Philotic Web

Honestly, nobody really knows. Jacob Sullum had a piece today describing just a few of the facts we don't know.

I found this article brings up a key point on gender equality: until it becomes a men's issue as well as a women's issue, equality will be elusive.

And as a counterpoint to that: http://www.care2.com/causes/wisconsin-e ... r-men.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

O good. Nice to know that if I end up being the sole breadwinner in my future family I'll have to work extra hours and spend even more time outside of the home to make up for the lack of man in my life. After all, what does money matter? I'll feed my children with love.

It's getting harder and harder to take the people who write these kinds of articles (or the articles they relied on) seriously.

What was repealed:
1. The sections giving plaintiffs the ability to forum shop by essentially filing a federal complaint in a state court.
2. The sections raising revenues by imposing additional fines based on proceedings the state did not take part in.

What was not repealed:
1. The Equal Pay Act, a federal law.
2. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, a federal law.
3. The ability to sue your employer for discrimination or pay discrimination, in a federal court (the only proper court for such a cause of action in the first place).
4. The ability to receive damages, including a pay raise, back pay, attorneys' fees, and punitive damages (fines imposed to punish the defendant and deter him and others from engaging in similar behavior in the future).

I understand why some people (the plaintiffs attorneys) are upset: federal courts (in the 7th Circuit) require that you, you know, prove your case. If I were a plaintiffs attorney, I'd want to file in a state court, too. I'd want to file somewhere where all I had to show was that my client was making less than a male coworker (and not have to rebut the evidence that the pay disparity was based on education, skills, experience, training, etc.).

The outrage over making people sue in the proper court is just a little ridiculous.


ETA: I guess I should add that I think most of the fight over the "pay gap" is silly, anyway, because it's based on bad math. You can't just calculate the average salary for men and the average salary for women and blame discrimination for the gap, ignoring all the other variables (educational level, type of education, type of career, years of experience, years of uninterrupted experience, number of hours worked, etc.) When you actually control for those types of variables, the "gap" pretty much disappears. (In some careers, it goes the other direction, which isn't all that surprising.)

Some of those variables are influenced by gender norms, no doubt. Women have traditionally been steered into certain career paths that are typically lower-paying. They're more likely than men to take time off to have and raise children and re-enter the workforce later. They're more likely to work fewer hours, largely because they're more likely to be responsible for home life. Those are the things that are worthy of discussion and those are the norms that I'd like to see continue to change. But oversimplifying the issue into one of evil employers discriminating based on gender doesn't help anyone. It only makes the case for changing those norms that much harder, because it ignores that they exist in the first place.

It's more the stated justification of the repeal that gets me. The main reasoning was probably very logical and made perfect sense with how our courts works and whatnot, but saying that it's okay because men are obviously more money-conscious than women is rather offensive. Are we blowing one politician's comment out of proportion? Maybe. But it doesn't change my concern that people in leadership positions use that kind of logic.

I don't like taking quotes out of context. In that quote, he was talking broadly about why a disparity might exist absent what he calls "bias in the workplace." Yes, his answer wasn't very nuanced and taken alone, as many of the blogs have snipped it, it seems pretty offensive.

But saying that much of the disparity can be explained by things like career goals isn't offensive; it's statistically true. Wages aren't the only thing that goes into picking a job. Sometimes you'll pick a job that gives you things that you value more than the additional wages offered by another employer.

I know that I did. I chose to work for a non-profit, making a modest salary. But I'm getting a lot of things that I value more than wages: a good location, flexibility in my schedule, the ability to travel, and work I find personally satisfying. The fact that I'm making less than some of my former classmates who went on to work for major firms doesn't mean I'm discriminated against. It means that I chose a job that included non-wage benefits that I think have a greater value than the additional wage benefits I could have earned.

So he's basically saying that women, as a group, are more likely than men, as a group, to take jobs that give them non-wage benefits that they value more. And gender norms certainly play into that and I don't think there's anything wrong with discussing whether or not that should be the case. But it certainly appears from the statistical evidence that it is the case.

Congratulations every woman of childbearing age in the entire state of Arizona! you are now pregnant! http://www.politicususa.com/arizona-per ... pregnancy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/pr ... 4/13/37993" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I guess it's a good thing Alea got out before she got knocked up.

Bill in question aside (and how arizona decides to legislate things), that's always how gestational age is done. I'm confused on how that point is a problem.

Yeah, while I'm not big on the laws being passed in AZ these days, it's a really stupid thing to latch onto that "women are pregnant before they are!". Any woman who's ever been pregnant has been measured from last missed period, not from conception, since it's difficult to know when conception happened.

I always wondered how it was that people knew how far along they were down to the day. This makes much more sense to me.

that's always how gestational age is done.

Yeah, I thought the LMP (last menstrual period) dating was pretty common. That's how we get the 40 weeks calculation to predict expected due date. But I haven't talked to a lot of new doctors who practice OB/GYN (Kenobi), so I wasn't sure if things had changed recently. (I'd imagine the older doctors would still calculate due dates as they always have.)

I always wondered how it was that people knew how far along they were down to the day.

It wouldn't be all that hard anyway depending on how often the woman in question has sex. I mean, if you've done it once in the last year it wouldn't be hard to tell when conception happened.

I always wondered how it was that people knew how far along they were down to the day.

It wouldn't be all that hard anyway depending on how often the woman in question has sex. I mean, if you've done it once in the last year it wouldn't be hard to tell when conception happened.

This is true. I just assume people who are trying to get pregnant are having sex more than once a month. But maybe they're storing up their sperm for one go?

Ultrasound in the first 8-10 weeks (?) is pretty accurate at dating conception. But as long as that date is within "normal range" based on your cycle, they'll keep your due date based on LMP.

I joke with Brian quite frequently that I'm "one week pregnant!" and such, knowing that conception doesn't usually happen until the beginning of week 3. It's actually kind of fun. "You should rub my feet. And get me watermelon. I'm one week pregnant, you know!"

Syphon,

Did you say Obi Gyn Kenobi?

Ultrasound in the first 8-10 weeks (?) is pretty accurate at dating conception. But as long as that date is within "normal range" based on your cycle, they'll keep your due date based on LMP.

So I've been pregnant for 4 years and 3 months! because that is my LMP.... should make for fun due date calculations in the future!

Ultrasound in the first 8-10 weeks (?) is pretty accurate at dating conception. But as long as that date is within "normal range" based on your cycle, they'll keep your due date based on LMP.

So I've been pregnant for 4 years and 3 months! because that is my LMP.... should make for fun due date calculations in the future!

Haha! I think that puts you pretty firmly outside of normal range.

Did you say Obi Gyn Kenobi?

I was hoping someone caught that!

I always wondered how it was that people knew how far along they were down to the day.

It wouldn't be all that hard anyway depending on how often the woman in question has sex. I mean, if you've done it once in the last year it wouldn't be hard to tell when conception happened.

This is true. I just assume people who are trying to get pregnant are having sex more than once a month. But maybe they're storing up their sperm for one go?

Fun fact: the day you have the sex is not necessarily the day you conceive. Sperm can live for a few days in the uterus and therefore, an egg can be fertilized a few days later.

I always wondered how it was that people knew how far along they were down to the day.

It wouldn't be all that hard anyway depending on how often the woman in question has sex. I mean, if you've done it once in the last year it wouldn't be hard to tell when conception happened.

This is true. I just assume people who are trying to get pregnant are having sex more than once a month. But maybe they're storing up their sperm for one go?

Fun fact: the day you have the sex is not necessarily the day you conceive. Sperm can live for a few days in the uterus and therefore, an egg can be fertilized a few days later.

Not in my body; I've deployed Tusken Raiders in my uterus so sperm won't stand a chance.

Not in my body; I've deployed Tusken Raiders in my uterus so sperm won't stand a chance.

You should patent this.

“I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama told “Good Morning America” anchor Robin Roberts in an exclusive interview.

I got a little emotional reading this. It's great.

Props to Obama.

It is good to see that after intense political pressure, President Obama has finally come around to the Dick Cheney position.

Point.

I'm just happy to hear that sentiment coming from anyone.

I'm just happy to hear that sentiment coming from anyone.

True enough. Though, to be perfectly honest and not nearly as snarky as I was earlier, I'm more inclined to favor his earlier stance, provided he takes it to its natural conclusion: removing the legal construct of "civil marriage" altogether and instituting civil unions (or whatever legal term of art you want to call them) for everybody. A lot (though certainly nowhere near all) of the hostility toward gay marriage comes from the interwoven fabric of the legally recognized rights of civil marriage and the religious (or non-religious) view of what it means to be "married." That's why civil unions/domestic partnerships see much wider support than gay marriage itself, even when the rights granted are identical.

Take government out of the business of defining the loaded term ("marriage") and just give everyone the exact same legal rights with the exact same legal term. Then let people call their relationship whatever they want, let religious organizations recognize whatever relationships they want, etc. If you want to say you're married, cool. If not, cool. But the term is so loaded that I'd much prefer that over the alternative which causes more fighting than necessary.

So, ladies and gentlemen, was this racist, or do people need to lighten up?

Voula Papachristou Expelled From Olympics: Greece Boots Track Star Over Racist Twitter Message

The tweet in question:

“With so many Africans in Greece… At least the West Nile mosquitoes will eat home made food!!!”

So, ladies and gentlemen, was this racist, or do people need to lighten up?

Voula Papachristou Expelled From Olympics: Greece Boots Track Star Over Racist Twitter Message

The tweet in question:

“With so many Africans in Greece… At least the West Nile mosquitoes will eat home made food!!!”

Seems tacky, but not racist?

Sounds like something I might say and then get yelled at about when I'm brute forcing the witty.

Personally, I don't find it offensive. It was dumb to say it publicly, but sending the poor girl home over it is an overreaction.

A reprimand, sure, but yeah, sending her home does seem a bit overkill.

When I was growing up everyone was joking each other with "light duty racial jokes" yah every now an then someone got carried away but damn it! it was all part of learning to get along with each other! Too bad!

I don't know which is worse, a certain fast-food owner running his mouth or the knee jerk reaction of certain mayors wanting to kick the chain out of their cities. It's probably a good thing I've only ever ate there maybe twice in my life and there aren't any convenient to anywhere I go otherwise I might be tempted to get in line to protest the latter and risk appearing to support the former.

I've never seen a Chik-Fil-A in my life.