Topics

The Associated Press

Women rally for an equal pay bill in front of Congress.

Featured Topic | Posted 30 weeks 3 days ago

Should Congress mandate 'equal pay' for women?

Equal pay for equal work is the feminist catch phrase in the U.S. Senate this week. That’s because lawmakers are scheduled to take on a measure arising out of the case of Lilly Ledbetter, an Alabama woman who lost a wage discrimination suit at the Supreme Court last year.

Read More

Ben likes: Gender wage distortions

Jennifer Peck Corry/Human Events

According to the National Center for Pay Equity, women’s earnings in 2006 were 76.9 percent of men’s, with the median full-time, year-round female employee earning just $32,515, compared to a median male earning of $42,261. But should we be outraged? No. And here’s why.

Women earn less largely because we have the luxury of decisions that men generally can only dream of. We work less hours in the average work week, we are more likely to take time off to have kids or care for aging parents, and we choose lower paying fields requiring less formal education. Oh, and we’re less far less likely to be killed at work, a little detail often neglected at the NCPE.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, men are much more likely to suffer fatal workplace injuries than women. According to 2006 BLS statistics, the most recent year available, 428 American women were killed on the job. Compare this with the 5,275 men who lost their lives. The reason: Men take more dangerous, laborious, and physically demanding jobs, and they are compensated heavily for taking such positions. According to the BLS, the most deadly fields for 2006 were those heavily dominated by men, including logging, mining, waste management, law enforcement, construction, and transportation projects.

Conversely, as the BLS statistics demonstrated, the fields with the lowest death rates, including education and social services, are female-dominated. Ultimately, the average man is more willing than the average woman to spend his days inside dark mines to extract coal.Act like a man and you’ll be compensated as one.

Read More

Joel likes: Keep the courthouse doors open

Deborah J. Vagins/ACLU

Last May, the Supreme Court ruled in Ledbetter v. Goodyear that employees who have suffered years of discrimination can’t have their day in court, if they don’t discover the discrimination within 180 days of their employer’s initial discriminatory pay decision.

The Ledbetter decision not only reversed years of employment law, it also ignored the realities of a workplace. Often employees don’t know what their co-workers are paid. In fact, only one in ten private sector employers has adopted a pay openness policy and companies often prohibit employees from sharing wage information at all. An expectation that an employee learn that information within the first 180 days of a pay decision is unreasonable.

Unless Congress intervenes, companies will be able to discriminate for years and unjustly profit from paying women, minorities, the elderly, and people with disabilities less, as long as it keeps the discrimination secret for a few months.

In other words, if a company is discriminating in its wages and hides it for just a few short months, it can pay women less than men, blacks less than whites, older workers less than younger ones, and so on, and so on, with absolutely no accountability. Ever. They can hurt workers and their families, and just pocket the money.

Read More

How readers are voting

your vote
average
vote
Schwarzenegger, Stallone and Willis, with Demi Moore, at the NYSE
The Associated Press

Schwarzenegger, Stallone and Willis: The pictures are still big, but the action stars got old.

Featured Topic | Posted 30 weeks 5 days ago

From Arnold to Shia: Where have all the action heroes gone?

Instead of dashing, swashbuckling heroes who can beat up and outshoot any bad guys who come their way, the new breed of action star is more likely to be skinny, awkward and studious-looking.

"Now the geek is god in Hollywood," declares the veteran publicist and Oscar campaigner Tony Angellotti. "Every generation redefines its heroes and the heroes of today are slight of stature and geeky looking... Stars like Clint Eastwood and Bruce Willis were men; these are boys, and they're appealing to younger audiences."

Read More

Ben likes: Pretty young action heroes all in a row

Libertas

Instead of dashing, swashbuckling heroes who can beat up and outshoot any bad guys who come their way, the new breed of action star is more likely to be skinny, awkward and studious-looking.

The problem with this new breed is that you can’t build a film around them. Rather, what plants butts in seats is the logline, gimmick, car, effects, etc… Once upon a time, you went to see a Schwarzenegger film. You went to see an Eastwood film. You went to see a Mel Gibson movie. No more. Producers probably love this sea-change because it keeps them from having to deal with stars throwing their weight around. Emile Hirsch giving you a hard time?

No problem. We got 10 more who look just like him.

Read More

Joel likes: Violent femmes

Stephanie Mencimer/Washington Monthly

The enormous popularity of women as film enforcers has stirred much debate over what these films say about women, feminism, Hollywood, and violence, and whether it's progress or exploitation. But no one has answered a more interesting question: What does this say about men? After all, none of the big female hits could have achieved its staggering popularity without nabbing a significant male audience, those same guys who were once the primary consumers of Die Hard, First Blood, and Commando. If men once lived vicariously through the escapades of John Rambo and Col. Matrix -- in movies where women were mainly crime victims or in need of rescue -- what does it mean when they love watching Lara Croft kick some bad-boy butt? It's a pretty sharp turn from misogyny to masochism.

Read More

How readers are voting

your vote
average
vote
Husband doing chores
The Associated Press

A husband doing chores? Take that, University of Michigan study!

Featured Topic | Posted 32 weeks 4 days ago

Battle of the sexes: Do men add to women's housework in marriage?

For married women who can't figure out why they always have so much housework researchers may have the answer -- husbands. A new study from the University of Michigan shows that having a husband creates an extra seven hours of extra housework a week for women. But a wife saves her husband from an hour of chores around the house each week.

Read More

Ben likes: Men, women and the housework enigma

Tom Purcell/Cagle Post

The male mind doesn't care as much about the inside of the house as the outside. Our noggins are wired for larger spaces, such as the garage, the driveway, the yard. Sure, some men are neat freaks and homebodies and some women are sloppy and couldn't care less about the inside of their homes. But where biology is concerned, the male and female brains are different.

But the housework study isn't so interested in biological truths. It is more interested in one of its key findings: that the institution of marriage appears to change the division of household labor. In married relationships, even if an egalitarian viewpoint is present, men still report doing less housework than their wives, says George Mason sociologist Shannon Davis.

"Marriage as an institution seems to have a traditionalizing effect on couples -- even couples who see men and women as equal," she says. In other words, marriage itself is the reason women are forced to pick up stinky socks and wipe up the slop in the kitchen after dinner.

Read More

Joel likes: Can you even the score on housework?

Feministing

Obviously, this plays out really different based on your class background or the type of relationship you are in, but consistently, both in my experience, the experience of my peers and others, the majority of house work falls on the shoulders of women. It is the assumed default position, that if it isn't done, than guess who is going to end up doing it.

Who is expected to do what in the household is extremely political and it isn't just a matter of convenience or someone whining more than the other. It is based on a historical division of labor that is the crux of the nation. Furthermore, when middle class women do not have the time to clean their houses, who do they hire to clean them? So still, today, the majority of house cleaning is done by women and mostly women of color. 

Read More

How readers are voting

your vote
average
vote
The Associated Press

Yeah. We know.

Featured Topic | Posted 42 weeks 1 day ago

Men behaving badly: Why can't we grow up?

NPR

They call him the "child-man" and you probably know him -- that guy a decade or so out of college who dresses and lives like he still is in college, and who has managed to avoid all the things that come with adulthood: spouse, kids, mortgage.

Why aren't young men growing up anymore? Is this good or bad for America?

Read More

Ben likes: Child-man in the promised land

Kay Hymowitz/City Journal

That sound you hear is women not laughing. Oh, some women get a kick out of child-men and their frat/fart jokes; about 20 percent of Maxim readers are female, for instance, and presumably not all are doing research for the dating scene. But for many of the fairer sex, the child-man is either an irritating mystery or a source of heartbreak. In Internet chat rooms, in advice columns, at female water-cooler confabs, and in the pages of chick lit, the words “immature” and “men” seem united in perpetuity. Women complain about the “Peter Pan syndrome”—the phrase has been around since the early 1980s but it is resurgent—the “Mr. Not Readys,” and the “Mr. Maybes.” Sex and the City chronicled the frustrations of four thirtysomething women with immature, loutish, and uncommitted men for six popular seasons.

Read More

Joel likes: Grow up? Not so fast

Lev Grossman/Time

Some of the sociologists, psychologists and demographers who study this new life stage see it as a good thing. The twixters aren't lazy, the argument goes, they're reaping the fruit of decades of American affluence and social liberation. This new period is a chance for young people to savor the pleasures of irresponsibility, search their souls and choose their life paths. But more historically and economically minded scholars see it differently. They are worried that twixters aren't growing up because they can't. Those researchers fear that whatever cultural machinery used to turn kids into grownups has broken down, that society no longer provides young people with the moral backbone and the financial wherewithal to take their rightful places in the adult world. Could growing up be harder than it used to be?

Read More

How readers are voting

average
vote

Join the Debate

Start your own blog, comment on topics, and let your voice be heard. Start your free account now!

User login

login

Most Viewed

Most Discussed

Most Emailed

Ads by Google