Dave
Loc: Upstate New York
I really don't believe the NBA,NFL,MLB or NHL willingly suppress the advancement of female athletes.
The owners of these teams are motivated by money, not civil rights. These teams exist to sell obscenely expensive tickets, overpriced beer and soda, and TV rights.
If any of these teams could put a woman on the field, they would be more than happy to, because it would put more women in the stands and expand the TV viewership.
Non-discrimination in these leagues became popular, not because it was the right thing to do but because it was good business.
The main reason there are not women on the field, is that the top 1% of women are not as strong as the top 1% of men. Could the top women beat the average man? Of course.
No,,, that is a war on women,
Just like when the White house doesnt pay it's (women) the same as men,,,,
yep,, war,,,, from the left
Brian Devon wrote:
I really don't believe the NBA,NFL,MLB or NHL willingly suppress the advancement of female athletes.
The owners of these teams are motivated by money, not civil rights. These teams exist to sell obscenely expensive tickets, overpriced beer and soda, and TV rights.
If any of these teams could put a woman on the field, they would be more than happy to, because it would put more women in the stands and expand the TV viewership.
Non-discrimination in these leagues became popular, not because it was the right thing to do but because it was good business.
The main reason there are not women on the field, is that the top 1% of women are not as strong as the top 1% of men. Could the top women beat the average man? Of course.
I really don't believe the NBA,NFL,MLB or NHL will... (
show quote)
Dave
Loc: Upstate New York
Brian Devon wrote:
I really don't believe the NBA,NFL,MLB or NHL willingly suppress the advancement of female athletes.
The owners of these teams are motivated by money, not civil rights. These teams exist to sell obscenely expensive tickets, overpriced beer and soda, and TV rights.
If any of these teams could put a woman on the field, they would be more than happy to, because it would put more women in the stands and expand the TV viewership.
Non-discrimination in these leagues became popular, not because it was the right thing to do but because it was good business.
The main reason there are not women on the field, is that the top 1% of women are not as strong as the top 1% of men. Could the top women beat the average man? Of course.
I really don't believe the NBA,NFL,MLB or NHL will... (
show quote)
So, when Obama denounces that women make only 77% of what men make, you find him to be deceiving people and making a false argument?
If this is Physically & Mentally Draining... Miss Griner should give-up one or the other League play... To me, "sticking-iy-out" in China for 2-3 seasons - where she'll make $1.2-$1.8 Million - and then come back to the USA & "settle for" $43,000-$50,000 for 10-15 Seasons seems like a good compromise...
Dave wrote:
So, when Obama denounces that women make only 77% of what men make, you find him to be deceiving people and making a false argument?
Yes. The 77% number is a misleading one in that it doesn't break down that part of the reason for the difference is that men tend to work more hours and it is far more common to have women leave the workforce to raise families. When adjusted for these factors the actual pay difference is closer to the mid-90's. It has also been reported that in urban areas, young females may be outperforming young men salary-wise.
When it was pointed out that the White House's average is at 88%, there was a lot of hue and cry concerning the above differentials in measuring the true rate. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Dave
Loc: Upstate New York
Tyster wrote:
Yes. The 77% number is a misleading one in that it doesn't break down that part of the reason for the difference is that men tend to work more hours and it is far more common to have women leave the workforce to raise families. When adjusted for these factors the actual pay difference is closer to the mid-90's. It has also been reported that in urban areas, young females may be outperforming young men salary-wise.
When it was pointed out that the White House's average is at 88%, there was a lot of hue and cry concerning the above differentials in measuring the true rate. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Yes. The 77% number is a misleading one in that i... (
show quote)
In other words, the real war on women is being waged by Obama and the Democrats - trying to make them think things that aren't true and mislead them for political gain.
Tyster wrote:
Yes. The 77% number is a misleading one in that it doesn't break down that part of the reason for the difference is that men tend to work more hours and it is far more common to have women leave the workforce to raise families. When adjusted for these factors the actual pay difference is closer to the mid-90's. It has also been reported that in urban areas, young females may be outperforming young men salary-wise.
When it was pointed out that the White House's average is at 88%, there was a lot of hue and cry concerning the above differentials in measuring the true rate. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Yes. The 77% number is a misleading one in that i... (
show quote)
Are You Saying that after taking a GANDER at the Statistics, We USA Citizens have once again been GOOSED by Our WH?!?
Dave wrote:
In other words, the real war on women is being waged by Obama and the Democrats - trying to make them think things that aren't true and mislead them for political gain.
No, I am merely pointing out that the 77% is a weighted number and includes numbers that little to do with a wage gap. When the tables were turned and the WH rate was given, their defense was that the number was skewed. But it was skewed in the same manner that the 77% was measured.
The WH is trying to have it both ways... present the inaccurate number for corporate targets, but then cry foul when the same measurement is done on them.
Dave
Loc: Upstate New York
Tyster wrote:
No, I am merely pointing out that the 77% is a weighted number and includes numbers that little to do with a wage gap. When the tables were turned and the WH rate was given, their defense was that the number was skewed. But it was skewed in the same manner that the 77% was measured.
The WH is trying to have it both ways... present the inaccurate number for corporate targets, but then cry foul when the same measurement is done on them.
So, Obama is trying to make women believe something that isn't true but you just can't find it in yourself to say that, so you pretend the WH and he are separate and distinct entities.
Dave wrote:
So, Obama is trying to make women believe something that isn't true but you just can't find it in yourself to say that, so you pretend the WH and he are separate and distinct entities.
Obama = Liar Is that clear enough?
The 77% number is flawed and has been so proven.
The White House argues that the accusation of their being at 88% is wrong because it isn't adjusted properly. Problem - It is wrong in the same way that the 77% is inaccurate. They know that the true apple to apple comparisons with regard to any pay gap is more in the 90-95% range, not 77% (general) or 88% (White House).
As usual Obama is using inflammatory rhetoric to divide this country further. Yes, one study did state that women only earned 77% of what men made, but the study has been criticized for comparing apples and oranges, thus is a bad statistic to use.
Dave wrote:
So, Obama is trying to make women believe something that isn't true but you just can't find it in yourself to say that, so you pretend the WH and he are separate and distinct entities.
As to referring to the White House rather than Obama - that is because the defense of the 88% number was provided by a White House spokesman. Therefore it would be inaccurate to say that the quote came from Obama.
Tyster wrote:
As to referring to the White House rather than Obama - that is because the defense of the 88% number was provided by a White House spokesman. Therefore it would be inaccurate to say that the quote came from Obama.
Does ANY White House Spokesperson Declare/State/Report ANYTHING Any President HASN'T ENDORSED?!? White House Spokespersons SPEAK FOR THE PRESIDENT... And YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS...
JimMe wrote:
Does ANY White House Spokesperson Declare/State/Report ANYTHING Any President HASN'T ENDORSED?!? White House Spokespersons SPEAK FOR THE PRESIDENT... And YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS...
Of course I understand that. However, the conversation was centered around what Obama has been saying. Jay Carney provided the administration's response and while it was likely run by the President, it is inaccurate to say that Obama said it. My complaint is even after Carney's remarks, the President continues to spout the misleading 77% as he continues to campaign.
Dave
Loc: Upstate New York
Tyster wrote:
Of course I understand that. However, the conversation was centered around what Obama has been saying. Jay Carney provided the administration's response and while it was likely run by the President, it is inaccurate to say that Obama said it. My complaint is even after Carney's remarks, the President continues to spout the misleading 77% as he continues to campaign.
..and therefore the point I started out with, it is Obama who is really waging a war on women - doing all he can to keep them upset and misinformed and loyal to him.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.