Oct 17 - 46/45 - McCain +01
A Woman's Wage
Today, April 25 is Equal Pay Day.
Today marks how far into the year the average woman must work in order to earn as much as a man earned by the end of the previous year.
In other words, in order to earn as much as the average man did from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005, the average woman has had to work from January 1, 2005 to April25, 2006... today.
Women earn 77 cents to every dollar that men make.
- Equal Pay Day website
Press : linked on Clevaland blog Brewed Fresh Daily
By Kyle - 4/25/2006
37 Comments:
Thanks to my friend Chandra for forwarding me this story. Ladies, any thoughts?
I have a thought. Most women make more than me, thats for sure.
This stat is so overhyped because they don't account for the 30% less time that women spend in their careers as opposed to men due to birth, and family needs. If man x and women y work straight through to retirement what would be the difference then, zero. This is a an overquoted and innaccurate statistical representation and it is trotted out because it has shock value
That statistic does take into account the time off women take for childbirth, etc. (study) That is unpaid time. (Family values?) The point is that men and women are not equal in the workforce. Women take time off to be with the kids, usually using their personal vacation time. They are still full-time moms and full-time workers. Why can't the dads do it too? The wage discrepancy takes a big toll on families.
Women have just as much of a desire to be successful in their careers, but they aren't rewarded for it the same way men are.
Thanks for pointing this out, Kyle.
Anonymous, you are making stuff up. Please refer us to any kind of data to back up your guess.
I also challenge Anon to prove his case. I am assuming it's a him...
I mean, I know that not all women are treated unfairly in the workforce and some places do provide equal pay. But, this particular liberal lady--well, I know how it can be. And, I know that there are still many jobs out there that are mainly a boys' club. But, that's not the fault of all boys, either. And, a lot of the disparity is broken down even further... hispanic women make less than white women, etc...
That being said... I happen to know one of only two female President's of a Federal Reserve... I wonder what she thinks on the subject...
Alito had objections to Equal Pay - ALL Republicans LOVED the Alito nomination. Simple Equation = Republicans oppose Equal Pay
I buy the findings of the studies but I keep in mind that that unequal pay is a toughie to prove at least on a local level.
My aunt made a fortune as a welder in WWII. Then after the war, she could not make this kind of money. I guess all thing are revelant and demand dictates wages too.
I also think that those employers whose creed is to pay as little as they can get away with, will chose to cheat ALL regardless of gender, complexion etc.
Too bad all American employers dont wake up tommorow with the attitude of " I will pay my employees as MUCH as I can"
Should the current trend continue, I must say this: Some day soon, NOBODY WILL WISH TO WORK FOR ANYBODY
& Ladies, stand up for your rights in the workplace - If you are getting ripped - Pitch a Bitch!
Our literature search consisted primarily of research in peer reviewed
journals, chiefly in economics, sociology, and psychology. We
concentrated on research about gender-related earnings differences, as
opposed to, for example, race-related or age-related earnings differences.
We focused on studies of populations within the United States,
particularly, but not limited to, studies using the Panel Study of Income
Dynamics (PSID)1 or the Current Population Survey (CPS) databases, and
studies conducted within the past 10 years. We also included any seminal
work in the area. We reviewed each study’s primary methodological
approach (whether it used cross-sectional or panel data and whether it
used general regression, time series, or other analytic estimation
methods), the specific databases used, the years included in the study, the
key variables in the analysis, and the principal results.
To study earnings differences, most of the studies we reviewed estimated
a wage or earnings equation that relates individuals’ wages or earnings to
several independent variables, such as education, experience, occupation,
1The PSID is a longitudinal survey, ongoing since 1968, of a representative sample of U.S.
individuals and the families they reside in. The central focus of the data is economic and
demographic, with substantial detail on income sources and amounts, employment, family
composition changes, and residential location. PSID data were collected annually through
1997 and biennially starting in 1999. The most recent survey available is 2001, which
includes data from 2000.
Appendix II: GAO Analysis of the Earnings
Difference between Men and Women
Review of Other
Research on Earnings
Differences
Appendix II: GAO Analysis of the Earnings
Difference between Men and Women
Page 22 GAO-04-35 Women's Earnings
industry, and region. In contrast to simple comparisons between the
average wages or earnings of men and women, these studies attempted to
determine whether a wage or earnings difference existed after accounting
for differences between men and women in these variables.
The wage or earnings difference between men and women can be
identified in two ways. Studies that pool data for men and women together
can include a variable denoting the gender of the individuals. In a
multivariate regression analysis, the coefficient on the gender variable
represents the difference in earnings between men and women, holding
constant the effects of the other variables. Alternatively, separate
regression models can be estimated for men and women and a
decomposition analysis can compare the results for the two genders.
Our review of the literature did not uncover much disagreement over the
existence of an earnings difference after holding constant the effects of
other variables. Rather, debate centered on the size of any difference and
factors that might explain it. We found that the size of a difference can
vary by model estimation procedures, the years included in the analysis,
and the data set used. The wage or earnings difference, after controlling
for several factors, varied from 2.5 percent to 47.5 percent. Few of the
studies used data more recent than the mid-1990s.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0435.pdf
The studies are inconclusive in their findings and reproducability based on the different variables used. C'mon stats can say whatever you want them too
That is unpaid time- yes Terra unpaid time-also productivity lost b/c they are not producing anything while their hypothetical male equivalent is..
as for why women are the moms and why can't the dads be-well that is a family issue, my wife will go down to part time upon the birth of our child, my income is signifiacantly higher due to different levels of education (her associate level mine proffessional degree) If a women wants the man to stay home so she can pursue her career fine marry a man who is cool with this-regardless it is a FAMILY ISSUE-no need to legislate
sorry to get wonky but the main thrust is "We found that the size of a difference can
vary by model estimation procedures, the years included in the analysis,
and the data set used. The wage or earnings difference, after controlling
for several factors, varied from 2.5 percent to 47.5 percent"
again the numbers can be bent to show anything, also if I am correct aren't the number of females entering college higher than males currently-doesn't this ppredict a shift in the earnings? Again far too much is made of this
There may be equal shares of industriousness between the sexes. Among those employed, men worked about an hour longer-8 hours versus 7.1 hours. Some of this is due to women's higher likelihood of working part-time. Though even when that is taken into consideration, the difference is still 7 percent-or 34 minutes. These differences do add up. Over the course of a year, working men are working several 40-hour weeks more than women. Are men getting the short end of the stick by having to work more hours? Not really, says Bill Coleman, Senior Vice President of Compensation at Salary.com. "Working women are, on average, getting the equivalent of an extra 3-5 weeks off from work-but it's certainly no vacation." Coleman points out, that the extra time off is "spent managing the family and the household. It's like a second job."
http://www.salary.com/advice/layoutscripts/advl_display.asp?tab=adv&cat=nocat&ser=Ser344&part=Par503
and for the record I am not larry summers or stating that there is a difference in the abilities and productivity of the genders-just that the disparity in pay can not be a global analysis-If you were to find a specific field then it might show something but what holds true for the longshoremen doesn't necessarily hold true for the lawyer
liars, damn liars and statisticians
Free Markets, Free Choices II:
Smashing the Wage Gap and Glass Ceiling Myths
by Naomi Lopez*
Executive Summary
Despite women’s rapid gains in the working world, gender preference advocates and the media often portray working women as victims of rampant discrimination. This discrimination, such advocates argue, results in a wage gap and renders women powerless in the face of an impenetrable glass ceiling. While discrimination does exist in the workplace, levels of education attainment, field of education, and time spent in the workforce play a far greater role in determining women’s pay and promotion.
Today, the average American woman earns about 74 cents for every dollar the average man earns. Women compose about 11 percent of corporate officers in the Fortune 500 companies. While such statistics are routinely used as evidence of gender discrimination, they ignore the many variables that affect position and earnings. More important, these claims serve to devalue women’s choices—such as family, volunteer work, and self-employment—when they are not geared towards the corporate boardroom.
The reality is that, when considering men and women with similar fields of study, educational attainment, and continuous time spent in the workforce, the wage gap disappears. This is true for some women in high-paying "male" fields such as engineering, chemistry, and computer science.
Also consider this: 24 of the 25 worst jobs rated according to the Jobs Related Almanac are composed of over 95% men. These are high-risk, hazardous jobs (often called the "death professions"), which pay more than most working-class jobs because they're so undesirable. But men will work in them to be better providers for their families.
http://www.mens-network.org/wagegap.html
I apologize for speaking off the cuff in my original post, refer to the cited references for my stance
You want to get into a cut and past competition? Bring it!
From Iowa Senator Tom Harkin
- Women overall, are paid 72 cents for every $1 a man earns. The study shows that an important factor in explaining the overall pay gap is the difference between the occupations that women and minorities have compared to men and non-Hispanic whites.
- About half of working women work in an occupation that is 70 percent female, while the average man works in jobs that are 29 percent female. This means 9.6 million women work in highly segregated jobs. With the exception of dental hygienists and licensed practical nurses, the ten occupations with the highest percentages of women all pay wages below the wages paid in the ten occupations with the largest shares of men.
- The study found that even women in the same jobs as men with the same experience and skills in the same firms are paid 89 cents for every dollar their male counterparts earn. The report concluded that the 11-cent gap is unexplained and is what the study concluded to be pay discrimination.
deal
what is the name of the study harken is citing?
Value and Opportunity:
The Issue of Comparable Pay for Comparable Worth
by Deborah Walker
Deborah Walker is a research fellow at the Center for the Study of Market Processes at George Mason University.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Summary
There are few, if any, men who would qualify for the position of Playboy bunny, and there are few, if any, women who would qualify for the position of male lead in a motion picture. However, there are many other occupations in which gender may be irrelevant. People in these jobs include nurses, truck drivers, lawyers, secretaries, and economists. Why is it, then, that these jobs are each characterized by a disproportionate number of males or females? And why do many female-dominated occupations command lower wages than do male-dominated occupations?
During the past two decades, many feminists have answered these questions with one word: discrimination. They have felt that the only appropriate means for bringing about change and equality for women in the work force has been government regulation. The 1960s were characterized by one law after another, each seen as a step toward bettering women's position in the labor force. In 1963, for example, Congress passed the Equal Pay Act, requiring equal pay for the same work. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, passed in 1964, prohibited employers from discriminating against women.
Feminists in the 1980s, though, are stating that these regulations have not been effective because women on average still earn approximately 59 percent as much as men do, and are largely concentrated in certain types of jobs. Members of the Business and Professional Women's Foundation blame this "lack of progress" on poor enforcement of the regulations and on "the imprecise language of the Equal Pay Act." The organization also claims that e "Segregation of 'men's jobs' and 'women's jobs' has been a barrier to successful litigation and bargaining for equal pay for women. Because the jobs of both sexes are not identical, it has been difficult to demonstrate the discriminatory basis of women's wages."[1]
To deal with this, many feminists are focusing on what Janet Gray Hayes, former mayor of San Jose, California, calls the "issue of the 80s"--equal pay for work of comparable worth. The concept of comparable worth differs from that of equal pay for equal work not only in definition but also in how it would affect women if it were passed into law. Equal pay for equal work deals with paying a woman the same wage as a man, or another woman, who is doing exactly the same job. Comparable worth focuses on paying an entire profession or occupation the same wage rate as a second profession or occupation, both of which are determined by some outside authority to be of the same worth or value to an employer.
The proposed method of determining this worth or value of a job is a job-evaluation point system. Under such a system a certain number of points are awarded for different job criteria, such as skill, effort, and responsibility required by the job, as well as working conditions under which the job is performed. Those jobs with the same number of points are determined to be of equal worth.
Advocates of the point-system method, therefore, claim that each job has an intrinsic value to an employer and that it is possible to objectively determine this value.- In a recent court decision, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) won a major lawsuit against the state of Washington. Using a point system similar to the one described above, AFSCME introduced evidence that positions such as that of clerk-typists should be paid the same wage rate as that of warehouse workers. Judge Jack Tanner ruled that wages in "female occupations" be increased, not that wages in "male occupations" be lowered.
In other court cases nurses employed by the city of Denver have argued that they should be paid as much as city tree-trimmers,[2] and jail matrons in Oregon have argued that they should be paid the same wage as male guards.[3] The nurses and jail matrons--like the AFSCME typists--relied on the argument that their jobs are automatically valued lower than male-dominated jobs simply because they are female-dominated jobs. Their argument implies, therefore, that if the occupations of clerk-typist, nurse, and jail matron were predominantly male, the wages for these occupations would be higher.
A recent report prepared for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) by the Committee on Occupational Classification and Analysis concludes that our judgment is that there is substantial discrimination in pay. Specific instances of discrimination are neither easily identified nor easily remedied, because the widespread concentration of women and minorities into low-paying jobs makes it difficult to distinguish discriminatory from nondiscriminatory components of compensation. One approach, which needs further development but shows some promise, is to use existing job evaluation plans as a standard for comparing the relative worth of jobs.[4]
Do jobs really have an intrinsic value irrespective of the market that can be determined by using job-evaluation systems? One useful way to examine this question is to consider exactly how the value of a job (or a wage) is determined.
When a person values something more than he values something else, he is simply stating a preference for A over B. (I am aware of the possible sexist connotations carried by "he," "his," and "him," but I prefer this simplified use of English to the cumbersome "he and she," "his and hers," etc.) An employer values the labor of his employee more than he values the wage he pays. The employee, on the other hand, values the wage more than he values his time and effort. If this were not the case, trade between the employer and employee would not take place. When trade does take place, both people feel they are better off; they have traded something of less value for something of greater value. Each of them has subjectively determined that the trade was worthwhile at that particular time and under those particular circumstances.
How do the employer and employee determine their respective values? Values are always determined in the individual, unique minds of men and women. A person will value one thing over another because he feels it gives him greater utility--that is, satisfaction or usefulness. This satisfaction or usefulness may not seem right or appropriate in the eyes of another person. Right or wrong, though, one's notion of value guides one's actions and determines one's goals. These goals may change as a person changes his value of something.
Things and people do have intrinsic characteristics, but even these are viewed and valued differently by different people. Objectively, for example, a painting by Picasso is just a piece of canvas with paint on it. Subjectively, however, this same canvas may be viewed and valued as a great work of art. It is important to remember that values are always determined subjectively.
Do jobs, then, really have an intrinsic (objective) value? Or can the value of any job only be determined subjectively, depending on the circumstances? Given that the value of a job can change at any time and differs from person to person, jobs have subjective characteristics.
Consider the situation of a man stranded on a deserted island. The day before he was stranded, his circumstances and ideas may have led him to value the services of a tailor very highly. However, once he is stranded, he no longer cares if his clothes fit well. He may now be willing to trade the services of fifty tailors for those of one boat builder. As a consumer, the man stranded on the island has determined the value he places on the services of a boat builder, as well as his value of any person the boat builder might employ.
As entrepreneurs become alert to the changing values of consumers, they will shift their factors of production--labor, capital, land--to best satisfy these consumers. Therefore, those factors most valued by consumers will also by valued highly by the entrepreneurs. If, for example, a great number of sailboats were suddenly demanded (valued), the boat builder's employees who are trained in making sails would become more valuable to consumers--and to the employer--and they would command higher wages. Employers, therefore, cannot simply set rates at whatever level they desire. Rather they must be constantly alert to the changing values of consumers.
However, not only do wage differentials between jobs reflect the values consumers place on the contributions workers make to the final product but they also depend upon the scarcity of qualified workers relative to the demand for their contributions. Employees who have skills, experience, abilities, and contributions needed by an entrepreneur and who are also scarce relative to demand will be paid higher wages.
Wage differentials between men and women are not the consequence of women being inherently less productive than men. The differentials exist because women, in comparison, generally have less education and fewer skills and are higher risks for employers. For example, those women who entered the work force in the 1950s were generally more educated then their male counterparts. Since then, however, as more and more women have entered the work force, the average level of education for working women has fallen behind the average level for men.[5]
Men do not leave their jobs to have children and are less likely than women to leave their jobs to care for their children. In addition, men are less likely to move if their spouses are forced to relocate for professional purposes. All of these are reasons why turnover rates for men are lower than turnover rates for women. One study using Department of Labor reports estimates that the median number of years men stay on their jobs exceeds that for women by 77-100 percent.[6]
Differences in wages between men and women can also be explained by other factors. Men are usually physically stronger than women and they tend to work in jobs that have a higher probability of physical harm. Because of this increased risk to the employee, these jobs command higher wages. [7]
With a comparable-worth policy, what would happen if supply and demand conditions were to drive up the wages in one particular occupation? For example, with regard to the AFSCME v. State of Washington decision, if there is a sudden shortage (relative to demand) of warehouse workers in Washington, causing wages to increase at a greater-than-normal rate, should clerk-typists automatically receive the increased wage simply because their occupation is determined to be of comparable worth?
Through the use of prices, the competitive process enables market participants to learn about available opportunities. As consumers' tastes and preferences change, prices change to reflect the new choices the consumers are making. As the prices of consumer products change, wages in the labor market change. Workers, like entrepreneurs, are always at the mercy of consumers, and prices are the signals that tell all market participants how products, services, and ultimately workers are valued in the market.
Wage rates in turn provide information to people who are deciding on an occupation. An occupation demanding a high wage rate means that consumers value the job and that there is a small supply of workers relative to demand. The incentive to enter this occupation would be high. A comparable-worth policy would cause great distortions in this information. A high wage rate may simply mean that the occupation is determined to be of comparable worth to a different, high-paying occupation. People would then have incentives to enter and train for occupations where there is already an ample supply of workers. The result would be over-supply of workers in some occupations and under-supply in others.
One popular argument against permitting the forces of supply and demand to set wages is stated by EEOC consultant Ruth Blumrosen. She contends that prevailing wages are a product of other employers' prior discriminatory practices.[8] But entrepreneurs are concerned only with the present and the future. The value of something yesterday has no meaning to them today. They value the factors of production, including labor, available in the present in accordance with these factors' anticipated services in the future production of consumer goods. This is because entrepreneurs are always acting in the present to produce results in the future.
Some feminists also claim that many women should not be subject to changes in market supply and demand. The EEOC report explains that "while the opportunity to move out of segregated job categories may be welcome to many women, many others, who have invested considerable time in training for their jobs, demand wage adjustment in 'women's jobs' rather than opportunities to work in other jobs."[9]
In other words, many women feel employers should be forced to demand whatever skills, experience, or abilities these women may already have. This would be the same as forcing consumers to purchase products they do not want simply because these products are already on the market. If this were the case, entrepreneurs would have little incentive to create new, more innovative products; consumers would have to buy what the producers are already selling.
This is precisely the effect a comparable-worth policy would have upon women. They would no longer have the incentive to better themselves, to learn new skills that are actually in greater demand. With this lack of incentive, wage rates would be likely to decrease rather than rise. For example, the judge in the AFSCME v. State of Washington case ruled that wages in "female occupations" be increased. This decision is likely to increase the incentives of women to continue entering these "female occupations" and therefore create an oversupply in these jobs.
Many feminists, in effect, are saying to women, "Stay where you are.' This kind of advice, though, only reinforces the idea that women are unambitious and less capable than men. The very women who are trying to shed this image are actually demonstra- ting that they agree with it by arguing that women will "never get anywhere" without the help of government.
Kyle, one major factor to consider in the "11 cent" difference can be explained to some degree by the sociological studies conducted showing men are both more willing/likely to ask for more money upfront and for raises in the future. Most companies are willing to pay someone they offer a job a fair amount more than they offer upfront. If a job candidate accepts his/her initial offer without coming close to the company's upper threshold, then that person can easily be making significantly less money than someone else with the exact same credentials for non-dicriminatory reasons. This upfront pay difference may not represent the entire reason there is a pay difference, but it is something to consider, especially when you stop and think that 11 cents and hour is $228.80/year in pay differential.
Terra- on your idea of family values, there is a substantial push here and in several other states for companies to start recognizing and offering paternity leave similar to maternity leave so that fathers would be able to spend more time at home following child birth without foregoing earnings. In my case, I fully intend on altering my career when the time comes and working from home in a slightly different field and capacity then I do now. This is something I think a lot more men are and will be doing in the future.
Well, Now I am more confused than ever....but I still think on average women get crappier pay than men.
Somebody made a good point that more women are graduating with degees than men which should tend to even up the wage gap in the future.
Like I said ladies, pitch a bitch to the boss if you are being shortchanged.
All this crap of execs taking off vigorish from the company while the laborer(male or female) struggles along is just plain unfair.
I have witnesses how many female administrators or secretaries who are very important to the company, get ripped by owners who are able to rip them (because "they can").
At least the Labor movement has brought women (and many men) out of "sweatshops"...
One thing to remember: Its illegal to discriminate (paywise too) against someone because of gender.
Kyle I propose a truce to our cut-n-paste war. I stand by my original claim that the seventy odd cents on the dollar is an inaccurate generalization, and can be viewed with skeptism. There are far more worthwhile causes to invest our time(imho) and energies into than this debate. Suffice it to say, I look forward to the next great topic put forth by the chief source.
Petey, it IS illegal to discriminate, prima facie, based on gender but, like most discrimination, it is a more insidious problem. Women are more likely to be passed up for promotion and recognition than their male counterparts and this goes for single women with no children as well as those on the so-called "mommy track". Walmart, the giant greed machine, has been involved in a number of lawsuits re. gender discrimination. The trick with gender discrimination is that it involves 'substantially equal' jobs, so a stockboy can make more than a salesclerk because their jobs are 'different'. Or, this assistant manager has an additional six months experience in the field and is therefore entitled to $2,000 more pay. While women DO tend to negotiate less, that should have no bearing on promotions and raises in the future. Furthermore, gender discrimination in pay happens at all levels, i.e. low paying, entry level jobs where it is unlikely that there was any negotiation.
As someone mentioned, a greater number of women are obtaining degrees than are men and, in theory, this should result in equitable pay. However, college enrollment has been about 50% male, 50% female since the 1970s and yet here we are today.
I would like to point out that I did not intend for this to be a men v. women issue. It is an issue of equity and fairness and I certainly appreciate the strong men who stand in opposition to gender discrimination. Women in positions of power are often an enemy to female subordinates instead of serving as a mentor or helping other women climb the ladder, perhaps because they are bitter that nobody helped them. Statistically, a woman's best ally is a white male.
Oh, and let me add, that women discriminate against other women too. We worry that Ms. Soandso is going to start having babies and that will take away from their ability to stay late. We are concerned that Ms. New Mommy isn't going to come back from maternity leave and we will be stuck covering her work. We are afraid that Ms. Whatshername will call off of work when one of her kids is sick. The trick is to not let those fears prevent you from hiring, promoting, recognizing and giving equitable pay to a perfectly qualified person.
Thanks for posting this topic Kyle!
I was kidding with the cut and paste war. Truce accepted.
I work in the Adult Film Industry and women get paid a lot more than men in my field.
let us look at the bigger issue---illegals that reduce Americans workeres pay and your governments attitude---Remember the hearled raid on business that hired illegal aliens. The result: of the 1187 illegals "arrested" 257 were deported the rest were sent home after "promising" to return for a court date. The goverments computers were "down" during this joke and the immigration violations may not even be recorded. As for the repercusions for the employers I suggest they at most will be a minimal fine and told not to do it again. Yes, folks your government surely cares for the working people of America. Where in the hell are the unions? Cesar Chavez constantly preached that as long as illegals continued to flow into this country the workingman's job security and wages would be under attack. Follow the money folks and I dont mean what you make because the those in power dont care
While I agree there s serious wage discrimination between the sexes this is a fight he politicans wuld love to help you fight because it doesnt strike at the more insidious symptons of the medain pay of the working man not rising.
Using others words and not even identifying Yourself is lame.
That aside, from what I've learned and experienced it seems pretty clear to me that
#1 Women earn substantially less than men do for the same work
And perhaps even more damaging is
#2 Fields that are dominated by women are seen as 'less valuable' by the general public--Also, when men enter those fields, it has been found they are promoted faster than the women around them ..
I'm sorry I'm not including the actual texts..but it's somewhere in my notes..Anyone else keep all their notes from all their classes..ever??
Also, I unfortunately can offer no concrete solution, most don't go far enough, or can't practically be implemented.
Yes, statistics can be manipulated, but how can you even argue this unless your head is completely hidden in your a**?
I am not sure about America, but I know from my studies of French economic history (oh yes, what a large field...) that when certain jobs became "segregated" the pay levels did not increase along with other jobs at the same rate.... for men or women.
For example, when the position of "secretary" became a male and female profession in France, the rate of pay was quite similar for men and women but it became a lower paying job because it rarely saw wage increases in step with other (male-only) professions.
hmmm.
I was asked to provide sources for my original claim- really lame I know-actually showing where my opinion derives from
yup I have my head buried so far I must need belly surgery to see, because I disagree with an interpretion of data. As for the lack of Id- this is a public forumn not someones kitchen discussing issues, so why do you care-If I was slandering, insulting, or directly challenging someone then I would put my name out, since I am not I won't.
Mitch Buchanon
As many of you know,
I had a run-in with the Feminist Majority on the OSU campus, back in the late 90's.
At the time, I suggested that they change their slogan of equality to "Get rich or die tryin'"
Needless to say, they did not take my advice.
(At the time, they were too busy trying to light a flame-retardant bra on my doorstep to even consider it).
Had they taken my advice, they'd most certainly be bankin' like Fitty by now.
bob do you still stand by your late 90's point of view?
No.
PearlJam is not, in fact, the greatest band on the planet.
Oh...about the comic strip that enraged the Feminist Majority and the National Organization of Women.
No. I wouldn't run that punchline today.
However, these mobs of politically minded college students can be so misguided as to demand ridicule.
For example, these girls had this written on their fliers, protesting the paper that ran my comics:
"Why do we accept a paper that doesn't respect diversity?
Ban Stillman [my comic] from The Lantern [the OSU newspaper]."
Feminist approved diversity is what they wanted.
Well done!
[url=http://vnmqtdxz.com/vvpg/hyaj.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://yenzkuba.com/jfpw/kcfl.html]Cool site[/url]
Thank you!
My homepage | Please visit
Good design!
http://vnmqtdxz.com/vvpg/hyaj.html | http://iykpbing.com/gjus/excc.html
Post a Comment
<< Home