Not so fast there Sally ~ right out of college women earn less then men for the same job - And the gap gets even wider in careers where women dominate. Consider, for example, education, where about 80% of new grads are female. Average starting pay: $29,092. Average starting pay for men with education degrees: $39,849. http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2011/05/16/why-do-new-female-college-grads-earn-17-less-than-men/
Damn those darn pesky facts!!!

@Jason
Did you read your own link? It is explained as women being more content coming out of college and demanding higher pay. It also shows that there are fields where women make more because women are desired more then men. Then you see the reverse for education, probably because it is female dominated field and employers are looking for more men. The article make no mention of society holding down women or oppressive GOP men trying to keep them barefoot and pregnant.

If you looked past what the union handed you as info, you would have found this http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html. Women make more then men until they CHOOSE to have children. Those that don't maintain the same or better pay.

Sally, I believe the point is equal pay for equal work. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was the result of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire. Lilly Ledbetter was an outstanding executive of this company for many years. As she approached retirement she was made aware that she was being paid significantly less than her male counterparts, which impacted her Social Security, etc. She was doing the same work as the men and she was doing exemplary work.

I don't perceive this to be a political issue as much as it is a civil rights issue. You were fortunate to work in an enlightened environment, it's unfortunately not the same everywhere. And most women usually don't take a year off for maternity leave, it's typically about 6 weeks. I know women who have returned to work within three weeks. I don't believe this length of time off justifies withholding a pay raise or promotion.

Sally, arent many "Dems" women? When you say that the Dems believe that all women care about is this or that...do you realize you are including women...that probably half or more of the people you are talking about are women? Why speak of the Dems monolithically? Again..."another issue that the Democrats feel is too complicated for women to understand." Which Democrats? Hillary Clinton? Michelle Obama? Your shout out to the Women include huge numbers of very intelligent Democratic women Sally. Its a strange post.

@Jason
While I appreciate you standing up for my wife, she is doing fine in her career. My wife is paid competitively based on her experience and the fact that she has taken 4 extended pregnancy leaves that her male coworkers did not take. She is also incredibly driven and are great self promoter.

You cannot compare erectile dysfunction pills to birth control pills (I believe it has been the unions demanding that insurances cover them and not the GOP http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/06/despite-budget-cuts-layoff-fears-milwaukee-teachers-fight-taxpayer-funded/). The women's (insert word of choice) is not broken when she takes birth control pills. If a women needs to take birth control for a actual medical condition, I am in favor of that being covered. However, insurance won't cover condom cost, as that would be comparable.

Can you please point where women's premiums are higher then men's? If you mean medical bills because of procedures of CHOICE, then you might be right. However, few women will ever suffer from prostate problems and the bills associated with that.

What I see in your post is exactly what Sally was talking about. Women are not capable of taking care of themselves and hence only the government can equalize the gap. However, government mandates only restrict freedom.

Where does it say that the GOP let's men choke women (if you're a judge)? That is a moronic statement and Jason Patzfahl you are the moron. Justice prosser put his hands up in defense of himself, when he felt he was being attacked by an angry woman. Right or wrong is yet to be seen, but this has no bearing on the issue.
Remember Bill Clinton made a woman give him oral sex in the Oval Office, and that was only the start. I guess we should paint the entire democrat party with the "I use women only as sex objects" brush. Women haters.
Jason, the rest of your statements hold little water, but this one shows you to be a total mental midget.

@Jason,

<<<As a stay-at-home dad, don't you want your wife (the bread-earner) to be paid just as much as a male for the same job? Not only are women earning less for the same job, >>>

As I explained on your blog, the statistics simply do not support your argument. Even the book that the Dems are using to support this argument makes the argument that women are not paid less. Yes, there are fields that pay less that women tend to be attracted to, but women are not required to make that choice, nor are they paid less than the men that make that same choice. In addition, those fields tend to have benefits that are associated with less work, such as only working 7.5 months per year and having it be counted as full-time, or other lavish benefits.

I have, however, found some anecdotal evidence that supports your claim. There is a local employer who discriminates against women:

http://mediatrackers.org/2012/04/30/barrett-discriminates-pays-women-17k-less-than-men

@Luke -- "Yes, there are fields that pay less that women tend to be attracted to, but women are not required to make that choice, nor are they paid less than the men that make that same choice."

Could it be, possibly, the reverse? That fields traditionally considered to be women's jobs -- elementary school teaching, nursing, clerical, etc. -- pay less for that reason, and that of course anyone willing to take those jobs will be paid less, but mostly it's women. There's also the difficulty that women have being hired into some of the more lucrative fields like the building trades.

@Randy

<<<Could it be, possibly, the reverse? That fields traditionally considered to be women's jobs -- elementary school teaching, nursing, clerical, etc. -- pay less for that reason, and that of course anyone willing to take those jobs will be paid less, but mostly it's women. There's also the difficulty that women have being hired into some of the more lucrative fields like the building trades.>>>

No.

That's what I like about you, Luke -- so very open-minded.

Jason - you should unplug your keyboard. You should proof what you type. At least practice what you type. But then again, you are so blinded by your "feelings" you cannot understand. Your comments hear are entirely inappropriate. You totally project and are trying to stir something.

You have some unresolved guilt of some sort.

Randy,

<<<That's what I like about you, Luke -- so very open-minded.>>>

I’m an empiricist. No loyalties to anyone.

@Jason
From your own article.

"Differences in rates for men and women are not explained by the cost of maternity care. In the individual insurance market, such care is usually not part of the standard package of benefits. Maternity coverage may be offered as an optional benefit, or rider, for a hefty additional premium." AKA if a women choices to have a child, they have the option for additional coverage.

Also from your article. "Insurers said they charged women more than men because claims showed that women ages 19 to 55 tended to use more health care services. They are more likely to visit doctors, to get regular checkups, to take prescription drugs and to have certain chronic illnesses." I see nothing in their about the GOP having anything to do with healthcare premiums.

I see a business needing to make a judgement call regarding how to effectively manage losses. If women use health insurance more, why should they not be charged more?

Again you fail to read and understand your own article and it ends up being contrary to your point.

@Lyle
As with every group that is not a white male, liberals believe "that the system is stacked against" them. That belief then plays itself out by pandering to those groups in a way that assumes they can't make it without the help of liberal government policy. A thought process such as that can only be established if you believe they are inferior.

Which structural elements are you talking about? The sex ed that has produced more children out of wedlock, which can't be very helpful to women. The hyper-regulated insurance industry that must keep all premiums artificially high in order to ensure coverage for every plague on society, as we would hate to charge people based on actions or historically relevant facts. Yet, you will then challenge additional structural elements on abortion to actually protect women, because then liberal could lose some control.

The resistance by conservatives to limited government doesn't start and end with women. Everything I listed above gives women more choice. Please show me where more/bigger government leads to additional freedoms.

Lyle, really? You wrote that? What structural elements have women shackled?

@Jason
It is funny that having cited to mainstream stories and failed, you now find a story at some left wing media outlet.

If you want to play 'which gender has more specific treatment' game, which of the women do you know must go in for prostate examines or are concerned about testicular cancer?

The story you listed does nothing to explain why the numbers are they were they are. It is not simply the style of education. In 2011, the CDC released a study in which they could not state that comprehensive sex education was better or worse the abstinence (below). As for your article, the culture difference between Mississippi (worst) and New Hampshire (best) is extreme. First, people get married younger in the south, hence pregnancy at 19 it not unusual. Second, the abortion rate is higher in New Hampshire, so technically, sex ed is preventing nothing but instead forcing women to accept the destruction of their pregnancy as the best course. Third, there is a higher black population in Mississippi. The African American community is a shambles because of liberal policy and no black leadership. If you factor in those, the difference cannot be assumed is because Mississippi teaches abstinence.

http://gallery.mailchimp.com/e71e76ba0a0760415775e4352/files/naea_AJPM_Article_March2012.pdf

http://gallery.mailchimp.com/e71e76ba0a0760415775e4352/files/Weed_Commentary_AJPM_March2012.pdf

@J.B. Schmidt....When speaking of Mississippi, you might as well be speaking about a third world nation. As with everything you comment on, you decline to to acknowledge the complexity of the issues. You seem to not grasp the incredible advantages that men are endowed with in comparison to their female counterparts. For example, it's been less than three decades that teaching methods have changed to accommodate differences in learning between males and females. Since teaching methods have changed, females are out performing males and now are in the majority at colleges and universities; women making up the highest enrollment in professional programs. This is proof positive that males have been given educational advantages. When structural privilege exists, then not changing that structural system is equal to promoting such a system. In this case it is a sin of omission. However, the conservatives are making ever effort to return society to pre-1960 and undue the positive structural changes that have equalized certain areas of privilege. Thus, in the process of reversing social justice and change, it is rightfully called a War on Women, since most of the changes are directed at them. this is really all about maintaining white male dominance.

Are you kidding me? First of all - it is a pap smear. Last time I checked they didn't use beer in the procedure. 2nd, most women don't "chose" to have their private's looked at - we do it because we have to. We have a lot of organs that things could go wrong in and the GOP has nothing to do with that. You also can have all the sex ed you want but the teenage hormone and less developed brain will always win out.
No one, the government, men or anyone else can staunch a women's rights or her voice, only she can. A lot of women make really bad choices for all the wrong reasons, and yes, I am a woman.
Jason, I think your wife has you wrapped around something. Get out of the house a little more and see how the world really operates.

@Lyle
I identified the complexity of the issue within Mississippi; however, in exchange you label the change in education as the sole reason for female advance. That seems to a very narrow view of the other cultural changes the US has seen in the last 60 years. It also begs the question, what progression in education is truly attained when when our educational production has slipped in ranking throughout the western world? Has this change then put men at the disadvantage. If this new education style were correctly instituted, shouldn't we have equal numbers of males and females succeeding?

The statement that conservatives want to return our society back to (insert date of choice), is a vague generality and has no basis in fact. It is said as a scare tactic.

The liberal outrage with current conservative policy towards sex is we wish to return virtue to man/woman relationships; instead, of this an open free for all that maintains sex between man/woman is no different between humans or dogs. That line of thinking has contributed to much of our societal decline.

It is impossible to eliminate structural privileged. It has existed since the beginning of time. Any attempt to equalize this structure only lowers everybody's standard of living, except for those doing the equalizing.

Lyle sez "Since teaching methods have changed, females are out performing males and now are in the majority at colleges and universities; women making up the highest enrollment in professional programs. This is proof positive that males have been given educational advantages. When structural privilege exists, then not changing that structural system is equal to promoting such a system."

Lyle, this is actually proof positive that females have been given an educational advantage; structural advantage actually now exists for females in education. It is likely further evidence that we may not be capable of achieving 'equal outcome' or that the cost of achieving that 'equal outcome' may exceed the net gain.

@J.B. Schmidt --"If you want to play 'which gender has more specific treatment' game, which of the women do you know must go in for prostate examines or are concerned about testicular cancer?"

Interesting you should say that. How would you feel about legislation that allowed private insurers not to cover prostate exams and checking for testicular cancer under their policies because, y'know, some men might actually enjoy the procedure?

@J.B. Schmidt....I challenge your statement that structural privilege has always existed and thus cannot be changed. That is just not the case. However, to equalize privilege, it probably means that those who have had structuralized privilege will have to give up that privilege or at least modify it. Just as my example of education is an indication that when fundamental changes are made, then true meritocracy can exist. What the white male majority is resisting is the giving up of their dominance and privilege. Males can and do flourish in the new educational environment, but they must work harder to do so.

The return to social policy of old is not just a scare tactic, it is a fact. To return sexuality to that of 50 or 60 years ago states that it was a better time, which it was not. An individuals sexuality is their business. The conservatives are always screaming about government intrusion in our personal lives, yet when it comes to sexuality, it's OK for the government to be involved. We now have the technology to reduce the negative outcomes of sexual expression, freeing both men and women, why would we wish to return to a period where choice is limited as if the technology doesn't exist. That is similar to having a vaccine for measles but refuse to use it. Measles have all but been eradicated so the incidence is low, but we understand if we don't vaccinate, that it will return. Same go for not using technology for protecting sexual choice.

Lyle:

T?here seems to be plenty of evidence to suggest that males are indeed suffering under the 'new' education system. What you stated about males having to work harder in the new educational environment seems to be the same as what was being said about females in the 'old' educational environment. Are we doomed to flip=flop back and forth between systems that favor either males over females? Can't we find a system that both males and females can benefit from?

Lyle, why do write that about Mississippi? A third world nation? You are an embarrassment. Oh, just another flippant snarky comment. Oh yeah, your are the tolerant one, the compassionate and understanding.

@Lyle
No one is limiting technology. Please provide proof that there is a republican agenda to do so. Making people cover their own costs, is not limiting, its fair.

Free sexual expression is a not a truthful statement. Just like there is no free lunch. This 'freedom' as you call it, has done greater harm to our society then some old mans idea of pinching a aspirin for birth control. Since the 60's more women are burdened with single motherhood, which in turn has affected the next generation. This single failure has destroyed the inner city. It is bringing end to the nuclear family. Their was a time when 'shacking up' was a negative. Now we call it cohabitation and I in my last link, the NY Times puts its origins in free sex and shows how it is having negative consequences on the young people of this country. More and more abortions are taking place and while there maybe some disputes, they have had a negative impact on the lives of some women.

I am not against contraceptive. Nor am I against sex. I am against the notion that a pill or condom is all that is required to prevent the negative consequences of sex. That idea is short cited and ignorant of everything else encompassed in sex and sexual intimacy.

@J.B. Schmidt....Can you say in all seriousness that conservatives don't resist the technologies of the "morning after pill" and stem cell research using fertilized cells? Those are just two examples. Conservatives also are opposed to birth control pills and I.U.D.s, all of which weren't available prior to 1960.

The idea that most of single parent families is due to out of wedlock birth is just incorrect. The vast majority of single parent families are created through the process of divorce. In any case, is a life born out of wedlock worth any less than a life born to a committed married couple? One of the things that the War on Women targets is a women's basic rights over her own body. the idea that a women doesn't have a right to insurance coverage of her birth control and must pay for it herself, is nothing more than a back handed way of limiting her sexual expression. You talk to anyone in the insurance actuary discipline and they'll tell you birth control is cheaper than child birth, it is also cheaper to society.

The single variable that destroyed the nuclear two parent family in the inner cities was the misplaced principle that you couldn't have two able bodied adults in a single household receiving AFDC. This occurred under the Carter Administration and the problem has progressed to what we see today; a socially engineered solution gone terribly wrong.

Your idea of virtue and ideology is grounded in unrealistic expectations of changing social norms.

There's a yeast joke in there somewhere...

Have you seen some of these lefty women? No way you could get near that sober.

@Sally...I don't pretend to speak for women, but you can't speak for all women either. Your experiences are unique to you and you can't project that experience on other women. It's well established that male privilege, white privilege, wealth privilege, education privilege, location privilege, and familial privilege exists. To deny such is a tactic to remain oblivious to the social injustices within our society.

Since you are the only one who speak for women, why do these injustices exist? Curious minds want to know.

Are you calling Jason, Lyle and Bren Republican's, Dave? I don't think they'd like that...

@Bob McBride....LOL, that's like calling you a secular humanist. However, I catch your twist. :)

I'm a secular realist, so you're close at least.

@Dave
One can just as easily become a fundamental humanist as one can become a fundamental Christian (or any group liberals hate).

http://mediatrackers.org/2012/04/30/barrett-discriminates-pays-women-17k-less-than-men/
HMMMMMMMMMM.......

@Randy
I am against health insurance mandates for anything. Insurance providers will figure out what people want, need or be willing to pay for. The government intervention has caused people to look at insurance, not as a system to protect them from serious medical costs; but to be an intermediary between the doctor's office and themselves. This has driven up prices on both health care on the doctor's end but also premiums on the patient end.

Let me decided what I want covered. If insurance was al a carte people would have more freedoms and the cost would be based on what you want.

Insurance companies will charge whatever the market will bear, and tough luck to the person who is unable to afford what you might consider to be a 'choice'.

I agree somewhat about the move toward insurance covering every little thing, but that comes from the understanding that it makes sense to control costs before there's a problem, and that means covering preventive care. Women need to give birth in hospitals, just as they need to find breast and cervical cancer before it becomes an even more expensive problem. There are conditions that men need to detect early as well. We're all in this life together, and your cafeteria style of coverage doesn't work.

My opinion is that if it does not make a good sound bite, against Governor Walker, it will not be heard.

Yes, Tom It is bad to perpetually insert random links to sites that have no names/companies associated - so one cannot determine who/what organization is behind them and whether the info. they are pedaling has any basis in truth. Indeed it is bad. Feel free to stop or at least limit your link sharing to legitimate sources that back up opinions you are evidently unable to state for yourself. Thanks for asking!