₦airaland Forum

fellis: Anony why are you lying?
AAUW didn't blame the wage gap on women's inability to negotiate for themselves. They cited two possible reasons for it, excerpt from that link:

Yet you came to say that AAUW blamed the wage gap entirely on women's inability to negotiate.

And you didn't read this part in the article?

Negotiating a salary can make a difference in earnings. But some research has found that women are less likely to negotiate for higher salaries, and other studies have shown that women who do negotiate are perceived differently than men and may be penalized, Graves says . . . . .What can be done about the pay gap? "Women could pick higher-paying majors, such as nursing, computer science, math, science and engineering" Hartmann says. "The employer has the responsibility to ensure that they do not treat men and women differently.

By the way, notice the strong bias towards women in the article. I think the actual numbers released by the U.S. Department of Labour are actually much more accurate since they are not trying to promote any particular gender's welfare

Deep Sight: Can you please show me how it is not 3 Gods?

If it is ONE GOD, and GOD of course remains unchangeable, is it possible for there ever to be a dichotomy of wills between the son and the father?

"Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt". . . . . . . . ?

Rings a bell?

Yeah, the doctrine of Trinity is 3 persons, 1 being. Here's a video you might wanna consider:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUy-H5MmeGU

Tell me what you think after you've seen it.

@fellis, I think it is time we had a mature conversation about numbers. We shall be using numbers from the United States Department of Labour which by the way is where the AAUW ought to ultimately get there research from.

Now bring out your calculator and let's rock shall we?

According to the Bureau of Labour Statistics as at the year 2009:

1. Women on average earn 80.2% of Men's wages per week.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlftable19-2010.htm

Is that discrimination? well, let us look at how many hours they are working

2. Women work an average of 35.3 hours per week compared to Men who work 40.2 hours on average. Basically women work 87.8% as long as men per week.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlftable21-2010.htm

Well isn't there still some discrepancy in the numbers? well, let us look at who has the most experience

3. As at 2008, (2009 results were not available at this time) The percentage of men working fulltime with more than 1 year of experience was 71.2% compared to 59.3% of women who had more than one year experience at their jobs. Assuming the numbers of prospective employees are split even between the sexes, basically, women have on average 83.3% as much experienced workers as men.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlftable22-2010.htm

Now please tell me why should any business owner pay a worker who works fewer hours and has less experience an equal salary to another worker who works longer hours and has more experience?

Boomark: It is not by quoting scriptures out of context when you don't have answers. When you are ready to study, we will show you that they all never supported 3 different Gods in 1 God. Unless they are not Gods individually(ie each person). Aren't they? Can you answer that?

Do you actually know the meaning of GODHEAD? All of you are running from this question cos you that what you know is man-made. If you are not afraid of it, show us how it supports trinity. Dearth of scriptures are not allowed.

The day you understand that Trinity is not 3 Gods, that's the day you'll actually begin to understand your bible

shdemidemi: Of course, you are slightly right with what you put there. It will be very wrong to say God the father, God the son and God the Spirit(that makes it three Gods). Rather, the bible says we have one God the father, the son and the Spirit.

Try to use the scriptures to back your opinion when answering questions, so you don't end up leaning on your own understanding. You can be logically right but scripturally wrong at a time. Thank you

Appreciated bro, but in my experience, I have found that throwing scriptures at the likes of frosbel and co. is like casting pearls before swine.

fellis: in this post:
https://www.nairaland.com/1126410/believe-gender-equality-yes-no/16#16233748
your response to logicboy's statement of
was


thats why I asked you if you are rejecting the AAUW finding that they are actually paid less even when they do the same kind of work and have the same college qualifications.

I think you should read the link in this post here:
https://www.nairaland.com/1126410/believe-gender-equality-yes-no/15#16232478

You'll find that the AAUW found that when compared to the same kind of work and college qualifications, the wage gap shrank from 23% to 7%. In fact the AAUW blamed this 7% on the inability of women to negotiate higher salaries for themselves.

As I have said before, the only equality I subscribe to is equal opportunity. If a woman cannot negotiate a better salary for herself, she only has herself to blame.

By the way, I am currently looking at some statistics right now which I believe you will find interesting.

Logicboy03: See what I deal with in the religion section?

This guy remixes and spins like a DJ.

The guy even claims that lilly ledbetter was not discriminated against in her job....then when pressed....he says there is no evidence......I wonder then how she deceived the district court court to win the case on the basis of gender discrimination

Where did I make the claim in bold?

ucheprince: Dear Sir/Ma,

I am Uche by name. I represent a Pakistan company which is into manufacturing of all kind of Rice; the company is looking for rice importers from Nigeria, who can buy Rice from them their rice is at affordable and also one of the best if not the best.

We are still looking for cement importers also from Pakistan and we are ready to give it at your own price.

We are looking for importers of Olive Oil, agro/fert/chem: 
grains: wheat, corn, feed barley, oil seeds, soyabeans, peas, millet 
wheat flour, gluten, corn starch 
fertilizers, sulphur, naphthalene, sodium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate.
Also from Ukrane.

Any interested party should contact me for more information on- Email address is uchec_nwafor@yahoo.com
Tel: +2347036185211
Yours Sincerely
Uche .N

So Uche, you are from Ukraine and Pakistan combined and you sell rice and olive oil mixed with cement and fertilizer.

We have heard you and we are not interested. Now go and try to scam someone else.

frosbel: 3 gods.

https://xf1.xanga.com/fb3c226ad1333168087102/z127295666.jpg

This is NOT what the Trinity is?

Logicboy03: hmmmm.......seems like a cop out.......but lets see

you should know by now that trying to bait me does not work

thehomer: I'm asking you since you picked up the baton of properly presenting his views. Though it looks like you're unable to do what you'll need to do for what you're saying to be accurate.

I've properly presented his views that he took evils proceeding from atheism for granted. If you have a problem with that, feel free to take it up with him.

thehomer: So what is the problem with that question?

You really should try to use a dictionary from time to time.

Physical: Having to do with the material world.

Oh I see, so just to get you right, are you asking whether it is possible for the universe to operate differently and yet still have space, time and matter? If that's your question, the answer is Yes.

How do you know?

Because nothing comes from nothing. An eternal uncaused being must exist from which all things proceed

They're all made of fundamental particles and those fundamental particles work a certain way. But do you think the objects you listed fit your description?

Well, this doesn't really answer my question. I was expecting you to actually think of the constituent parts of each of them but if you are going to reduce them to how electrons, atoms and molecules work together in harmony, I'll call it design at that level.

Sure I can. I know this because I've seen people design and build houses and I've seen them throw together a heap of bricks. Now can you tell the difference? Keep in mind that they both consist of those fundamental particles working in a certain way.

Are you saying you only know a thing is designed if you have seen people design it before? I know a house is designed as opposed to a pile of bricks because I see the bricks arranged in a specific complex pattern. Note that at the level of a house, the constituent parts I am looking at here are the bricks. I am not looking at the atoms to deduce design at this level.

That's just it. The universe was never in a state of timelessness.

I never said the universe was in a state of timelessness. I said time began therefore there must have been timelessness preceding it

Sure you don't but what you're saying remains incoherent. Or do you think a will just floats around out there? Or is there some "ability to make choices" floating around without a body? A criminal may as well say that it was such a free floating will that made them do what they did. If you have evidence for this free floating will, please present it.

I'm afraid this is just a gross misrepresentation from you and doesn't relate to the point in my post at all.

That is not a point, that was just incoherence based on misrepresentations or misunderstanding of the requirements for being a person.

Really, what are the requirements for being a person?

That's just it. You've not shown that it refers to a specific person and not a metaphor because what you've been attributing to God is what happens in the figure of speech, personification.

Well neither have you been able to show that thehomer refers to a specific person and not a metaphor

fellis: So you are still rejecting the AAUW findings just because women did the research?

Have you been paying any attention at all. That ia not what I said

fellis: How on earth will you be able to find men that do similar research work to what AAUW did when this is they are likely to get responses such as this one?

I don't know what you mean here

Boomark: John 4:21-25

New King James Version (NKJV)

21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

25 The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (who is called Christ). “When He comes, He will tell us all things.”

Read carefully this english words and see who the isrealites worship, who Christ said we should worship, who is seeking true worshipers, who reconciled us to himself through Christ-Col 1:19-20, 2cor 5:18-21(do you know what this means?), who we all go to through Christ(Jn14:6). It is either you obey Christ, through whom God has called you for reconciliation and while doing so you are obeying the will of the Father cos Christ brought the will of the father to us. Do you disagree? Don't deceive your self by running around these things. you are not doing it for me.

Look! see! they also know about the coming Messiah-Christ.
You have heard from the Master...Worship God

I say Amen to the above. Jesus Christ tells us to worship the Father. But what do we do when the Father tells us to worship the Son?

When the Father has given the Son a name above every other name so that every knee MUST bow to Him. (Phil 2:10) Will you not bow you knee to Christ?
What about when the Father is glorified when we pray to the Son? (John 14:13) Will you not also pray to Christ?

pleep: At this point we have to ask ourselves what is logicboys vested interest in pretending that women are oppressed. Someone who is really trying to find the truth to this issue would have conceded defeat by now.

logicboy are you female?

Lol, I can assure you he is male

Logicboy03: I dont have time to start listing out your falsehoods. Seriously.


Your points 1-4 are all FALSE.


Lets take the quote which you misread, quote-mined and only bolded the part that you liked.



Notice that you bolded the part that you liked but failed to realise that it is very incomplete. The Company didnt win the court case- the court only accepted the company's first argument on equal pay act on merit based pay. However, at the end of the case, Lilly won and the court accepted that their evaluations of her were discriminatory.


1) Goodyear did discriminate against her and she won the case. (it was only appealed at a higher court
2) You have no proof that it was just one examiner or that their evaluations were not inherently discriminatory


Guy, I am done with your nonsense.

This kind of denial is not only immoral but sick. Someone was clearly discriminated against and you stand here lying just to win an argument because of you unreal belief that there is no equal pay discrimination

Are you blind? You have just agreed that the court did in fact agree that the company paid salaries on merit (this destroys any claim of yours that there was no equal merited pay).

The only real contention was the evaluations (between a specific period) which is what the Jury sided with Lily on. As far as I'm concerned, the company did not have a gender biased policy when it came to paying salaries.

The only question remaining is "was her evaluation test assessed with a gender bias?" I wonder who is to be blamed for assessing the evaluation tests with a gender bias if not the examiner.

Remember that it was a specific two year time period that she had difficulty (1979-1981). It was not something that happened throughout her 20 year long career with them. Connect the dots man.

fellis: What if they have a vested interest in making sure the unequal pay situation persists just so they can keep having the upper hand?

If they do, then they will lie that women are earning less. The point I'm making is this: If a male oriented organization reports that women are earning considerably less, I will be more likely to believe it just as I would be more likely to believe the Nigerian Union of Pentecostal Pastors if they published a study that showed that non-tithers are generally richer than tithers.

Logicboy03: Your argument is still void. So you are arguing that there is not enough evidence to say that she was discriminated against?
How did she then win the case in the lower court? She won the case without evidence for discrimination?
Guy, you are just being plain silly.

Ah I see, but you haven't told the full story. Let us look at it in more depth shall we?

In 1979 Lilly Ledbetter, the plaintiff, began work at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company in its Gadsden, Alabama location, a union plant. She started with the same pay as male employees, but by retirement, she was earning $3,727 per month compared to 15 men who earned from $4,286 per month (lowest paid man) to $5,236 per month (highest paid man).[4] During her years at the factory as a salaried worker, raises were given and denied based partly on evaluations and recommendations regarding worker performance. From 1979-1981 Ledbetter received a series of negative evaluations, which she later claimed were discriminatory. Although her subsequent evaluations were good, in part as a result of those early negative evaluations, her pay never reached the level of similar male employees. All merit increases had to be substantiated by a formal evaluation. In March 1998, Ledbetter inquired into the possible sexual discrimination of the Goodyear Tire Company. In July she filed formal charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In November 1998, after early retirement, Ledbetter sued claiming pay discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963. The Supreme Court did not rule on whether this was discrimination, just the statute of limitations to sue.

The District Court found in favor of Goodyear on the Equal Pay Act claim, because that Act allows pay differences that are based on merit. The court allowed the Title VII and other claims to proceed to trial. Ledbetter claimed that she had been evaluated unfairly because of her sex and therefore had been paid significantly less than her male colleagues. Goodyear claimed that their evaluations were non-discriminatory and focused only on worker competence. The jury found for Ledbetter and awarded back pay and damages. Goodyear appealed, arguing that all claims to damages before September 26, 1997 were void due to the statute of limitations placed on discrimination claims.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the lower court's decision stating that Ledbetter could sue only for allegations regarding pay decisions that occurred less than 180 days before her beginning the EEOC process in March 1998. Ledbetter, as the court ruled, could not sue on decisions that merely affected pay in the 180 day period. Furthermore, all decisions made concerning pay in the 180 day period could not be unequivocally linked to her gender. Ledbetter sought a writ of certiorari, but did not contest the sufficiency of the evidence concerning decisions in the 180 day period. The Supreme Court granted the writ and heard the appeal.

Points from the write up above
1. Goodyear did not discriminate against her. She started on equal pay with her male counterparts
2. Pay rises were given based on performance in evaluations
3. She did poorly in her early evaluations and that was the reason why she didn't earn as much as her colleagues by the time she became branch manager.
4. She claimed she failed her evaluation tests because she was female. The Jury agreed with her.

Now notice that:
1. Goodyear had an equal opportunity merit based pay system that was not gender biased.
2. If she actually failed because of her gender, it wouldn't be because it was company policy rather it would more likely be because her specific examiner at the time was sexist.
3.Notice she didn't fail subsequent evaluations.

As I said, I am yet to see an establishment that pays workers differently based on their gender and not the work they actually do.

A few more factors? Like what? If two people are doing the exact same job and puttng the same effort, they should be paid the same. Simple and short.

While this is true, factors like experience, the contacts you have, and your negotiating skills can earn you considerably more money than another guy or girl doing the same job as you.

Women are paid less for doing the same job- plain and simple.

This is not true

fellis: Mr Anony, why do you expect that men's report will be more realistic?

Because they won't have a vested interest in making themselves look like the oppressors. So if they come out with results that don't favor them, I'll be more likely to believe it is true.

pleep: Exactly... the feminist arguement simply makes no sense economically

And to add to that... Companies simply have no financial incentive to disciminate against any race, gender or sexual orientation. A woman who has evidence that she is being discriminated against can become a millionaire over-night... very likely bankrupting the company.

Discriminating against females simply makes no financial sense for an entity that is primarily concerned with profits.

Exactly. Feminists seem to forget that they have already won the gender equality war. We already have gender equality as far as I'm concerned.

fellis: It is possible that employers pay women less because they want to dissuade women from applying for the jobs (gender discrimination). Its a possibility.
In this case, employers will continue to hire men because they believe that males can do the job better but they keep paying women less to dissuade them from applying for the jobs.

This is just idle conspiracy theory, do you really think that a businessman who is serious about making money really cares about what gender is bringing him profit?

Logicboy03: All these shifting and dodging. Is the study biased or not? If you dont know, please stop with the assumptions

I don't know but I don't trust it.

fellis: That's also what I wrote, I didn't write that you said the research was false.
I can't believe that the research was biased unless I see proof.
And it was a research that is woman centered, who else was supposed to do the work on it? Men?

Ok let's leave this here as it is. Actually I would have trusted men's report on this issue more as it will be more likely to be unbaised but then I won't be so unrealistic as to expect men to actually carry out the research.

Logicboy03:

Let me get this straight. You are arguing that

a) Lilly was not discriminated based on her gender on salary/payment

No I am arguing that Lily was not necessarily discriminated against i.e. we don't have enough evidence to say that she was.

b) That women arent discriminated against by being paid less for doing the same job as men?

No I am not using blanket statements like this. I am arguing that before we come to such a conclusion, we must consider a few more factors than just the amount of their paycheck.

Let it be clear because both a and b are false

I argued neither

pleep: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2012/10/24/gender-pay-gap/1652511/

lets take a closer look at what exactly the AAUW is saying



Thats a 7 cent difference. So according to the AAUW women in a fair survey women make 93 cents to every 100 cents a man makes. This is vastly different from the 69-100 cents feminists often claim.


So fellis, logicboy & the rest of the dumbasses do you accept this 93-100 statistic?

Let us even look at this from another angle:

Assuming it is true that women earn 77% of what men doing the same jobs earn, why would I as an employer hire men when I can easily hire women to do the same job and pay them 22% less than the male competition hence saving my company a good chunk of money that would have gone to paying male salaries?

fellis: It is a research about issues affecting the lives of women,
the research was done to help improve the lives of women so its totally expected if a womanist organisation is the one doing the research work.
The fact that it was an association of women who worked on it does not mean it's invalid.

When women come together to solve their problems people critisize them and say that they're biased, if they don't come together people will still critisize them and say that they are not fighting for their rights.
Na wa.

I didn't say the study is not true. I only pointed out that a study done by women to favour women is very likely to be biased.

Logicboy03: See this silly bigot. Trying to cover up your bigotry through sophistry.

The name calling has begun. Logic is finishing in your tank

Clap for yourself. So, you have manange to argue 3 false things

1) There was no gender discrimination and unequal pay because she was a woman. Note that she was the lowest paid.

I didn't make this argument. There might well have been gender discrimination in play but it is wrong to jump to such a conclusion so hastily. 1 out of 15 is not such an unlikely number and besides it is not like they were paying everyone equally and then specifically paying her less. The salaries were different for each of her colleagues. There was always going to be a lowest paid. The only peculiar thing was that she was a woman.

2) That she had an opportunity to renegotiate her contract. An azzhole comment if you ask me. Blaming the victim "its her fault that she didnt negotiate the contract".

I didn't blame her for being discriminated against (if she really was). I only pointed out that she was operating in a system that offered her equal opportunity. By the way, are you suggesting that we blame the employer for not offering her a raise when she didn't demand for one? Put yourself in the shoes of any employer looking to make profit, will you go around suggesting to your lower paid employees that they should ask for more money? Get realistic man.

3) The strawman that I implied that the fair pay act gave women some new rights

If the fairplay act didn't give women any new rights then it proves that women weren't operating under an oppressive system to begin with. Why then did you bring up the bill in your argument?

pleep: ^ i have fun making fun of stupid people.

Well, personally, I think it's a bit childish to make fun of people instead of rationally arguing with them. But hey whatever floats your boat man.

pleep: a dumbass who wants to be a victim forever would.

why are you so angry?

fellis: I found a link that is related to the one I spoke of. There was recent a research conducted by the American association of university women which showed that women still earned less even when they did the exact same jobs as men, with the same working hours and everything.

Though the research only gave two possible/tentative reasons why women still earn less, it proves that women can also put in the same effort as men do and get paid less than their male counterparts. I brought this up because you said you have never seen a case of women doing the same work as men and yet earning less.

I saw the study and it was made by the American Association of University Women. Now let me ask, would you trust a study made by the Union of Nigerian Pentecostal Churches about how those who pay tithes are richer on average than those who don't?
#justsaying

Logicboy03: An outlier that caused a law to be signed? Jeez......how silly

This is one of the reasons why I laugh when I read your responses. Did you read up on that bill at all?

Let us look at the details of Lily's case:

1. Lily Ledbetter worked in Goodyear tyres from 1979 to 1998 when she retired as a branch manager.
2. Years after her retirement she found out that she was the least paid out of 15 other branch managers who served the same time as her
3. All these branch managers were paid different salaries depending on their agreement with the company
4. Lily was the only woman amongst them and she also happened to be paid the least.
5. Lily sued her company
6. The case was thrown out because more than 180 days had elapsed since her paycheck and when she filed the suit
7. The fairplay bill was signed in by Obama in 2009 and named after her. The bill removed the 180 days time restriction

Points to note:
1. All the branch managers working at the same time as Lily were all paid at different rates. Lily just happened to be the lowest.
2. Nothing stopped Lily from finding out what other branch managers were being paid and renegotiating her contract while still working for Goodyear
3. The fact that Lily was able to sue her company at all is evidence that there were anti-discrimination laws in place already based upon which she could make a case.
4. Her case was not thrown out because she was a woman but because she brought up the case years after she had already
retired. This time limit was what the fairplay bill corrected
5. The fairplay bill would probably still have been passed into law if it was a man who suffered Lily's fate
6. The fairplay bill did not give women any rights they didn't already have.

thehomer: This is not an answer to the question I asked.

Perhaps you should ask your question to Mr Chomsky because he took it for granted that atheism leads to it's own atrocities.