Thanks E. I thought about doing a comprehensive response to Senorina but havent had the time (or energy).
I am sure with a bit of research all of the points that Senorina objected in MM's letter could be substantiated.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This kind of caught my eye so I went looking and this is the first thing I found (so much for getting a better job?) :Originally posted by senorina:
Women are paid as much as men. We are not victims. When you compare the same job with the same experience the pay is equal. What liberals try to do is compare "typical" women jobs to "typical men jobs, and that is comparing apples to oranges. If women want to make more money, they shouldn't get a "typical" woman job, they should get a job that pays better. This statement is again condescending that we are better than you, and fairer than you, when the truth is, both sides just disagree on what is best for the economy and the country.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">--------------10 Best-paid executives: They're all men
And they're making about 2 to 3 times what the 10 top-earning women executives do.
By Jessica Seid, CNNMoney.com staff writer
October 10 2006: 6:43 AM EDT
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Corporate women made impressive strides in 2006, taking charge at a slew of giant companies, and bringing in big paychecks to boot.
<clip>
"All through the pipeline women leaders aren't paid as well as men," said Lois Joy, research director at Catalyst, a nonprofit that seeks to advance women in business. "And when you get to the CEO level, that same inequality is replicated."
Indeed, the earnings of women in full-time management and professional jobs last year averaged 73 percent of men's, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That gap can be explained to a large extent by nondiscriminatory factors, some studies have found, and are based on a division of labor in the home that relies more heavily on women than on men, according to Catalyst.
Women are not only less likely to work continuously during their lives, but responsibilities at home also influence their choice of job and type of employer, Catalyst said.
But such factors probably weigh less on the elite corporate women on this list.
Interesting, isn't it?
Thanks E. I thought about doing a comprehensive response to Senorina but havent had the time (or energy).
I am sure with a bit of research all of the points that Senorina objected in MM's letter could be substantiated.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">[img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img] Bingo! [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]Originally posted by maddercow:
I am sure with a bit of research all of the points that Senorina objected in MM's letter could be substantiated.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I didn't say that anything was substantiated or not.Originally posted by maddercow:
Thanks E. I thought about doing a comprehensive response to Senorina but havent had the time (or energy).
I am sure with a bit of research all of the points that Senorina objected in MM's letter could be substantiated.
I said it was sarcastic and condesending in response to the comment that it was just a nice letter meant as an olive branch. If you can't see that MM was trying to be rude, than there is no help for you.
And btw, its nice to just throw out there that senorina is wrong, but I don't have the time or energy to tall you why. or just say bingo.
If you only have the time and energy to say a person is wrong but not to explain why you shouldn't bother.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Look, you're saying the letter is sarcastic and condescending doesn't make it so. You offered no reasons why it was rude or condescending other than calling into question the statements Moore was making about several specific issues and saying that he was wrong about them. Yet, there is ample evidence out there to refute your statements and to show that he is, indeed, correct in his statements.Originally posted by senorina:
I said it was sarcastic and condesending in response to the comment that it was just a nice letter meant as an olive branch. If you can't see that MM was trying to be rude, than there is no help for you.
Your conclusion that "there is no help for" anyone who disagrees with you on the rudeness factor of Moore's letter is way out there, imho. You state it as fact when, in fact, it is opinion. And we're all allowed to have our own opinions.
Opinions can be neither right nor wrong...because they're just opinions. However, facts can be right or wrong.
Spot on, Funky.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ November 20, 2006 11:43 AM: Message edited by: feelinggreat ]</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Poor conservatives, they were accused of lying and cheating. [img]frown.gif[/img] See the big crocodile tears running down Mark Foley's face. Poor Tom Delay, I. Lewis Libby and Jack Abramoff, their pouting faces attest to the pain they feel at being called on their lying and cheating. How dare Michael Moore call them liars and cheaters.Originally posted by senorina:
wrong. and I will even tell you why.
I believe that I only cited one statement that was wrong, the one about equal pay for women.
the other ststements I did not call into question his rightness or wrongness, just the fact that he accused conservatives of lying and cheating.
I don't see that as an olive branch.
AND - all of you who are PMing me saying you agree with me and are horrified at this post - get in here! [img]wink.gif[/img]
Yes, that was sarcasm. Perhaps the sensitive conservatives read something into Mr. Moore's letter that we don't. It's tough to be on the losing side of the recent election and to know that the stuff is really going to hit the fan when the investigations start. That might explain the sensitivity.
When the administration ran on a "with us or against us" platform and then lost the support of the country, their supporters must find it very hard to accept an olive branch. But the fact is that our country has voted for change, not to appease the administration's supporters. Even President Bush has to admit that he understands that.
what the heck, I'll keep banging my head against the wall. there has to be a point where you can't possibly deny that you understand point:
take this quote from the letter:
"We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It's your checkbook, too, and we will balance it for you."
I am not commenting on whether I agree or disagree with this statement.
I am commenting that this was not meant to be a loving and kind statement by Michael Moore. It wasn't meant to look like a kindly guy showing his love and compassion.
It WAS meant to insult and demean the way the administration acted.
Maybe it is warranted criticism, maybe not, that is not the point I am desperately trying to get through.
If you can't see that, then there is no hope for you MEANS that there is no possible way that you have the ability to look at things with an open and unbiased mind.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you insist on criticizing the messenger instead of debating his message then it seems plain that perhaps there is no hope for you. Your posts seem quite clearly to be insulting people who don't agree with you and making a big deal out of your bruised feelings as if that is more important than the message that MM was trying to send with his letter. Most of us here know to be wary of people who launch personal attacks but avoid issues. Issues and facts are important.Originally posted by senorina:
what the heck, I'll keep banging my head against the wall. there has to be a point where you can't possibly deny that you understand point:
take this quote from the letter:
"We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It's your checkbook, too, and we will balance it for you."
I am not commenting on whether I agree or disagree with this statement.
I am commenting that this was not meant to be a loving and kind statement by Michael Moore. It wasn't meant to look like a kindly guy showing his love and compassion.
It WAS meant to insult and demean the way the administration acted.
Maybe it is warranted criticism, maybe not, that is not the point I am desperately trying to get through.
If you can't see that, then there is no hope for you MEANS that there is no possible way that you have the ability to look at things with an open and unbiased mind.
I don't care if the guy is green and has three heads, if he points out that my children and my grandchildren will pay dearly for something that Bush LIED to us about, I think we ought to discuss the subject at hand and not that the guy is green. You probably wouldn't care that the guy was green either if he said something you wanted to hear instead of pointing out the lies and distortions of the administration you've been supporting.
The need for this discussion has been brewing for a while and MM provided a vehicle. How about we deal with the issues?
Also, it's clear that the majority of our country has seen through that attack-mode stuff and they do think all the feigned conservative indignation is a waste of energy and understand darn well that we have a bunch of so-called conservatives running this country into the deep red, fueled by personal greed, while they cry about being persecuted or spread fear or wear purple band-aids. That bit doesn't seem to be working anymore.
so you admit that it was meant to be rude.
finally.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks