zipper wrote:
Priceless !
Babe, are you something else or what......?
I LUV a woman with spunk.
Do I have a T-shirt for you....



I wouldn't take any shit from those hippie peacenik liberal treehugger types either.
Blow his fucking head off next time he tries to get cute.

HOO RAH !

Alt-Ctrl-Tom wrote:
You are the sweetest thing. 

Gotta go. 

 romeotuma wrote: 
way to miss the point.

restating - I believe she asked you not to direct those to her.  You should respect that request.

 

 romeotuma wrote: 
Good response!  Did you decide against "I'm rubber, you're glue" and "I know you are but what am I" because they are cliche?

 romeotuma wrote: 
There you are, acting like a 12 year old again.   
I apologize to any offended 12 year olds.

I believe she asked you not to direct those to her.  If you seek respect, you need to give it.

 Alt-Ctrl-Tom wrote: 

Tom,
All good points, and well stated. You're probably right about diluting the effects by rolling up to a higher level - in fact, I'm sure you are. The "equal work" phrase generally should preclude making sweeping assumptions at higher levels, though, unfortunately, it is common.
And, good for you in the fight for pay equity!

romeotuma wrote:
This is your first and final warning.  Cease with the fetishist and other trolling posts to me, or I will complain to BillG and Rebecca. 
In fact, I may complain even if they aren't posted directly to me.  Tread carefully, Troll.

 lowelltr wrote: 
Sorry - yeah, I got your distinction about the organization as opposed to an individual woman, though it clearly wasn't stated in my response.  I didn't look it up (I could certainly), but I seem to recall NOW stating that they weren't supporting Sarah Palin specifically because of her position/record on womens rights.  (I'd expect her stance against a woman's right to control her own body is/was a predominant reason). 

I'm surprised that total payroll by gender is the standard ... I mean, rolling up the numbers to a higher level can lose the distinction of equal pay for equal work..  In my IT Senior Management days, we always compared gender pay at a job classification level.  (equal work)   I'm sure HR rolled that up for company wide statistics/information, but the application of ensuring that there was equal pay for equal work occurred at a lower, more-precise, level.  Possibly total payroll is used simply to make the numbers digestible (if you know what I mean), or as a guideline/indicator.

(As a related aside - I remember personally championing a corrective pay increase for one woman who reported through to me (that I inherited from another Director following a re-organization), due to her performance not justifying the large discrepancy in her pay compared to her male peers.  All I had to do was put together the details and mention the implication of gender discrimination, and she got a big raise outside of the annual performance cycle.)  

We're ahead! YES!!!

lowelltr wrote:
NOM.  nom nom nom.   

 romeotuma wrote: 

what?????

If I were an organization entitled "National Organization for MEN", I certainly would endorse that ticket!
..but that's the only way I would

 Alt-Ctrl-Tom wrote: 

Tom,
Again, he's not saying anything about "a woman" supporting her - he's talking about the organization...but, whatever

I'm in HR (have been for longer than I care to admit), and I can tell you that the formula above (overall averaging (mean) of total payroll by gender) IS the system most studies (including government studies) use to calculate pay equity.....

 lowelltr wrote: 
The first section is so slanted/snide in it's statement/implication that a woman should support Palin just because she's a woman, with no thought to her positions or politics or policies regarding women's rights, that they buried their lead.

The pay structure is interesting information ... I wonder how it plays out with all the details.  (For instance: Is there an experience/position distinction in the pay ... Women at a supervisory level (for example) would/should be paid more than men who are interns)  Simply dividing totals to come up with averages may blend out details too much to make the resulting average fully meaningful ... I wonder how the pay distinction in the campaigns plays out when "equivalent work" is considered.

 lowelltr wrote: 

It is the duty of every citizen according to his best capacities to give validity to his convictions in political affairs.

lowelltr wrote:

 rosedraws wrote: 

He's not talking about a particular woman, or even women in general; he's talking about an organization who's goal is to promote women into greater roles of equality and opportunity. That organization should, officially, be ECSTATIC that a woman is on the ticket, not totally and hysterically critical and flustered because she's not their kind of woman......

...but, of course, the true point of the entire article is past the first sentence...if you got that far - in fact, it's the final three paragraphs about pay equity.

lowelltr wrote:
This writer thinks women are so stupid that they would vote for a woman, just because she's a woman, regardless of her views/experience/opinions/direction/ability?  And you agree?

Right off the bat, this writer proves they are writing for sensationalism, and without so much as a moment's thought. 

And that tells me something about you, that you think this trash is worth posting again.

This from The Deceivers website, whose goal is to "out" hypocrites of all types/stripes.....

I could probably write a page and a half here about why the National Organization for Women endorsed Barack Obama and Joe Biden this morning, instead of the ticket that includes ... I don't know ... a woman ...?

Can you imagine the NAACP not endorsing Obama? Or the Veterans of Foreign Wars not endorsing McCain? Or the Global Association of Political-Speech Plagiarists not ... well, you get the picture.

Oh, right. I forgot. A University of Chicago religion professor decided (in Newsweek, no less) that Sarah Palin isn't actually a woman - but merely offers the "pretense that she is a woman." You can look it up. So I guess that makes all the identity-politics wrangling moot. Gosh, I feel better now.

But back to why I put this issue in play. Here's Barack Obama's website on the issue of Pay Equity:

"Despite decades of progress, women still make only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. Throughout his career, Barack Obama has championed the right of women to receive equal pay for equal work."

Here's Obama, talking two weeks ago in Toledo about GOP vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin:

" seems like a very engaging person, nice person. But I've got to say, she's opposed, like John McCain is, to equal pay for equal work. That doesn't make much sense to me."

And now, here's the interesting part. Scripps-Howard columnist Deroy Murdock took a look at the Senate staff salaries of both Barack Obama and John McCain, thanks to LegiStorm, a nonpartisan watchdog service that offers the raw data to anyone who wants to dig through it. Guess what Murdock found?

Obama's 28 male staffers divided among themselves total payroll expenditures of $1,523,120. Thus, Obama's average male employee earned $54,397. Obama's 30 female employees split $1,354,580 among themselves, or $45,152, on average ... on average, Obama's female staffers earn just 83 cents for every dollar his male staffers make ...

McCain's payment patterns are the stuff of feminist dreams. McCain's 17 male staffers split $916,914, thus averaging $53,936. His 25 female employees divided $1,396,958 and averaged $55,878. On average, according to these data, women in McCain's office make $1.04 for every dollar a man makes.

Can anyone think of a living American feminist icon who's not openly supporting Barack Obama? Just wondering.

 lowelltr wrote: 
Blah blah... woof woof... blah blah... woof woof...