Mostly that's because most men can't cope with their wife/girlfriend earning more than them...
The last woman I asked out earned ~50% more than me at the time before tax. I don't care.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U.S. Senate Approves Anti-Discrimination Bill Endorsed by Tim Cook
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Mostly that's because most men can't cope with their wife/girlfriend earning more than them...
The last woman I asked out earned ~50% more than me at the time before tax. I don't care.
So much hate going on in this thread by so few members.
All I know is I had an awesome "get to know you" hangout/date with a funny, handsome intelligent dude last night and it was fantastic. Apple Store + food + coffee + geek talk = awesome.
I'm still not sure how anyone can think that would destroy society.
All I know is I had an awesome "get to know you" hangout/date with a funny, handsome intelligent dude last night and it was fantastic. Apple Store + food + coffee + geek talk = awesome.
I'm still not sure how anyone can think that would destroy society.
Last edited:
Source these claims please. (I'm particularly looking forward to you divining who is a chivalrous bootlicker without even knowing what specific club I'm talking about).
Please, proceed governor.
(Good for you. Hopefully everybody realizes I'm poking fun at those who think you'll destroy society.)
Last edited:
Remember, whenever someone asks a guy to "be a man", they're usually telling him to do something that is not in his own best interest.
When I was in professional school, I once heard a couple of women say what you've just said about men dating. Immediately, I realized this wasn't true.
The real truth, is that these women were very interested in dating / marrying someone of similar or better socioeconomic status (generally, peers in school), whereas most guys just didn't give a damn about that. Most of those guys were just looking to date someone with an agreeable demeanor who was nice to look at. Didn't matter how much money she makes. Whereas, to these women, it mattered a heck of a lot. Plus, a lot of guys were looking outside of their peer group (school) to date, because boy, can it be awkward if you break up with someone and still have to look at their face every day when you go to class.
I thought for a moment if I should feel sorry for those two women because men weren't following "the rules" by dating people of only similar socioeconomic status. The answer for myself was "no."
Of course, eventually I did meet an agreeable woman who was nice to look at who also had a very good career. I settled down with her.
You asked her out. Did she have sex with you?
Last edited:
Salary Comparison By Gender (Average Monthly Salary)
Graphic Designer Columbus Ohio
Gender Average Salary
Female 3,673 USD
Male 3,773 USD
http://www.salaryexplorer.com/salary-survey.php?loc=229&loctype=1&job=54&jobtype=3
Graphic Designer Columbus Ohio
Gender Average Salary
Female 3,673 USD
Male 3,773 USD
http://www.salaryexplorer.com/salary-survey.php?loc=229&loctype=1&job=54&jobtype=3
Yay! I hope things go well.
I'm sitting in the maternity waiting room at Grant Medical with a gaggle of close friends, as our best friend has gone into labor.
As to the "work a different job than art" comment from alephnull12, nope. Not gonna. I'm not bitching about how much graphic designers make, I'm bitching about how much Female graphic designers vs Male graphic designers. See, different argument.
Ah! Graphic designer Columbus Ohio: 3673 USD female / 3773 USD male = 0.973.
Therefore, if this data is to be believed, without controlling for factors such as number of hours worked per week, years of experience etc... female graphic designers make $0.97 for ever dollar a male graphic designer makes. Basically, another rounding error in a study that doesn't even make an attempt to control for basic things. Brilliant!
What is your argument? Based on what? The only verifiable claim you made was that women make "$0.77 for every dollar that a man makes for the same work," which is demonstrably false.
Last edited:
I have to wonder if they focus on the right points when studying data on this. Salaries sometimes involve negotiation. In the case of freelance designers, they have fee schedules. In any study there's the issue of breaking down what portion was freelance. The interesting thing would be to know what equally qualified individuals of different genders received as initial offers during or post-interview. It would actually be interesting to know more about the causation rather than attribute it solely to perpetual misogyny.
I worked freelance for a while, it's horrific. I literally had a company offer me $5, to design a corporate logo for them. I've heard similar horror stories from men. The big difference is, from my experience, and other women I've talked to, we generally have to work harder to get a foot in on contracts. I've negotiated for better pay, in the past, pointing out that I covered for my male counterparts when they couldn't meet deadlines, you know what I got? Less work.
I now do what I love, I get to design toys and toy packaging, but in the 32 graphic designers working for the company I work for, there are exactly 2 women.
The problem is, it's not just my career, if you look at other careers, you get the same results. It would be wildly naive to believe it's "freelancers" dragging down the average. Plus, most industries don't have freelancers the way the arts do.
----------
Yet there's still a gap.
And the $.77 per dollar is as a whole in the state of Ohio.
The real tell is that there are almost zero fields where women out earn men, even among the so-called female fields such as nursing and teaching.
Must be because the matriarchal leaders are playing eleventy-billion dimensional chess with us to keep us fooled into thinking men have all the actual power.
Must be because the matriarchal leaders are playing eleventy-billion dimensional chess with us to keep us fooled into thinking men have all the actual power.
I didn't say freelancers were dragging down the average. I was pointing out that there are problems when it comes to analyzing such data, as among men or women there may be some range of starting offers for a given position. My concerned involved deviation in that assumed starting point for a given position or contract and how it varies across gender lines. That is a large graphic design staff. I'm familiar with the art industries as I used to work in one.
A finding of $0.97 on the $1.00 in a data set that doesn't even control for such rudimentary things as number of hours worked, number of years on the job, experience, education, type of graphic design work done, time taken off from work, willingness to take on management responsibilities, etc.. etc.. etc... is basically completely meaningless. Moreover, it's survey data, there is no way to know if it is even accurate. The conclusion to be made here, is that the people are making essentially the same amount of money.
So the $0.77 you cited for you graphic designers was really just a whole in the state of Ohio, without even controlling for what profession people have (or anything else for that matter).
Yes, on average artists don't make as much as computer programmers. We know this.
But you've already said that you are content with being a graphic designer, and you don't care that this means you will be making less money than people who are computer programmers or mechanical engineers.
So there is no problem.
Last edited:
I seriously doubt your claim of us living in a matriarchal society. Why?
We have not had a woman leader. The closest we have had as been two females being this country's top Diplomat (Clinton and Albright).
We have had 1 unsuccessful POTUS run and 2 unsuccessful vPOTUS runs (Clinton, Palin, Ferraro).
For 210 years, we had no women at SCOTUS. And even now, the majority of the justices are MEN.
At no point in the history of this country have women had more of a ruling or political majority over men. No point in this country's history.
Based on your posts here, I have a lot of presumptions/assumptions regarding you and your stance on various issues. But let's remove all doubt; answer the following questions.
Seeing that you detest a matriarchal society, would you:
- Support a repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Why, or why not?
- Support a repeal of the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution? Why, or why not?
Your response would be appreciated.
BL.
Many women prefer to vote for one of their male surrogates -- drones of the matriarchy, who festoon the countryside, catering to her every whim. This makes it more believable to play the "damsel in distress" when necessary to gain the upper hand. People fall easily to this ruse, so it remains the most effective way to get more of what they want. How else do you explain the current situation, where women hold 51% of the vote?
A female chief executive screeching for higher salaries for women based on a lie wouldn't play very well ("women make 77 cents for every dollar that a man makes for the same work" -- which isn't true). If a male demands it, it looks like chivalry. If a woman demands it, it looks like self-interested lying.
As long as men are stumbling over one another to shoot themselves in the foot, women will be content to watch it happen and get something out of it in the process.
Fundamentally, it doesn't matter who is at the SCOTUS, so long as they follow the law (and don't make it up).
However, see above.
Why on earth would I do that? Far more problematic, is that we live in a constitutional republic where the constitution is not really followed. Additional constitutional amendments should be adopted to protect the rights of individuals from intrusion by the state.
I'd gladly accept a female chief executive and majority female legislature, in exchange for a constitution and judiciary that actually protect me from them.
Last edited:
While we are on the topic of childbirth and celebrations, my wife gave birth to a new baby boy just 10 days ago. She & the baby are well.
I sent out for my confirmatory paternity test, and the results came back yesterday. The results are as expected -- definitive that the child is mine.
Anyone want to break out a cigar?
Last edited:
Congratlations!
For bringing yet another child into an already overpopulated world.
If that were the case, Why did Clinton have enough electoral votes to secure the 2008 democratic Presidential nomination?
You don't know what a female POTUS would do, so don't you dare go putting words or actions into their mouths. As much as I loathe her, Palin wouldn't have done anything like that at all, especially with her running on a platform like even more limited government than what we have. Nor would have Bachmann, and If that were the case, have you seen Haley do anything of the sort under all the power she holds as Governor of S. Carolina?
I expect either a resounding no, or crickets from you, further confirming my assumptions and presumptions of you and your stance.
Which leads to my questions
No, they judge whether the law sticks or not, and if women have equal or more footing at SCOTUS than men (when/if women outnumber the men on the bench), by your logic, they would/should prefer more bills that help/gear towards women, and judge them more constitutional than those against them or for men.
But they haven't, have they? Keep in mind, that it was a SCOTUS bench of ALL MEN that decided Roe v. Wade and Loving v. Virginia.
See my questions.
So you backpedal. If you truly loathe this matriarchal society, your logical conclusion would be to be rid of it. That leaves you with either leaving the country, or repealing the laws that give women the power that they have. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 wasn't just geared towards race; it was also for gender. To rid yourself of this matriarchal society, would you repeal it?
Yes, or no.
Another piece of legislation that gives women power is the 19th Amendment. To rid yourself of this matriarchal society, would you repeal it?
Yes, or no, please.
BL.
1) Why shouldn't I?
2) I didn't. What I said was, "Many women prefer to vote for one of their male surrogates... This makes it more believable to play the 'damsel in distress' when necessary to gain the upper hand... A female chief executive screeching for higher salaries for women based on a lie wouldn't play very well ("women make 77 cents for every dollar that a man makes for the same work" -- which isn't true). If a male demands it, it looks like chivalry. If a woman demands it, it looks like self-interested lying."
Of course not. They are not willing to make that lie -- and consequently they do not get a lot of support from women nationally. In fact, most women I know hate those three.
From a woman's viewpoint, it is much preferable to have a chivalrous bootlicker who is a male in office than someone in office who actually knows facts about women.
We live in a matriarchal society.
You're only proving my point here. We live in a matriarchal society.
No. I'd advocate for the twenty-eighth amendment. Instead of relying on some lame-ass "penumbra of the constitution" to grant privacy rights selectively to females and their genitalia as part of a dumb chivalrous ruse, this amendment would actually constitutionally protect and render inviolate rights of all individuals with regards to property and privacy (not only for women and not only in relation to their genitalia). Sex is after all, only a very miniscule aspect of human existence, and not a very important one at that.
Of course she would be "screeching".
I'm surprised you managed to leave out "hysterical" as well.
While it is your right under the 1st Amendment to do so, since you don't know what the hell they would or would not do, you don't have the right to presumably slag them for what they have not done yet. This isn't any sort of Minority Report.
Again, you don't know what the hell they would have done. Did Clinton play 'damsel in distress' as Sec. of State? Did Palin as Gov. of Alaska? Haley? Kay Orr? Not a single woman has played that card that you think they have played; Not even Giffords.
You are seriously starting to sound like a person who is bitter and cynical because they were messed over too many times by woman, and then were kicked by other women when they were already down; either that, or acutely chauvinistic.
Very chauvinistic and bitter indeed. And to be honest, an insult to every man who loves the woman they are with.
Am I? For 122 years, women did not have the right to vote. If you were to have been alive back then, would you be perfectly happy with the right to do something that your wife couldn't? Your daughter? Your mother? Your Grandmother?
I seriously doubt that you realize that the deciding vote on ratifying the 19th Amendment came from a man, who at the time they were voting, received a letter from his grandmother begging him to vote yes, because her dying wish was to vote just once in a presidential election before she died.
Would you have been happy if you voted no on that, and it were YOUR grandmother? If so, it would be a disservice to your family to do so.
You mean like what we already have with the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Something we already have on the books now?!? Sounds to me like you're not happy with what you already have, don't want to use what you have, and would spend way too much time complaining about what already works.
Very sad. I almost pity you.
BL.