Women and Leftism - An Interesting Google Search

I must not have realized that abortion is naturally occurring. Did the Government force both the male and female to have sex, too?

Oh, but the right makes emotional appeals to nostalgia, father figure worship, the idealized fatherland, fear of difference and a bunch of other archetypal images. As deontologists they have to appeal to emotion.

Pav, women can abort spontaneously. But that’s irrelevant,

Given the turn this thread has taken, I still ask how many men are willing to take on the restrictions to sexual freedom that they expect women to take on–including abstinence? That’s a pretty simple question, isn’t it?

Moreno, you’re correct when you say, “…but the right makes emotional appeals to nostalgia, father figure worship, the idealized fatherland, fear of difference and a bunch of other archetypal images.” That’s what, imm, makes the right extremely dangerous, because none of those emotional appeals have a whole heck of a lot of either validity or relevance in today’s world. At least the Left is trying to be realistic. Why shouldn’t insurance companies cover the cost of birth control? Insurance companies take our money and supposedly pool it to provide coverage to their insured. Are they also in the business of dictating rightist ‘morality?’ Are the insurance companies ‘father figures?’

You know what I meant.

I don’t expect anyone to do anything except be prepared to face the consequences of their actions, with sex or anything else. I also think that men, even those who do not want to be parents, should own up to the consequences. I’m Pro-Choice. I really don’t see anything extremely conservative about my position except my problems with the lengths to which the State goes to support some women.

In addition to that, I don’t think that men who are not abstinent really expect women to be abstinent. It would be quite difficult for men to not be abstinent if they were…

If we had control over our body fertility then you would be correct about accepting consequences, force them to be parents. Right?? I mean thats what we want is it not? Humans being parents to children they niether want nor love due to religious beliefs or government regulations. Oh boy that sounds just fun for the kids. Of course they can put all those unwanted kids up for adoption. Considering those mothers that did not want the child probably did not exactly injest healthy things for the kid while she was carrying it, we are looking at many, many kids that will really be screwed up… should we then force people that can adopt to adopt? Oops scratch that, we arrest the moms and keep them in a cage protecting the unborn. So there will be plenty of healthy kids to go around. I don’t know why but, my mind goes to the orphan trains. Pav I really do like you alot, you are a good guy. but on this, no man should decide or have a vote, you all just do not have the same position. I know you are pro choice but you really do lean towards prolife for all. We can’t be forced accept consequences when we have little to no control. Sure abstenance should be practiced I agree that is what we should teach first last and always. But really to ignore the body’s hormonal sex drive is just asking for unwanted kids. Girls do not get on birth control because they fear their parents will find out or they can’t afford it, boys don’t wear condoms because well, hell face it a boy thinks with the wrong brain and gets excited at the spur of the moment, all things intelligent rush out of their big brain. Young people are driven to be sexual critturs one way or another. Many cases they can’t even begin to be rational. Your kids maybe the exception but, counting on that could make things tougher on your kids. So how can we force consequences of parenting on to them? yet, that is what prolife right tolife people do. A totally conservative view based on religious ehtics by males predominantly. Women do tend to be Left on this view. Its the ones that side with the conservative view that are screwed up IMO

I don’t have a lot of time to respond this week, but there were a couple of things Kris mentioned that I’d like to briefly address.

Kris,
Society and the government don’t force women to be incubators, biology does. And although it’s not especially eloquent, that’s exactly what women are, incubators. Which is why, through the eons, women have always been more selective - we bear the greater burden of a sexual encounter and we have since the dawn of humanity. That is another one of those facts of life that we can’t change.

For just about all of us, neither society nor the government forces us to have unprotected sex.

You are usually one who argues vehemently for personal responsibility, it’s a little surprising that you’ve done a 180 where pregnancy is concerned.

I have to disagree. Men absolutely should have a voice here. They are not as invested the conception of a child, but they are invested. I don’t think a man is entitled to decide for a woman, but he should be part of the decision-making process and should have some input.

Are you really sure you want to take that position? We wouldn’t begin to accept that particular line of reasoning from a rapist.

Again, where’s the personal responsibility? (As I mentioned in an earlier post, I’m not, of course, speaking of those situations where a woman has zero access to birth control.) But for the vast majority of cases in the Western world, why can’t/shouldn’t we be held accountable for our actions where sex is concerned?

Pav, I will get to your excellent post re:MN specifics, I promise!

We do have control over our fertility, by not having sex at all. Furthermore, even if MS decides to illegalize abortion, then one of the consequences of pregnancy would be that you have to go to some neighboring State to get an abortion, that’s all. I’m not advocating Pro-Life, adoption, or forcing anyone to be a parent or to adopt. I think that life starts sometimes after conception, but before birth, I haven’t decided quite where. In any case, I’m Pro-Choice.

I like you too, but I disagree with you saying that I lean Pro-Life. I couldn’t be less Pro-Life. If you look at my positions on the issues, you’ll see that I am an Economist before I am anything else and it is obvious that someone relegating themselves (potentially, and often) to a lifetime of welfare does not benefit the economy in any way whatsoever. I would seek to have policies that most minimize the effects of unwanted pregnancy on the Economy, and abortion is one of those policies. I think when these girls go to the Health Department, or Doctor, or whatever, they should be presented with a list of nearby abortion clinics and gynecologists alike and make their own choice based off of that.

I disagree on condoms and that’s where personal responsiblity comes in. I wrapped my little friend up, so, if I got someone (prior to my wife) pregnant it would have been an accident but still my responsibility.

I don’t think they are, “Screwed up,” and I do think that the whole thing should be put to a vote of the populace of a State, or what have you. Social Conservatives, even if male, have the right to have opinions on the issues, though. As much as I would like to say, “Pffftttt,” to Religious Ideologies (particularly those that contrast with policies that would generate a strong Economy) you’re talking about generations of beliefs that have been passed down that culminate in the opinions that these people share. It matters to them, and in this country, people have the right to express their views on things that matter to them.

Again, so many ideas and so little time to respond completely.

I’ll start with the fact that I’m the mother of a child through the adoption process. She is our daughter in every way, except we didn’t ‘create’ her. Her birth mother took excellent care of herself and our daughter during the pregnancy. Her birth father tried to devise ways of taking care–taking on the responsibility–of both mother and baby. I know this because we’ve met and spent time with both of them. But the fact was, no matter how painful to admit–and it was painful–neither of them really wanted the baby at the time she was conceived. They didn’t love each other; but they both cared enough about the consequence of their ‘impassioned’ act to select what they thought was the best alternative. They gave us our daughter. To me, that shows the responsibility they were both willing to accept.

I also know of, or have family members, who are, or were, single mothers. Two have since married the fathers of their children. One couple is happily married and looking for a second child. With the other, Mom is happy with her children, but had her tubes tied. Her marriage revolves around her children.

Two of the girls are single moms. Neither have any expectations from the fathers and neither get any compensation from the fathers. As far as I know neither gets government support, although one relies on grandma and grandpa’s girlfriend for her ‘time away.’

I realize I’m not describing large numbers of welfare mothers, many of whom have been publicized as flouting the ‘system’ by continuing to have babies in order to maintain social services. But I wonder, really, exactly what that percentage is? It’s one thing if it’s 35% and quite another if it’s 3.5% How many welfare mothers actually use the system beneficially and eventually get off welfare? I have a suspicion it really isn’t that many who flout the system. I may be wrong–I’m only speaking from experience.

But we’re still down to the question of birth control responsibility. That can be broken down into several things. The first is tentative’s statement:

A second is from Kris, when she wrote:

The third is from upf:

I think these responses kind of run the gamut.

Which is the most true for men–boys–males? A lot of women believe all of them are true.

Female birth control, on the other hand, implies an anticipation of sexual activity–that’s kind of hard for an early teen (or a pre-teen) to admit, isn’t it, Kris?

I may be non-realistic, but I think it’s also hard for young women, in many cases, to go out into life, armed with her birth control pills, in anticipation of casual, or meaningful (?) sexual contact. Women are taught to expect casual sex–through media and electronics–because men expect casual sex.

So I ask, once again, are men as willing to be as precautionary with sexual activity as they expect women to be?

How many men, who don’t have the hormonal cycles leading to conception as does a woman, would be willing to take a daily spermicide ‘pill’ (if such a thing were available) in order to prevent pregnancy in their partners?

I think there is a male pill, but a condom should be enough consideration and should be demanded as a precaution from STD’s anyway.

Both partners should either take precautions or expect pregnancy to potentially occur.

Casual sex doesn’t exist in the sense that there is only sex, period. If people think they can have sex without protection as some kind of right, then nature will have something to say about that.

People should just be more moral, and shouldn’t be taught [culturally or by their families etc] that it is in some way acceptable to be flippant as concerns life. Someone has made a tremendous effort to bring them into the world and support them, thus it is their duty to do the same for people they bring into the world.

‘Accidents’ can be limited until there are only true accidents as opposed to laziness.

Sorry, dearheart, there’s no male contraceptive pill on the market. But that’s not the seminal (sorry about that) problem, which, it seems to me, is one of sexual expectations. Conservative Pav even admitted, in a post I’m sure he regrets, to prostituting a girl-friend for money. ‘I’ll give you the money you need if you give me the sex I want.’ To me, this is prostituting sex–it’s taking intimacy to the very low level of bartering.

Casual sex does exist in the sense that there is only sex, period. Casual sex has no commitment; it only has mutual pleasure–that moment of ecstatic release that comes from orgasm.

All I’m saying is that men who practice casual sex are equally responsible for the outcome. The outcome could result from a misunderstanding of what sex means to either partner, which could mean different things. This is damned difficult to try to explain because each woman is different, but I feel that, deep down in their heart of hearts, a woman wants and needs a lasting relationship. If prior relationships haven’t led to a lasting commitment, she may ‘give up’, take her pills, and look only for the pleasure of casual sex.

Men don’t seem to have the same psychological restrictions or expectations when it comes to sex. Men seem to think that putting on a condom spoils the spontaneity of sex–yet they expect women to take a pill every day in anticipation of spontaneous sex.

In a leftist society, are we trying to ‘take care’ of the mother, the father, or the child?

My apologies for the dis-jointedness of this post.

As I told Anita, I’d have lent her the money anyway and I am pretty sure that she would have had sex with me anyway. We continued to have a physical relationship thereafter with no money involved.

I don’t regret the post, and I’m not Conservative.

This may be shitty of me, but I can’t help but introduce politics into this. The current flap in congress over contraceptives just boggles my mind. We have senators… SENATORS - supposedly our top dog representatives of the people, attempting to ban contraceptives for women but supporting Viagra for men. So there you have it. Women are being governed by a collection of limp dicks trying to control the womb. The conservative extremists have jumped off the cliff. Do women lean toward the left? Duh…

liz

Many women go for money from men, where men often go for looks, surely you wouldn’t deny that? All those Beverly hills wives wouldn’t go out with an unemployed man, right? And they indeed seek men with wealth. Ever heard the saying; ‘all women are prostitutes’? seems like two people getting what they want to me. …but I agree its not moral, I wouldn’t do it, nor would I expect it of my daughter.

There is the knowledge that sex begets babies unless you take precautions, otherwise you are engaging in an act where you know the outcome is likely to produce children. Its only casual if you take precautions.

men who practice casual sex are indeed equally responsible for the outcome.
From personal observation I think women ‘usually’ think that if they give men what they want it may lead to more. Evolution would want secure partners for the duration of the upbringing of children, more mature men also recognise this imho.

I agree with them, condoms are utterly horrible and completely spoil the experience. Its not easy to keep it up if you cant feel much ~ depends on how sensitive a man is, but you wouldn’t want an over sensitive one lol.

All of them equally surely?

tentative

Tehe you guys need a revolution, oh wait, you had one then got into the same crap as the rest of us.

Usually liberals do not embrace and celebrate difference in all things. Business is one area liberals hate difference. They might like it in some things, but when it comes to money they believe in all sorts of affirmative action programs.

There was a matter that I intended to address in this thread, although we have all been involved in lengthly discourse concerning those on welfare. It is true that such discourse is not over yet, but there appears to be something of a lull, so I’m going to go ahead and slide this in here.

It is very difficult to take a position that is Anti- Women’s Lib in terms of employment propsects, and I certainly would not do so, but there were certainly unintended consequences with respect to employment. The problem that you run into is basically one of a saturated workforce which creates competition amongst employees, (where supply/demand is tilted more towards supply) thereby decreasing the demand:supply ratio and bringing the prices (read: wages) down. This is obvious when one looks at the relative prices and household incomes between 1960 and 2000…because those happen to be the numbers most readily available to me.

You’ll see that the Median Household Income, Inflation-Indexed, for the year 1960 is about $32,500 where you’re looking at about $42,000 for the year 2000.(1) This translates to (assuming a 52-week workyear and 40 hour week) $15.63/median household income per hour for 1960 and $20.19 for 2000. (Where Income/52/40=x)

However, it is paramount to look at what we are actually doing for that income.

You will notice that, in 1960, 37.7% of women were in the workforce where they made up 33.4% of the workforce. The number of women in the workforce was 23,240,000. Contrastly, in the year 2000, 66,303,000 women were in the workforce, which is 60.2% of women making up 46.6% of the labor force.(2)

You will see that, with the increase of women in the workforce, we found an inflation-adjusted income of 129% (42,000/32,500) for the year 2000 as compared to the year 1960. However, that increase is tied to an increase to 140% (46.6/33.4) of women’s percentage of the labor force, an increase to 160% (60.2/37.7) of women who are actually working in 2000 compared to 1960 and an increase of 43,063,000 actual women in the workforce. (285%)

This clearly points to a trend in which we have added to the labor force, but the actual incomes (expressed as a percentage of Median Household Income) have declined as a result of an over-saturated workforce. This is largely due to employers being able to pay wages for positions where the wages do not have to suffice to take care of a family (as another family member will just have to work) where wages used to be such that they could sustain a family or, quite simply, nobody would ever take that job.

This is a clear example of employers using the saturated workforce to their advantage to command reduced wages, which economically, they should, but morally? Patriotically?

Finally, we will look at the difference in hours worked between 1960 and the year 2000 to gage if there is any significant disparity in that regard.

In any case, if you look at the hours worked per week in April 1960 (Page 5)(3) you’ll see that the average white male (why is it seperated by color?) worked 41.9 hours per week whereas the average white female worked 35.2 hours per week. You will see that in 1960, once again, 37.7% of women were in the workforce and 83.3% of men were in the workforce. (4)

What we are going to do here is we are going to take the average hours worked per week, and subtract out the percentage of people NOT in the workforce from each gender to determine an average hours worked per week, per person, in the year 1960.

(41.9-men -16.7%(not working) = 34.9 35.2-women-62.3% (not working) = 13.3)

You are looking at an average workweek of 48.2 hours for men and women combined (one of each) in 1960.

Contrastly, we see that 60.2% of women were in the labor force in 2000. You will also note that the average workweek (combined) in the year 1999 is 34.5 hours.(5) I have a different source that says 58% of women in the labor force in 2000 and 71% of men in the labor force, that goes against my argument, so we’ll use those numbers which skew in favor of me being wrong. (6)

In that case you have a combined workweek of:

(34.5men -29%(not working)=24.5- 34.5women - 42%(not working) = 20)

It would seem that you have a combined 44.5 hours per week which is 3.7 less combined hours than 1960, however this decrease can largely be attributed to a decline in full-time workers due to the saturation of the labor market because you have a labor force of roughly sixty-point-five percent of the total (83.3% men + 37.7% women/2=60.5%) population working in 1960 and 64.5% labor force participation in the year 2000 (71% men + 58% women/2=64.5%) The numbers are actually skewed against my argument because women slightly outnumber men, but that’s negligible.

In any case, you have 4% more of the population in the overall workforce in the year 2000, but those who are in the workforce have seen a drastic decrease in their hours compared to 1960 because an employer no longer has to pay a wage that will, by itself, sustain a family. The employer also has the ability to cut hours and have less full-time staff which will enable the employer not to provide certain benefits that go hand-in-hand with full-time employment.

In 1960, you have a combined workweek of 48.2 hours at a rate MHI-expressed hourly- of $15.63 which results in a combined workweek being good for $753.36/week, combined, adjusted for inflation. Contrastly, for 2000, you have a combined 44.5 hours per week at $20.19 MHI-expressed hourly- which results in $898.45/week. You will see that this tends to benefit 2000 because a household was worth a median of $145.09 more, even with a lesser combined workweek, but these numbers are deceiving.

For one example, we will look at gas prices. We should also keep in mind that, since both individuals in a household are likely working, there is likely more gas being used in a household pertaining to work travel. In 1960, gasoline was $0.31/gallon, (7) which adjusted for 2000 inflation results in $1.80 (8) You’ll see that gas prices were about $1.95, on average, in the year 2000, which is a $0.15 increase, adjusted for inflation. (9)

Travel time to work data is not readily available for 1960, but you can see that it was 21.7 minutes in 1980 compared to 25.5 minutes in 2000. (10) According to the same source, 18% more people also used a private vehicle to take them to work in the year 2000 compared to the year 1960, and vehicles per household increased in 2000 to 164% of 1960 levels. (1.69/1.03)

You can see that, just with gas prices, in the 2000 scenario, gas prices are higher even after the inflation adjustment. You have 164% of the cars per household in 2000 compared to 1960, and a travel time to work that is 3.8 minutes greater than 1980. Furthermore, you have a greater percentage of the population actually working. The combination of these factors leads one to conclude, by necessity, that the expenditures associated in terms of gas, vehicles, and vehicle upkeep JUST TO GET TO WORK in the year 2000 greatly exceed those of 1960.

We will also see that the average housing expenditures in 1960 were $1,588, (11-last page) which would be an inflation-adjusted $11,557 in 2010. (12) We can see, however, that all forms of housing were more expensive than these inflation-adjusted numbers in 2010:

ALL UNITS (Average): $16,557
Homeowner-Mortgage: $22,278
Homeowner-No Mortgage: $12,294
Renter: $12,843

This gives us a concrete example because we can determine that a household with two working parents made an inflation-adjusted 119% of the income in 2000 that they did in 1960, ($898.45/week / $753.36/week = 1.19) where housing expenses, again injusted for inflation, were 143% in 2010 what they were in 1960. (16,557/11,557)

Ultimately, what you have is more workers who are working for wages that did not keep up with inflation. These workers are also working less hours per week and are less likely to be working full-time than their 1960 counterparts. You only have 4% more of the population actually participating in the labor force in the year 2000, although the Unemployment rate in 1960 never breached 5% (13) where the unemployment rate in the period covering the year 2000 was 5.6% compared to the 4.9% covering 1960.

Thus, you have two things, more people actually working and more people looking for jobs. This is necessarily going to result in a trickle-down effect by which someone that may have once (in 1960) been over-qualified for Job B and would work Job A has to go down to Job B. This eventually works its way down to the extent that someone that was once overqualified for Job W takes Job W because someone that was over-qualified for Job U got Job V. Eventually, what you end up with is a labor market that does not have to keep up with inflation, housing expenditures, or the simple costs of getting to work because there are often healthy amounts of people to replace the people who would often not work under certain wage conditions with people who will.

Keep in mind that the unemployment rate does not include people who have dropped out of the workforce, and given the exponentially higher population in 2000 compared to 1960, it stands to reason that more, physical, people dropped out of the workforce in 2000 which would have a greater effect on true unemployment.

It is unfair that such is the case, but women have also made historically less than men…often for the same job.

****We can also looked at total hours worked.

We have already determined that, in 1960, 60.5% of the 16+ population worked compared with 64.5% of same in 2000. Additionally, the average workweek in 1960 was 48.2 hours (one man + one woman, combined) compared to 44.5 in 2000 (one man + one woman, combined) where more women worked (+20.3% of all women 16+) in 2000 as well as a greater percentage of the population (+4%) in the labor force in 2000 with higher unemployment (people who wanted to be in the labor force and weren’t, +0.7%).

We’re also going to assume the same ratio of females to males, 16+, for the years 1960 and 2000. Females slightly outnumbered males in both years, but that will not make a difference for these purposes. In 1960, there were 23,240,000 women in the workforce and they made up 33.4% of the workforce. This means that the total workforce was 69,580,838 (23,240,000/.334) and therefore, there were 46,340,838 men in the workforce. We determine that the average combined worktime for one man and one woman was 23,240,000 * 2 * 48.2 (combined hours) which results in 2,240,336,000 combined hours worked. This also leaves 23,100,838 men unaccounted for who worked an average of 34.9 hours/week for 806,219,246 more labor hours and 3,046,555,246 labor hours total.

Contrastly, in the year 2000, we have 66,303,000 women in the labor force making up 46.6% of the labor force. This means that the total workforce was 142,281,116 (66,303,000/.466) and that there were 75,978,115 men in the workforce. We determine that the average combined worktime for one man and one woman was 66,303,000 * 2 * 44.5 (combined hours) which results in 5,900,967,000 combined hours work. This also leaves 9,675,115 men unaccounted for who worked for an average of 24.5 hours per week for 237,040,317 hours and a combined 6,138,007,317 hours total.

Ultimately, Americans now work a total of 201% of the physical hours that they did in 1960 (6,138,007,137/3,046,555,246) and for this work, the Median Household Income, adjusted for inflation, compared to 1960, of 129%.

Saturated labor markets suck, don’t they?

Effectively, employers just decided to use divide the work up between the two genders as opposed to having one gender do the majority of the work. The problem is that they wages/benefits are generally lower for each individual person (though higher per household ONLY by merit of having more two-income families…by necessity) and the costs of not only getting to work, but simply living costs, are higher than inflation-adjusted amounts for 1960 while the wages are not as high.

Women’s Liberation was actually the most effective and did the least Economic damage in Professional jobs such as Doctors and Attorneys, because there you have people that are going to make insane amounts of money, anyway. The problem with the movement, as I have mentioned, is that it trickled down into more menial jobs where a male (single-income household) would once work full-time, but be able to command enough of a wage (because of an unsaturated labor-market) that he could make a living for family. That is no longer the case because, with a saturated labor-market, there are lines of people ready to come in and take a job that pays minimum wage in which you only work twenty hours a week if you don’t want it.

The more workers you have, the less each individual worker is needed. The supply of workers exceeds (greatly) the demand and the price (wages) drop.

Simple Economics.

You have more people working less instead of less people working more. This is evident by way of a combined laborforce that is 4% more of the population total than it was in 1960, which also works 3.7 less combined hours with men (as a gender) working 10.4 less hours per individual and women working 6.7 more hours per individual. In terms of excess males working, you had 23,100,838 males who worked an average of 34.9 hours per week in 1960 compared with 9,675,115 who worked 24.5 hours per week in 2000. Therefore, you had 569,178,929 more labor hours ([23,100,838 * 34.9] - [9,675,115 * 24.5]=x) for 13,425,723 more unpaired males in 1960 (23,100,838 - 9,675,115) which results in 42.39 hours (569,178,929/13,425,723 = x) per additional unpaired male in 1960 compared to 2000. Essentially, 14,229,473 MORE full-time jobs…just counting unpaired males, with no female working counter-part!!!

If you get into counting the paired people, then you have 46,480,000 males+females in 1960 who worked an average week of 48.2 (combined hours) which is 2,240,336,000 combined hours worked. In 2000, you have 132,606,000 males + females who worked an average week of 44.5 (combined hours) which is 5,900,967,000 hours worked. Therefore, you have 3,660,631,000 more labor hours (5900967000 -2240336000) for 86,126,000 more paired males and females in 2000 (132,606,000 - 46,480,000) which results in 42.50 hours per additional pair, (3,660,631,000/86126000) or, 22.25 hours per worker in 2000 compared to 1960. Essentially, 0 MORE full-time jobs. In the case of 1960, a lesser proportion of women worked and you still had 48.2 combined hours per pair which resulted in an average of 29.1 hours individually.

In short, with an even lesser overall amount of people in the workforce, the average male/female pair worked 6.86 more individual hours in 1960 (which is due to a lesser percentage of females working, ergo, more full time jobs) than they did in 2000. Furthermore, there were 14,229,473 MORE full-time jobs in 1960 for unpaired male workers than there are today…with less overall workers to whom to distribute those jobs!!!

These numbers include ALL who are not in the workforce pursuant to the calculations above which factored in those who were unemployed

Shit, even if you look at the numbers for the women WHO DID WORK in 1960 compared to 2000, you’ll see that the average working woman (including only those who worked) in 1960 worked 0.7 HOURS MORE per week than did the average working woman in 2000. You’ll also see that the average working man (including only those who worked) in 1960 worked 7.4 HOURS MORE per week than did the average working man in 2000. The average working man in 1960 (41.9 hours per week) also worked full time whereas the average working man in 2000 did not.

Do you see what I mean about the utter sucktitude of saturated labor markets, yet?

This does not even take into account the negative effects that are felt by families that are two-income households by necessity, (financial stress, divorce rates, effects on the kids) the above is just pure Economics.

Obviously, the only reasonable solution to the problem are wages indexed to the current average cost of living (being minimum wage for a full-time job) which are such that an individual can support a family on one full-time job…the way it seemed to be in 1960!

(1) stanford.edu/class/polisci12 … Income.pdf

(2) infoplease.com/ipa/A0104673.html

(3) nber.org/chapters/c1265.pdf

(4) bls.gov/opub/uscs/1960-61.pdf

(5) bls.gov/opub/mlr/2000/07/art3full.pdf

(6) census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-20.pdf

(7) historical.whatitcosts.com/facts-gas.htm

(8) westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

(9) wiki.answers.com/Q/Gas_prices_in_2000

(10) fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census … k/jtw1.cfm

(11) bls.gov/opub/uscs/1960-61.pdf

(12) westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

(13) bls.gov/opub/ted/2002/sept/wk1/art03.htm

(14) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographi … ted_States

Basically, before Women’s lib you had unpaid subcontracters in the household: the women. So of course salaries went down overall when these women moved from unpaid - but compensated - labor to paid labor. It was another step away from tribal systems of economy.

We’re not just looking at salaries, we’re looking at household standards of living on the whole. Even without that, you still have to get into the Social Effects of two-income households…which I’ve not even started on.

EDIT: It should also be mentioned that the housework you seem to be alluding to still needs to be done, by someone, along with the upbringing of the kids. Therefore, not only are we creating less salary value for ourselves, we’re creating more overall work (including job + household) for ourselves in doing so!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_i … ted_States

Please see the chart of personal income 15 years & older who have non-zero income.

We see that a male, in 1960, had an income of $4,080, which is inflation indexed to 2000 numbers of $23,693 (calculator above) where a female had that of $1,281 which equals $7,336 in the year 2000.

This is compared to amounts of $28,343 for males in 2000 and $16,063 for females.

If we apply zero-incomes from the amounts above, we see that 16.7% of men did not work, so $4,080 -16.7% = $,3398.64, which is $19,771.82 after inflation. Women did $1,281 -62.3% = $473.97 which is $2,757.35 after inflation.

The combined inflation-adjusted amount is $22,529.17.

With the 2000 numbers we have $28,343 - 29% $20,123.53 for males and $16,063 - 42% = $9,316.54 for females. This results in a total of $29,440.07, or 131%, of the inflation adjusted income of 1960.

Again, you have to look at the increase in costs, not just of two people commuting to work, but, in general. (Ex. Housing)

You also have to look in the over-200% increase in physical hours worked it takes to result in a 131% increase in total incomes.

Pav, you may not be conservative, but I’m at least sexually conservative. As for your proof that men demand and get better salaries (for the same work?), women have known this for ages! And yet women, nowadays, are often the sole source of family income for herself and her child.

Women entered the work force en masse during WWII, to take the place of the men who had been conscripted. They got a taste of the power and freedom a paycheck brings. They finally had what men had had for so many centuries. Control over themselves.

A five man panel invited people to speak at a review of the contraceptive ‘issue.’ The people chosen to speak were conservative Christians, who’re against birth control. They’re also against abortion. They seem to want to take women back to the pre-WWII era–before they were able to earn money and declare their independence–and “keep women in their place”–either the kitchen or the nursery–with no other care or concern–or knowledge about the role hormones play in woman’s health–things like cancer and/or osteoporosis.

Yes, I’d like to see research into the diseases of men’s reproductive systems–I think it’s long overdue. But I honestly think a woman’s body is a more finely tuned instrument–because, through her body, she sustains life.

I also think men are reticent about admitting they may also deserve equal medical awareness to things such as prostate disease. Are men willing to pin blue ribbons on their shirts and gather to protest the inequality they apparently feel when it comes to insurance coverage for their overall, hormonal, health. Guys, if you’re ready, I’ll join you.

That was something of an aside, just to point out that I don’t agree with wage disparity, in terms of rate per hour (or salary for same job) in general. The proofs that I provided weren’t really geared towards that conclusion, or anything, as the main point was to assert something entirely unrelated to that.

That’s very true.

I don’t really see how the ability or inability to use birth control or have abortions ties in, by necessity, with a woman’s ability to earn money or declare her independence. It seems that a woman would be able to earn money regardless of whether or not she has sex, unless her chosen career is a prostitute…then it could be difficult to achieve financial independence without having sex.