example. I'll bet you hate that Supreme Court ruling as much as I do. The war of drugs. I'll bet you think that is a huge waste of money and human lives, just as I do. Legalization of Marijuana? I'm with you, babe.

I am more interested in concrete conversations, rather than your esoteric bent. The divide is too big for email exchanges -- perhaps if we lived in the same town, we could haggle for months over endless cups of coffee. These dueling monologues that email conversations digress into? I'd rather watch a cat fart video. And I don't much like cats.

Here's my philosophy of humans and life: "Everyone is doing the best they can in every given moment. Their best may stink, but it is the best they can do." Some people's best is so horrendous, you have to keep those people out of your life -- angry, abusive people, for example. That's their best -- I believe those folks are deeply damaged and are acting out of their pain. And I walk away from them.

But most people are just normally damaged. They have bad moments. I try not to define folks by their worst moments, but by their best. And that includes police officers.

I don't think that we can agree that police officers are human. If we can't start there, we got nowhere to go.

Sometimes I bore myself, as a good friend of mine says.... Blah blah blah

In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
That's a really great video. It's proof of a hypothesis I had too. = D

Tho with that framing, I can understand how you may have interpreted my & that activist's cynical statements considering how.. philosophical? your definition of corruption seems to be.

For many, I think they think plain old literal "not working the way it's s'pposed to" a good definition for corruption.

More specifically - Political, Police, & Corporate were the types of corruption I was alluding to.

Now if we're discussing that video & incident from a literal view.
Literally, Both the institutions of US government & police don't function in the way that they claim to be designed.
i.e. maximizing liberty while minimizing suffering

So with that shallower, pragmatic framing of corruption; you should probably see how my intemperate idealism could make me so passionate about the literal daily suffering of innocent people for no good reason
i.e. dancing in protest

~~~
Okay, I'll stop the wall of text here in a second.

Tho I would like to inquire about a few more things.

Your & @Shepppard's admiration for the positive effects of police officers seem to be based off the concept of The Correlation of Allegiance and Protection

"Since the police do provide some protection they obviously deserve my allegience"

I'd like to ask:

Who or what do you feel the police are protectors of? (proof?)

Does the sheer willingness to protect that who or what, justify the means by which that protection is accomplished?

I don't believe our government is blatantly corrupt. I think that you are naive in thinking that, and show a lack of understanding of history and the definition of corrupt.

I don't agree with your 15% figure of "good cops."

So there is no point in having a discussion, because we can't even agree on basic facts.

Also, the conversation has devolved, as these comment streams almost always do, into picking out a phrase and triumphantly pointing out that the words aren't exactly accurate, so the rest of the comment is ignored.

So I'm out of here, too. There is no future in continuing this conversation. If you can call it a conversation.


>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@Shepppard
Let's get this straight first.
There is a difference between the personality covered by a uniform and what that uniform represents itself.
Your mental framing of police is obviously a reminder of a protector. A beloved personality who you respect probably.
Many others tho, view police thru the frame of the uniform & what it represents. A corrupt government. The hired attack dogs of an oppressive institution, run by mysterious elites, hiding behind arbitrary titles & large stone buildings.
Here's a question for you and bareboard:
If the government you live under is blatantly corrupt, why would you expect anyone to respect the individuals whom enforce that corruption with the threat of violence?
Do you really feel the 15% of officers that are polite, well-behaved, & sincere in their work.. make up for the millions of wrongful deaths & imprisonments of the innocent?

@Shepppard

Let's get this straight first.
There is a difference between the personality covered by a uniform and what that uniform represents itself.

Your mental framing of police is obviously a reminder of a protector. A beloved personality who you respect probably.

Many others tho, view police thru the frame of the uniform & what it represents. A corrupt government. The hired attack dogs of an oppressive institution, run by mysterious elites, hiding behind arbitrary titles & large stone buildings.

Here's a question for you and bareboard:

If the government you live under is blatantly corrupt, why would you expect anyone to respect the individuals whom enforce that corruption with the threat of violence?

Do you really feel the 15% of officers that are polite, well-behaved, & sincere in their work.. make up for the millions of wrongful deaths & imprisonments of the innocent?

I sometimes feel there is a serious disconnect running through the american culture between the use of force and the intrinsic value of ANY human life. Drawing a firearm on a human being should be the last thing a protector of the people should do in any situation that has not a clearly confirmed weapon, plus: not shooting the suspect if he/she ahs no intent of inducing harm.

@Mazex

Well, where your claim about brainwashed people falls apart is that if Jesus was made up (which no reputed historian would claim), or His resurrection wasn't true, his disciples certainly wouldn't have martyred themselves for that lie. Being direct witnesses of the fact, you can't claim they were brainwashed. So yeah.

I posted the historical reliability of the bible because it shows its not just cooked up, as you tried to claim. It's highly intricate, and I dare say it would be actually be more miraculous for holding up so reliably if it wasnt true. 100 percent historical accuracy is pretty compelling, I think..it indicates that these are honest eye witness accounts we're dealing with.

Here are some interesting science facts that the bible fortold thousands of years before science knew anything about it..pretty good for made up isnt it?

The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true – “He hangs the earth on nothing.”

Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.

Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors!

There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea

Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11; 14). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were “bled” and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that “the life of the flesh is in the blood” long before science understood its function.

Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwin’s theory of the survival of the fittest.

The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: “In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)…Then God said, “Let there be light (energy).” No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.

The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12). Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, science has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct.

Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be “parted” and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago – God declared this four millennia ago!

Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the “paths of the seas.” In the 19th century Matthew Maury – the father of oceanography – after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maury’s data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas.

Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). At a time when less than 5,000 stars were visible to the human eye, God stated that the stars of heaven were innumerable. Not until the 17th century did Galileo glimpse the immensity of our universe with his new telescope. Today, astronomers estimate that there are ten thousand billion trillion stars – that’s a 1 followed by 25 zeros! Yet, as the Bible states, scientists admit this number may be woefully inadequate.

The number of stars, though vast, are finite (Isaiah 40:26). Although man is unable to calculate the exact number of stars, we now know their number is finite. Of course God knew this all along – “He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name” (Psalm 147:4). What an awesome God!

The fact that God once flooded the earth (the Noahic Flood) would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by most of the scientific world because it was God’s judgment on man’s wickedness.

The continents were created as one large land mass (Genesis 1:9-10). Many geologists agree there is strong evidence that the earth was originally one super continent – just as the Bible said way back in Genesis.

Life begins at fertilization (Jeremiah 1:5). God declares that He knew us before we were born. The biblical penalty for murdering an unborn child was death (Exodus 21:22-23). Today, it is an irrefutable biological fact that the fertilized egg is truly an entire human being. Nothing will be added to the first cell except nutrition and oxygen.

God has created all mankind from one blood (Acts 17:26; Genesis 5). Today researchers have discovered that we have all descended from one gene pool. For example, a 1995 study of a section of Y chromosomes from 38 men from different ethnic groups around the world was consistent with the biblical teaching that we all come from one man (Adam)

Origin of the major language groups explained (Genesis 11). After the rebellion at Babel, God scattered the people by confounding the one language into many languages. Evolution teaches that we all evolved from a common ancestor, yet offers no mechanism to explain the origin of the thousands of diverse languages in existence today.

Origin of the different “races” explained (Genesis 11). As Noah’s descendants migrated around the world after Babel, each language group developed distinct features based on environment and genetic variation. Those with a genetic makeup suitable to their new environment survived to reproduce. Over time, certain traits (such as dark skin color for those closer to the equator) dominated. Genesis alone offers a reasonable answer to the origin of the races and languages.

Air has weight (Job 28:25). It was once thought that air was weightless. Yet 4,000 years ago Job declared that God established “a weight for the wind.” In recent years, meteorologists have calculated that the average thunderstorm holds thousands of tons of rain. To carry this load, air must have mass.

Medical quarantine instituted (Leviticus 13:45-46; Numbers 5:1-4). Long before man understood the principles of quarantine, God commanded the Israelites to isolate those with a contagious disease until cured.

Circumcision on the eighth day is ideal (Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:3; Luke 1:59). Medical science has discovered that the blood clotting chemical prothrombin peaks in a newborn on the eighth day. This is therefore the safest day to circumcise a baby. How did Moses know?!

Our ancestors were not primitive (Genesis 4:20-22; Job 8:8-10; 12:12). Archeologists have discovered that our ancestors mined, had metallurgical factories, created air-conditioned buildings, designed musical instruments, studied the stars, and much more. This evidence directly contradicts the theory of evolution, but agrees completely with God’s Word.

A seed must die to produce new life (1 Corinthians 15:36-38). Jesus said, “unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain.” (John 12:24). In this verse is remarkable confirmation of two of the fundamental concepts in biology: 1) Cells arise only from existing cells. 2) A grain must die to produce more grain. The fallen seed is surrounded by supporting cells from the old body. These supporting cells “give their lives” to provide nourishment to the inner kernel. Once planted, this inner kernel germinates resulting in much grain

Olive oil and wine useful on wounds (Luke 10:34). Jesus told of a Samaritan man, who when he came upon a wounded traveler, he bandaged him – pouring upon his wounds olive oil and wine. Today we know that wine contains ethyl alcohol and traces of methyl alcohol. Both are good disinfectants. Olive oil is also a good disinfectant, as well as a skin moisturizer, protector, and soothing lotion. This is common knowledge to us today. However, did you know that during the Middle Ages and right up till the early 20th century, millions died because they did not know to treat and protect open wounds?

The Pleiades and Orion star clusters described (Job 38:31). The Pleiades star cluster is gravitationally bound, while the Orion star cluster is loose and disintegrating because the gravity of the cluster is not enough to bind the group together. 4,000 years ago God asked Job, "Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion?" Yet, it is only recently that we realized that the Pleiades is gravitationally bound, but Orion's stars are flying apart.

Soil conservation (Leviticus 23:22). Not only was the land to lay fallow every seventh year, but God also instructed farmers to leave the gleanings when reaping their fields, and not to reap the corners (sides) of their fields. This served several purposes: 1) Vital soil minerals would be maintained. 2) The hedge row would limit wind erosion. 3) The poor could eat the gleanings. Today, approximately four billion metric tons of soil are lost from U.S. crop lands each year. Much of this soil depletion could be avoided if God’s commands were followed.

Animals do not have a conscience (Psalm 32:9). A parrot can be taught to swear and blaspheme, yet never feel conviction. Many animals steal, but they do not experience guilt. If man evolved from animals, where did our conscience come from? The Bible explains that man alone was created as a moral being in God’s image.