Jurupa,
"I never said these things in themselves where right. But more in the grand scheme of things they balance things out. I am not saying two wrongs make a right here either. You complain about how men make more than women, but they would have to do if they loose the custody case to the mom. As the courts will take child support out of the guy's pay check. See what I am getting at. I know it doesn't always work this way but its how it works never the less."
They don't balance out, that's the problem. And you're missing the larger picture--you can't put these two issues (the bias towards women in terms of custody and the bias towards men in pay, justified by their need to pay child support) because, the way you have framed them, they aren't. They're intimately connected--if your reading is indeed correct, wouldn't it make more sense--and be more just--to eliminate the bias towards mothers while attempting to equalize pay? Saying one injustice compensates for another just doesn't cut it in the real world.
Your argument, however, fails for other reasons. Apart from having focused solely on one subset of the issue at hand (you still haven't answered how the bias towards Woman A in a custoy battle compensates for the fact that Woman B recieves a smaller paycheck than her male collegue), you haven't accounted for the fact that women have to pay child support when the custodial parent is the father. Using your logic--if this truly is why less pay for women is justfied--shouldn't these women be paid more on the grounds that they have to pay support? No matter how great the financial burden is for the father who must pay child support, unless the mother is an independently wealthy heiress, the burden of supporting and raising her child(ren) still disproportionately falls on her.
"This is like saying women are less likely to at fault for a moving car accident then men. And yet women commit way more non moving accidents than men (ie hitting parked cars and what have you). And yet men have to pay more for insurance than women do. Oh by the way women are going to jail way more than guys are today even tho they commit less violent crimes. My point on these was not just on violent crimes but all crimes."
No, it isn't. Statistically, men are more likely to commit violent crimes than women. I don't know where you get your statistics, but men both make up a far larger percentage of the US prison population than women, and are also far more likely to either be or have been in jail. (
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/28cnd-prison.html) Realistically, a larger number of women than men will be arrested and sentanced for certain crimes, such as prostitution, since laws typically go after the sellers instead of the johns. The same, however, holds true for men in other areas.
"I am not saying stereotypes don't play into the work force as they do. I also think a lot of these same stereotypes play in part in how a person does their job. Female boss may be viewed as bitchy because they may be trying to play in the same ball park as their male counter parts. I don't think it has to do with males thinking a female boss is bitchy but more the female her self actually being bitchy. Tho the simple fix there is better communication skills and management skills that are more suited for females. As males and females do manage people differently. And the work force is more use to male boss and the mangement style they tend to use."
See previous post. It's about stereotypes of how women are supposed to behave. A pushy man? Great, he's assertive and driven. A pushy woman? She's a domineering bitch. What is decried in one gender is lauded in the other. (
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/ ... er-bosses/, there's another article that I didn't have the time to find but I'll see if I can find it later)
"There are jobs where men are going to have more value than a women will. Saying that single women in their 20's with no child DO make more than their male counter parts. Has do with them more likely having a college degree. Kinda mess up your argument on how just being male means you make more. Like I said your background plays a lot bigger part than your sex most of the time."
Actually, your argument doesn't derail my point because of the groups that you're comparing. If you compare the salaries of all women versus the salaries of all men, the date that you gather is actually useless due to the decrepencies in pay between different fields, some of which tend to be dominated by either women or men. In order to gather useful data that addresses issues of pay differences in terms of gender, you need to compare salaries within a single field
CHAT
