[thechat] outburst

deacon web at master.gen.in.us
Fri Jan 21 12:42:08 CST 2005

On 20 Jan 2005 at 18:49, Tara Cleveland wrote:

> I don't see any correlation between putting up with stuff and good pay 
> here. I'm not sure which one is worse - the men's jobs or the women's. 
> They all have to "put-up" with shit - although Nurses and orderlies and 
> Elementary Teachers probably put up with more actual excrement than 
> others.

I said you get paid more for heavy, dirty, dangerous, and unpleasant 

Of the female jobs, how many of them require constant heavy 
exertion? None of them. (Nursing requires turning a body once in a 
while, but not constantly.)

Of the female jobs, how many leave you clean enough to go to a 
restaurant with tablecloths after work? All of them. 

Of the female jobs, how many are as physically dangerous as working 
on scaffolding, or having drunk drivers aiming vehicles at you, or 
operating sharp tools rotating at high speeds, or scooping snow off icy 
sidewalks? None of them. 

Of the female jobs, how many typically require you to be away from 
home overnight? None of them.

The bureau of labor statistics says 59.6% of women over the age of 16 
work, compared to 74.1% of men over the age of 16. 

Women work only 36 hours a week compared to 41.8 hours for men. 

If only 80% as many work, and they only work 86% as many hours, 
that's 69% of much work. If they earn about 70c on the dollar, is that 
so inequitable? 

> So what you're saying is that childbirth has been made safe, while 
> there has been no significant improvement in the mortality rate in 
> industrial accidents in the last 200 years. Also that a significant 
> number of women no longer die in childbirth while a significant number 
> of men die in industrial accidents - significant enough to make up the 
> difference between male and female lifespans. I always thought that 
> heart disease and/or cancer (depending on where you're from) was the 
> leading cause of death (see 
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_16t1.pdf  "Deaths: Leading 
> Causes for 2000, table 1" from the CDC), and the major differences 
> between men and women's lifespans were lifestyle differences (like more 
> men smoked more for longer and therefore died of smoking-related 
> illnesses) but I could be wrong, although all the studies I've read 
> indicates that I'm right. Care to back up your assertion with some 
> sources?

Employment is a lifestyle difference. 

Unintentional injury is the leading cause of death of those under 35.
It kills about twice as many men as women. (Rates of 47.2 versus 24.5 
per year per 100,000) Those difference would be even higher if you 
included war (which *is* an occupation) and homicide (which is an 
occupational risk in such male-dominated occupations as driving a 
> > When a man and a woman commit crimes together, you often hear
> > that the prosecutor offers to let the woman get off scot-free if the 
> > man
> > pleads guilty and takes a prison term. I've never heard of a deal being
> > offered where she goes to prison for him; have you?
> I don't remember ever hearing of a guilty women getting of "scot-free" 
> and the man taking the prison term if he pleads guilty. I have heard of 
> women ratting men out and getting lighter prison sentences. 'Course 
> I've heard of men ratting out men and getting lighter prison sentences 
> too. Got any sources?

"In plea bargaining with a married couple, often we say, 'Well, let's get 
the man' We're satisfied with getting the husband to plead guilty and 
dropping the charges against the woman. Of course, then he has a 
criminal record, she doesn't. If they both repeat the crime, he can 
'legitimately' receive a longer sentence." - Assistant Prosecutor J. 
Dennis Kohler. 
> > When a neighbor calls the cops on a domestic dispute, two times out
> > of three, the cops find a woman attacking a man.
> I think the statistics will contradict you very sharply. In my own 
> experience, witnessing domestic violence, it has been the opposite - 
> and stats will back that up.
> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/vi.pdf
> http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/dates/dec6/facts_e.html#a2
> http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/dv03a.htm

Statistics based on arrests, not on occurrances. Most of the time, the 
cops are called by the woman after he flees. Not after she flees, after 
he flees. 

I don't have the reference I was looking for. They were trying to pass a 
law requiring cops to arrest anyone they see attacking a family 
member. The FOP supplied that statistic, and the bill was dropped. In 
any case, these were off-the-cuff stats. 

However, in the National Family Violence Survey, the first scientifically 
valid study, researchers were astounded to find that there was a 3.8% 
severe assault rate against the wife by the husband, a 4.6% severe 
assault rate against the husband by the wife. 

That means every 18 seconds in the US, a man beats his wife, and 
every 15 seconds, a woman beats her husband. If you count all 
assaultive behavior, instead of only severe assault, it's one every six 
seconds each way. 

> Well it's not discrimination unless you can prove that those two women 
> were unworthy of such offers and the men were worthy. 

I'd contend that everyone who got a BSChE from UD in the 1970s was 
worthy; that school was *tough*. But your point is valid. 

Here's some current info from UPenn, another top engineering school. 

Six majors in which they list average starting salaries for both male 
and female graduates. In four of the six majors (including BSChE), 
women got more than men. Not a *lot* more, but enough to suggest 
that they were actively being sought out. 

> > That too. Once in a while, you find a slave revolt.
> That is a disgusting and abhorrent comment. It crossed the line for me 
> both from a personal and a general outrage perspective. I'd like an 
> apology for that comment.

> One of my very close family 
> friends was on his "hit list" of prominent Canadian women he was 
> planning to kill. 

I'm sorry your friend was targeted. I apologize. 

> Male engineering students are as far from slaves as I can possibly 
> imagine. To call them slaves trivializes the incredibly tragic and 
> terrible reality of current and historic slavery.

Although they were putting up with conditions you couldn't conceive of 
as being tolerable. 

> > No doubt. Everyone seems to get assaulted in that manner, male or
> > female.

> Well I'm not humourless or against sexual jibes of a friendly nature 
> between *friends*. And that wasn't specifically what I was talking 
> about. I am against a workplace where sexual jibes have a tinge of 
> nastiness to them and are constant and unfriendly. I've just never 
> heard any going the other way - women saying nasty and intimidating 
> things to men - although I'm sure it happens.

Did I say anything about *women* saying nasty and intimidating things 
to men? I was talking about constant, nasty, unfriendly sexual jibes 
none the less. 

And while women can and do complain, men dare not. My brother-in-
law told me in 1971 of a fellow who complained about it to his UAW 
steward, and was told to ignore it. He filed a grievance, and a few days 
later, they discovered his body. It appeared that several coworkers had 
held him while he was pantsed, an air hose inserted in his rectum, and 
the valve opened. 

> Or are you talking about child support payments? Which on average are 
> inadequate and don't cover the cost of raising children 
> (http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/FENR%20V11N1&2/fenrv11n1&2p29.pdf). 

They pro-rate costs. Does a woman with two kids pay three times as 
much for rent, for homeowner's insurance, for heat, for telephone? 
Does it cost three times as much to drive to the grocery store? No. 

Nor should support equal costs. The parents are supposed to cover 
the costs in proportion to their gross income. However, the 
noncustodial parent has to furnish housing, and food, etc., and there's 
no offsetting credit for that. 

For twenty years, I've heard women complaining about child support, 
and my response always is, "If you aren't happy with the current 
situation, I'd be happy to take the responsibility for supporting your kid. 
When can you drop him off?" Funny, I've never had anyone take me 
up on my offer. Kids are a wonderful addition to any household, worth 
far more than the  sometimes substantial cost of raising them. Doesn't 
it raise doubts about whether someone is a suitable parent, if they treat 
kids as a liability rather than an asset?

> However, since 
> most children are not capable of that responsibility the money is given 
> to the custodial parent in order to provide for the child. So why would 
> the custodial parent pay income tax on it?

If the kid is earning an income (a child star?), the kid pays income tax 
on it. If the kid receives unearned income (dividends and interest on an 
inheritance?), the kid pays income tax on it. 

Why should this be any different?


Lots of space, bandwidth, speed, and reliability. 
Dozens of preinstalled major applications.
24x7 toll-free telephone support by experts.
Everything you need, at really low prices.

More information about the thechat mailing list