Heck... take "Men" and "Women" out of it...

Are PEOPLE "equal"?

Allow me to help...

equal (adjective) being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value.

No woman (or even man, for that matter) is the same in size, degree, or value.

Stop bitching about "men and women are equal" - cuz Newsflash: THEY'RE NOT! - and start fighting for what really matters - EQUALITY.

equality (noun) the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities.

Get over the fact that men and women are different, and therefore makes it extremely difficult to be equals... but start realizing that you do not have to be "equal" to have equality.

I'm so sick of women (and men) getting their panties in a knot over not being equal. YOU'RE NOT! ... but that doesn't mean you can't have equality. So settle down.

They aren't equal but they are close enough.

It seems the feminist movement is more concerned about being 'more equal' than actual equality.

I was reading a discussion about the unequal pay between the US Men's national soccer team vs. the US women's team. Apparently in 2014, the US Men earned $8M for losing early and the Women champions this year only earned $2M. The winner's in 2014 Men's earned $35M.

Nevermind the fact that the Men's WC generated $4.8 BILLION in revenue for FIFA while the women's game generated about $50M(numbers not out yet, but 2011 WC was $50M).

sleeper;1739564 wrote:They aren't equal but they are close enough.

It seems the feminist movement is more concerned about being 'more equal' than actual equality.

Bingo!

And it pisses me off. I'm sorry... but you (girl) are not equal to me... just like I am not equal to Ronda Rousey... just like Ronda Rousey isn't equal to Jon Jones... just like Jon Jones isn't equal to Peyton Manning... just like Peyton Manning isn't equal to Oprah Winfrey.

But in spite of all of that unequal-ness... we can all still have (or at least we should have) EQUALITY!

Why is this concept so hard for people to understand?

sleeper;1739565 wrote:I was reading a discussion about the unequal pay between the US Men's national soccer team vs. the US women's team. Apparently in 2014, the US Men earned $8M for losing early and the Women champions this year only earned $2M. The winner's in 2014 Men's earned $35M.

Nevermind the fact that the Men's WC generated $4.8 BILLION in revenue for FIFA while the women's game generated about $50M(numbers not out yet, but 2011 WC was $50M).

Bingo / spot-on again!

Sick of women bitching about "equal pay"... then damn it... start generating bigger revenues if you want bigger paychecks. Where the F do you think the money is coming from to provide bigger paychecks?!?! It's not my fault people want to watch men's sports over women's sports. Put a better product on the field and it will market itself!

my rough estimate is that this forum is about 97% white, straight, males. I'm sorry if you'll excuse me from putting much weight in any argument we are going to get into here.

My only statement is this:

I started at my company on 5/29/2007. On that same day a female started in the same position, with the same experience (none), and i'm assuming at the same pay. in the 8 years since that day, she has been on maternity leave 3 different times, and i have failed to take my full allotted vacation every year except 1. We have the same title now, if we still make the same salary, i would be pissed. I feel like me being pissed is totally justified.

Being equal in a context of sports revenue, etc...it's nonsense. That should be directly correlated with the revenue you generate.

Working for a large, fortune 100 company, I've seen examples on both sides. There's no doubt the distribution of executive jobs and overall positions of power, are skewed toward males. However, I'd be curious to see how that compares to the distribution of males vs females as it stood 10-20 years ago, which those people would've been "coming up."

At the same time, I've seen numerous circumstances where there's no doubt that being a female was a distinct advantage in both job acquisition and compensation bargaining.

j_crazy;1739575 wrote:my rough estimate is that this forum is about 97% white, straight, males. I'm sorry if you'll excuse me from putting much weight in any argument we are going to get into here.

My only statement is this:

I started at my company on 5/29/2007. On that same day a female started in the same position, with the same experience (none), and i'm assuming at the same pay. in the 8 years since that day, she has been on maternity leave 3 different times, and i have failed to take my full allotted vacation every year except 1. We have the same title now, if we still make the same salary, i would be pissed. I feel like me being pissed is totally justified.

No it isn't justified. You aren't a woman, so you don't understand the hardships women go through.

/feminists

j_crazy, what you stated basically supports that you should be paid the same.

Not using all your vacation and going on maternity leave aren't things that should upgrade or downgrade someone's job position/title. You mentioned nothing about performance...

If you're a superior performer or bring more into the company, you've got an argument.

sleeper;1739565 wrote:I was reading a discussion about the unequal pay between the US Men's national soccer team vs. the US women's team. Apparently in 2014, the US Men earned $8M for losing early and the Women champions this year only earned $2M. The winner's in 2014 Men's earned $35M.

Nevermind the fact that the Men's WC generated $4.8 BILLION in revenue for FIFA while the women's game generated about $50M(numbers not out yet, but 2011 WC was $50M).

So...let's do the math.

Germany's winning share of $35M out of the $4.8B is appx .73% of the total revenue.

If the 2015 WWC generated $200M (4 times the 2011 total), then the USWNT should have received $1,458,333.33 for winning the 2015 WWC.

Based on the math, and the assumption that FIFA's revenues were $200M, they were overpaid.

j_crazy;1739575 wrote:my rough estimate is that this forum is about 97% white, straight, males. I'm sorry if you'll excuse me from putting much weight in any argument we are going to get into here.

My only statement is this:

I started at my company on 5/29/2007. On that same day a female started in the same position, with the same experience (none), and i'm assuming at the same pay. in the 8 years since that day, she has been on maternity leave 3 different times, and i have failed to take my full allotted vacation every year except 1. We have the same title now, if we still make the same salary, i would be pissed. I feel like me being pissed is totally justified.

She had to a push a baby out of her not once, but three times! She absolutely should make the same salary as you, equal pay for equal work.

/feminists

I am not equal to my husband, nor do I want to be. He makes more money than I do. (Yes, I do work and I contribute to our household, but by about half.) He does things around the house I could never do. He keeps me safe and I appreciate everything he does, and he knows that I do. Sometimes he doesn't even have to ask for his sandwich, I just make it.

power i;1739594 wrote:I am not equal to my husband, nor do I want to be. He makes more money than I do. (Yes, I do work and I contribute to our household, but by about half.) He does things around the house I could never do. He keeps me safe and I appreciate everything he does, and he knows that I do. Sometimes he doesn't even have to ask for his sandwich, I just make it.

Wife of the year right there!

Azubuike24;1739578 wrote:j_crazy, what you stated basically supports that you should be paid the same.

Not using all your vacation and going on maternity leave aren't things that should upgrade or downgrade someone's job position/title. You mentioned nothing about performance...

If you're a superior performer or bring more into the company, you've got an argument.

Wouldn't a person who wasn't on maternity leave and takes less vacation bring more to the company?

thavoice;1739595 wrote:Wife of the year right there!

Did you just die a little inside reading that?

sleeper;1739597 wrote:Wouldn't a person who wasn't on maternity leave and takes less vacation bring more to the company?

Not just by virtue of not taking vacation or maternity leave, no.

DeyDurkie5;1739598 wrote:Did you just die a little inside reading that?

Maybe a little. I mean, a sandwich without even asking?
That is like, well, hell. the holy grail!

j_crazy;1739575 wrote:my rough estimate is that this forum is about 97% white, straight, males. I'm sorry if you'll excuse me from putting much weight in any argument we are going to get into here.

My only statement is this:

I started at my company on 5/29/2007. On that same day a female started in the same position, with the same experience (none), and i'm assuming at the same pay. in the 8 years since that day, she has been on maternity leave 3 different times, and i have failed to take my full allotted vacation every year except 1. We have the same title now, if we still make the same salary, i would be pissed. I feel like me being pissed is totally justified.

A girl in our department started 6 years before me. Has had 2 kids... And is 2 titles below me.

Are re you sure she's just not as good of a worker as you? Or maybe you're not a good worker?

wkfan;1739600 wrote:Not just by virtue of not taking vacation or maternity leave, no.

Less time away from work = more productivity. Unless you are implying that j_crazy is less productive but you don't have any other information to validate that assumption.

sleeper;1739603 wrote:Less time away from work = more productivity. Unless you are implying that j_crazy is less productive but you don't have any other information to validate that assumption.

You are assuming that the level of production is equal...which neither you or I know.

This is why I am saying that, just based on the variable of more or less vacation taken, the person who takes less time off brings more to the company.

sleeper;1739565 wrote:I was reading a discussion about the unequal pay between the US Men's national soccer team vs. the US women's team. Apparently in 2014, the US Men earned $8M for losing early and the Women champions this year only earned $2M. The winner's in 2014 Men's earned $35M.

Nevermind the fact that the Men's WC generated $4.8 BILLION in revenue for FIFA while the women's game generated about $50M(numbers not out yet, but 2011 WC was $50M).

If we truly had equal, there would not be "Men's WC" and "Women's WC." There would just be WC, and the best would compete for a spot on that team.

wkfan;1739611 wrote:You are assuming that the level of production is equal...which neither you or I know.

This is why I am saying that, just based on the variable of more or less vacation taken, the person who takes less time off brings more to the company.

Exactly. So what's your point? What a waste of breath.

Al Bundy;1739617 wrote:If we truly had equal, there would not be "Men's WC" and "Women's WC." There would just be WC, and the best would compete for a spot on that team.

Which would include zero female teams.

Sleeper, while I agree with your premise, when companies provide a benefit to everyone, it's hard to penalize those who use it. If that was the case, any woman who took maternity leave would automatically be pushed down on the totem pole. Anyone who took vacation would get the same treatment. The true evaluation would come based on productivity aside from those activities.

Now, taking excessive vacation, abusing the system and becoming a less reliable employee SHOULD hinder your development, but not just being absent with a benefit provided to everyone.

If that's the case, every single obese, unhealthy and careless person who drags expenses up and brings productivity down, but fit into a protected class, should also be penalized. It's a very sensitive argument here...

sleeper;1739621 wrote:Which would include zero female teams.

Women's athletics would be relegated to the sports that men don't want to play. Sleeper, lets hear your thoughts on TITLE IX LOL.