Friday, April 27, 2007
Friday Weigh In, 4/27/07
188.5 this morning. That's 1.5 pounds this week and 24 overall. I'll take it.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
I didn't break the law today. Where's my fucking medal?
What is it about giving medals to just about everyone except people who deserve them? First it was the Franks/Tenet/Bremer Congressional Medal of Freedom, and now Reade Seligmann of Duke Lacrosse fame. Having had the rape charges against him dropped, his high school has bestowed upon him the Delbarton Medal, the highest honor from the all-boys Delbarton School.
His headmaster says Seligmann demonstrated "courage, nobility, integrity and charity" during the "ordeal" of the last year. Then he goes on to say the most asinine thing I've heard in awhile:
'Cause let's face it. I don't have the first clue as to whether Reade Seligmann raped Crystal Gail Mangum because a)I wasn't there and b)I didn't examine her afterward. But the same can be said of nearly all of the people defending Seligmann and his co-defendants, leading one to surmise that these people are defending them for other, more sinister reasons. Reasons relating to sexism, racism, classism, and probably several other isms. And with less-than-stellar conviction rates in rape cases, I'm not inclined to think that many women make false accusations. I imagine some do, but not nearly to the extent some people claim. Who would put herself through all the public scrutiny with such little chance of success? This woman's life has been damaged much more than the lives of the defendants in this case; it just doesn't seem like it sometimes because she started from an awfully low rung to begin with.
So quit with all the public displays of blind support for these guys. It's offensive. Because even if they didn't* rape her, they don't deserve a fucking medal for it.
*The case was dropped for lack of evidence. They were not found innocent. There is a difference.
His headmaster says Seligmann demonstrated "courage, nobility, integrity and charity" during the "ordeal" of the last year. Then he goes on to say the most asinine thing I've heard in awhile:
“You gave us a model of how to handle the pressures that we all experience.”Yes, let us all rally around a guy whose experience is justlikeours. Because it is the average person who is the white son of privilege, who gets to attend a pricey university on athletic scholarship, and who attends parties where African-American women are hired to stroke the male, uh, ego. Yes, yes, we all belong to this elite club, and we're all just as likely to get dragged under by nasty hos who are asking for it, not that we would actually do anything wrong, wink wink. I've lost count of how many times my friends and I have been accused of raping people. See? I'm just like this guy!
'Cause let's face it. I don't have the first clue as to whether Reade Seligmann raped Crystal Gail Mangum because a)I wasn't there and b)I didn't examine her afterward. But the same can be said of nearly all of the people defending Seligmann and his co-defendants, leading one to surmise that these people are defending them for other, more sinister reasons. Reasons relating to sexism, racism, classism, and probably several other isms. And with less-than-stellar conviction rates in rape cases, I'm not inclined to think that many women make false accusations. I imagine some do, but not nearly to the extent some people claim. Who would put herself through all the public scrutiny with such little chance of success? This woman's life has been damaged much more than the lives of the defendants in this case; it just doesn't seem like it sometimes because she started from an awfully low rung to begin with.
So quit with all the public displays of blind support for these guys. It's offensive. Because even if they didn't* rape her, they don't deserve a fucking medal for it.
*The case was dropped for lack of evidence. They were not found innocent. There is a difference.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Does this mean I only have to do 69% of my job?
Women continue to earn less than their male counterparts. How much less? According to a study done by the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, the gap already stands at 20% one year out of college (women making only 80% of what their male peers make). Ten years down the line, the gap widens to a staggering 31% (women making only 69% of what their male peers make).
MRAs* and other douchebags** will argue that this difference either doesn't really exist or can be attributed to education, career choice, maternity issues, space aliens, or a whole host of other factors. Anything, basically, to avoid implicating the vaunted institution of Misogyny(R). But the report is careful to report that
Now, some of the afore-mentioned douchebags have done some quick math on this and determined that one-quarter of 20% is only 5%, which is basically nothing, if you ask them. But at the ten-year mark, one-quarter of the pay gap is 7.75% that can be attributed to sexism. Even 5% is significant. Statistically and practically.
I've done my own math here, and the result is pretty sickening. If we start with a hypothetical man and woman with similar degrees, similar number of hours worked, etc., in a position that earns the man $50,000 per year, over a typical career his sexism-generated income advantage would be $173,260. (If he earns $50k, she earns $40k one through nine years out of college - and that's keeping the gap absolutely steady for the first ten years for the purposes of this exercise. It's probably a steadier increase. Anyway, one quarter of the $10k/year disparity equals $2500, and over ten years that equals $25k. Starting at year ten, keeping the salaries the same - except boosting the man's salary to reflect the increased gap - the woman will earn $40k to the man's $57,971. One quarter of the $17,971/year disparity is $4492. If we assume they were 22 when they got out of college and are 32 at the ten year mark and that they work another 33 years until retirement at age 65, that's an additional $148,260 that the man will earn over the woman simply due to sexism. Add that to the $25k from the first ten years, and you arrive at the $173,260 figure. This is a conservative estimate based on all the assumptions made for the purposes of the exercise. And the actual gap, remember, is four times that much. What this means is that our hypothetical man's penis is worth roughly $173,260 over his lifetime***, and it's all passive income - unless he's a porn star).
But here's the real message that needs to get out: Even one tenth of one percent of a pay gap attributable to sexism is unacceptable. Otherwise, who gets to decide what percentage of misogyny merits outrage? We certainly can't let the MRAs decide because in their world anything that is less than 98% sexist is for pussies.****
This is 2007, folks. It's time for a zero-tolerance policy on this shit.
*MRA - n., Men's Rights Activist. These people live on a planet on which misogyny is the most abundant element in the atmosphere.
**No one gave me an alternative word after the last solicitation, so douchebag it is.
***If he's a doctor or a lawyer, his penis is worth much, much more. A teacher? Not so much.
****That might be their actual motto.
MRAs* and other douchebags** will argue that this difference either doesn't really exist or can be attributed to education, career choice, maternity issues, space aliens, or a whole host of other factors. Anything, basically, to avoid implicating the vaunted institution of Misogyny(R). But the report is careful to report that
Even after controlling for hours, occupation, parenthood, and other factors known to affect earnings, the study found that one-quarter of the pay gap remains unexplained. The group said that portion of the gap is “likely due to sex discrimination.”
Now, some of the afore-mentioned douchebags have done some quick math on this and determined that one-quarter of 20% is only 5%, which is basically nothing, if you ask them. But at the ten-year mark, one-quarter of the pay gap is 7.75% that can be attributed to sexism. Even 5% is significant. Statistically and practically.
I've done my own math here, and the result is pretty sickening. If we start with a hypothetical man and woman with similar degrees, similar number of hours worked, etc., in a position that earns the man $50,000 per year, over a typical career his sexism-generated income advantage would be $173,260. (If he earns $50k, she earns $40k one through nine years out of college - and that's keeping the gap absolutely steady for the first ten years for the purposes of this exercise. It's probably a steadier increase. Anyway, one quarter of the $10k/year disparity equals $2500, and over ten years that equals $25k. Starting at year ten, keeping the salaries the same - except boosting the man's salary to reflect the increased gap - the woman will earn $40k to the man's $57,971. One quarter of the $17,971/year disparity is $4492. If we assume they were 22 when they got out of college and are 32 at the ten year mark and that they work another 33 years until retirement at age 65, that's an additional $148,260 that the man will earn over the woman simply due to sexism. Add that to the $25k from the first ten years, and you arrive at the $173,260 figure. This is a conservative estimate based on all the assumptions made for the purposes of the exercise. And the actual gap, remember, is four times that much. What this means is that our hypothetical man's penis is worth roughly $173,260 over his lifetime***, and it's all passive income - unless he's a porn star).
But here's the real message that needs to get out: Even one tenth of one percent of a pay gap attributable to sexism is unacceptable. Otherwise, who gets to decide what percentage of misogyny merits outrage? We certainly can't let the MRAs decide because in their world anything that is less than 98% sexist is for pussies.****
This is 2007, folks. It's time for a zero-tolerance policy on this shit.
**No one gave me an alternative word after the last solicitation, so douchebag it is.
***If he's a doctor or a lawyer, his penis is worth much, much more. A teacher? Not so much.
****That might be their actual motto.
International assbaggery
Iran arrests 300 women for being 'insufficiently veiled.'
I'd like to kick the Iranian police in the crotch for being insufficiently human.
I'd like to kick the Iranian police in the crotch for being insufficiently human.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
