Name- American History Unit 4 Progressives Women And: Fill & Download for Free

There are many studies out there that prove the wage gap exists even after accounting for control variables, like maternity leave.Before I answer your question, I’d like to straighten out your botched understanding of the topics in your question, especially since you aren’t operating in good faith and your narrative appears to be nefarious in its intent.These are some of the invalidating arguments people tend make about the gender wage gap:“Men are more ambitious/Men work harder”: [1] [2]The workforce participation rate between women and men is at ~14%75% of single mothers are sole breadwinnersWomen are working outside the home in the largest rates ever, but also are more likely to be in charge of:childrendomestic houseworktaking care of other family membersvolunteer more on average then men2. “Women take more time off work/maternal leave”:An ICEDR global study found that: [3]Company bosses/CEOs/managers believe that women will leave their jobs at 30Women are not seen as good longterm investments because people assume that all women want to have babies and/or want to be stay at home moms [4]Ironically, women are more likely to leave a job because they found one that pays betterWomen who do leave their jobs to have children pay a 4% wage penalty per child [5]PayScale recently collected data from over 1.4 million workers - the data showed: [5]the wage gap in median earnings for women with children is 31%Married men with children get the highest pay among male earners ($67,900) - men typically experience an increase in pay after becoming fathers3. “Women should develop better negotiating skills”:“Just ask for a raise” [6]Women worry that pushing for more money will damage their image. Research shows they're right to be concerned: Both male and female managers are less likely to want to work with women who negotiate during a job interview.Women are seen as bossy, ungrateful and pushy when they ask for a raise and are 4x more likely to experience enduring negative views by their boss then men are after asking [7] [8]4. “Men just have more experience/education”:Women are currently graduating from college at higher rates then men are [9]Women are also going to graduate school at higher rates than men.Regardless, Georgetown's Center on Education and the Workforce found that men who had completed a little college but lacked a degree earn the same as women with a B.A. [9]In order for women to make as much as men with a B.A., women need to have a Ph. D.Women that spend longer amounts of time in the workforce experience the biggest gaps in pay to peers that are men [10]Women in their late 20s: earn ~92% of what their male peers receiveWomen in their early 50s: earn ~71% of a man's wages in the same fieldThe more women progress in their careers, the larger the pay gapThe biggest pay gap is at the executive level5. “Men go after the higher paying jobs”:True, but this is because men tend to be favored and they already dominate careers that pay the mostCareers that tend to be dominated by women (nursing, social work and teaching) are less compensated than the careers men dominateThis doesn’t reflect skill - it reflects gendered preconceptions, or in other words, society’s understanding of what work is valuableWhat is seen as feminine is undervalued, what is seen as masculine is overvalued.Regardless, physicians that are woman and that work the same amount of time in the same field make ~24% less than than their peers that are men in that field [11] [12]Edit: after reading a comment regarding this section of my answer, I thought I should explore this topic more thoroughly:One of the biggest studies done on variables found in the gender wage gap regarding job type and gender, Occupational Feminization and Pay: Assessing Causal Dynamics Using 1950–2000 U.S. Census Data [13], further backs up the trend that when more women move into a specific job sector that men traditionally/currently dominate(d), the wage decreases.This study’s controlled variables included:Level of educationWork experienceWork skillsRaceLocationDemand of jobThe overwhelming evidence shows that the work women do is placed at a lower value across the board.In an interview with The New York Times, England, the co author of this study, said:It’s not that women are always picking lesser things in terms of skill and importance. It’s just that the employers are deciding to pay it less.The New York Times explores the findings from Occupational Feminization and Pay: Assessing Causal Dynamics Using 1950–2000 U.S. Census Data by looking into specific careers: [14]Examples of jobs that show a decrease in wage when women start to enter a field at higher rates then men:…In the field of recreation — working in parks or leading camps — which went from predominantly male to female from 1950 to 2000:Median hourly wages in this field declined 57%, accounting for the change in the value of the dollar, according to a complex formula used by Professor Levanon.The job of ticket agent also went from mainly male to female during this period:Wages dropped 43%The same thing happened when women in large numbers became designers:Wages fell 34%Housekeepers:Wages fell 21%Biologists:Wages fell 18%The reverse was true when a job attracted more men.The New York Times continues on, saying the following points may influence the gender wage gap:Today, differences in the type of work men and women do account for 51% of the pay gapLarger portion than in 1980, according to definitive new research by Francine D. Blau and Lawrence M. Kahn, economists at Cornell.Women have moved into historically male jobs much more in white-collar fields than in blue-collar ones.Yet the gender pay gap is largest in higher-paying white-collar jobs, Ms. Blau and Mr. Kahn found…Of the 30 highest-paying jobs, including:chief executivearchitectcomputer engineer,26 are male-dominated, according to Labor Department data analyzed by Emily Liner, the author of the Third Way report.Of the 30 lowest-paying ones, including food server, housekeeper and child-care worker, 23 are female dominated.Many differences that contributed to the pay gap have diminished or disappeared since the 1980s:Women over all now obtain more education than men and have almost as much work experience.Women moved from clerical to managerial jobs and became slightly more likely than men to be union members.Both of these changes helped improve wage parity, Ms. Blau’s and Mr. Kahn’s research said.Yes, women sometimes voluntarily choose lower-paying occupations because they are drawn to work that happens to pay less, like caregiving or nonprofit jobs, or because they want less demanding jobs because they have more family responsibilities outside of work.…many social scientists say there are other factors, like:gender biassocial pressure, that bring down wages for women’s work.Other research, has found that any occupation that involves caregiving, like nursing or preschool teaching, pays less, even after controlling for the disproportionate share of female workers.After sifting through the data, Ms. Blau and Mr. Kahn concluded that pure discrimination may account for 38% of the gender pay gap.Discrimination could also indirectly cause an even larger portion of the pay gapFor instance, by discouraging women from pursuing high-paying, male-dominated careers in the first place.“Some of it undoubtedly does represent the preferences of women, either for particular job types or some flexibility, but there could be barriers to entry for women and these could be very subtle,” Ms. Blau said. “It could be because the very culture and male dominance of the occupation acts as a deterrent.”For example, social factors may be inducing more women than men to choose lower-paying but geographically flexible jobs, she and Mr. Kahn found.Even though dual-career marriages are now the norm, couples are more likely to choose their location based on the man’s job, since men earn more.This factor is both a response to and a cause of the gender pay gap.The New York Times article concludes with the following:Men and women are paid differently not just when they do different jobs but also when they do the same work.Research by Claudia Goldin, a Harvard economist, has found that a pay gap persists within occupations.Female physicians:earn 71% of what male physicians earnlawyers earn 82%It happens across professions:This month, the union that represents Dow Jones journalists announced that its female members working full time at Dow Jones publications made 87 cents for every dollar earned by their full-time male colleagues.Ms. Liner of Third Way said…give priority to people’s talents and interests when choosing careers, even if it means going outside gender norms…for instance encouraging girls to be engineers and boys to be teachers.An example of men getting paid more when they have jobs that are traditionally linked to women would be chefs.Stacy J. Williams, who has a Ph. D. in sociology, explains why women are constantly put at a disadvantage in the job market: [15]Since women spend more than twice as much time in home kitchens than men do, it seems strange that there are so few women in professional kitchens. Many social forces, ranging from the organization of professional kitchens to cultural ideas about women and cooking, can help explain the phenomenon.Mary Blair-Loy has written that there is a cultural “family devotion schema,” or a widespread cultural belief that women’s primary commitments should be to home and family.These expectations do not apply to men; instead, men are expected to have women partners who complete this care work.These cultural beliefs, combined with the historical definition of feeding the family as women’s work, contribute to the continued tendency for women to cook more often in the home.Many professional kitchens also have a culture of masculinity that is not welcoming to women. In 2011, 37% of the sexual discrimination cases that were reported to the federal government involved restaurants…Further, these men are concerned that women can’t “pull their weight” in a fast-paced kitchen environment that is built on teamwork and camaraderie. To prove that they are a useful part of the team, women often have to go above and beyond the required work and take on extra shifts. These behaviors and attitudes among the mostly male cooks and chefs make many women feel uncomfortable and unwelcome, turning the professional kitchen into a workplace where women feel they do not fit.The cultural understandings of women and food, combined with a workplace structure that is inhospitable to women and employees with family responsibilities, present significant obstacles to women chefs. Even though women are considered the authorities of home kitchens, they have a more difficult time gaining equal footing with men in restaurant kitchens. Despite these obstacles, there are women who defy these cultural expectations and compete in the restaurant world. Yet when these women aren’t portrayed as mothers or sex objects, they receive media attention for being outliers in a male-dominated occupation.NPR further explores this phenomenon: [16]Women have historically been told their place is in the kitchen — but not as chefs: According to statistics from the U.S. Labor Department, to this day, only about 20 percent of chefs are women.It all harks back to the fact that being a chef was not as glamorous as it is today, says Deborah Harris, a sociology professor at Texas State University…It might come as a surprise to some that back in the day, in 18th and 19th century France, being a chef was the opposite of being a celebrity."It was a really low-status career," says Harris. In response, she says, male chefs made a big deal about "differentiating between the cultural, high-status, intellectual cooking of men, and the low-status, every day work of women."The Austin Chronicle pointed out the prevailing glass ceiling women experience in an industry they used to dominate: [17]A full 45% of people working in the culinary industry are women, yet women hold less than 10% of the top positions…Most successful chefs are fairly compulsive about their work, women no less than men. And it definitely takes that sort of compulsive dedication to advance through the ranks…But is it really harder for a woman than it is for man?Only in the past two decades has cooking become a glamorous profession…The image of the chef has changed radically in the past decade, though, and there is a certain romantic allure to the field. Today's chefs are educated -- many hold graduate degrees from Ivy League universities. They appear on television, travel all over the world, and lecture on topics relating to food, social science, history, and literature.More evidence of discrimination in the food industry: [18]A new study from pay transparency web site Glassdoor finds female chefs make 28.3 percent less in base pay than their male colleagues. That's the second-highest "adjusted" percentage among the careers included in the study.Glassdoor analyzed more than 505,000 salaries shared by full-time U.S. employees to come up with its findings. The research determined 33 percent of the gap in pay between men and women in the United States is linked to "possible workplace gender bias."Not only are women making less in the kitchen, they seem to be far less likely to earn prestigious accolades for their work. Out of the 211 semifinalists for the James Beard Foundation's regional Best Chef awards in 2016, 30 were women — that's a paltry 14 percent. In the Midwest, all 22 semifinalists were men. The recognition disparity is nothing new. In 2013, Time magazine published a "Gods of Food" issue that was so male dominated, it became known as "Dudes of Food."Dr. Andrew Chamberlain, who wrote the study for Glassdoor, says "occupation and industry sorting of men and women into jobs that pay differently" is the main cause for the gender pay gap across all professions in the United States. That doesn't necessarily explain the pay gap in kitchens because "chef" can be a vague term…The New York Times calls out the sexism seen in the restaurant industry: [19]For decades, chefs of both sexes believed that inequality was inevitable. The same stereotypes used to keep women out of armed combat, off the judicial bench and out of medical school were invoked to explain why women didn’t stick it out in the kitchen. The work, it was said, is too physically demanding and psychologically grueling; the hours were too incompatible with family life…One big question — why even women who make it to the top rank of chefs struggle for recognition — has often been posed, and never fully answered…“We are the quiet power behind the throne,” Ms. Chan said. “But sometimes everyone gets tired of being quiet.”6. “Who Cares?”:With controlled variables (career level, skills, etc.) the gender wage gap is ~8–5% [20]This means that college-educated women who work full time will earn ~$500,000 less than their male peers do over their lifetime [21]>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now I’ll move on to answering your question about the “spending gap”.In general, it is more expensive to be a woman because of unfair androcentric marketing/retail/economic concepts.So, not only do women get paid less than men on average, even when they have the same job/education level/time working/experience/skill, etc., they also have to pay more for basic items then men pay.French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir eloquently said:If the man’s the norm and the woman "different," then men’s products too are considered the "normal version." Women’s products are therefore considered to be more special, luxurious versions, and are consequently more expensive.6 basic examples of women “spending more”: [22]Mortgages:A 2011 study published in the Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics found that women, on average, pay more for mortgages than men, with the mean mortgage interest rates for women coming in 0.4% higher than for men.“The disparity cannot be fully explained by traditional variables such as mortgage features, borrower characteristics, and market conditions,” the authors write.In other words, women with credit scores and other qualifying factors similar to men pay more for their mortgages.For a 30-year mortgage, that could mean a man pays $26,000 less in interest over the life of the loan than a woman (assuming he gets a 5% mortgage rate while she gets a 5.4% rate).2. Dry Cleaning:Not all items are more expensive for women to get dry-cleaned — suits, blazers and slacks tend to have similar prices — but shirts are, according to the study published in the journal Gender Issues in 2011.The average price to clean a men’s shirt was $2.06, while it was $3.95 for a woman’s shirt — and that’s before considering the added cost of shirts made from special fabric like silk or rayon, or with embellishments like sequins or pleats.“The observed pricing disparity is for identical shirts except that one is labeled a ‘men’s’ shirt while the other is a ‘women’s’ shirt,” the authors write.This means that if a man and woman got one shirt dry cleaned per month for 10 years, on average, it would cost a man $247.20 in today’s dollars, while a woman would end up paying $474.3. Haircuts & hair care products:As almost every woman knows, getting a haircut costs far more for women than for men.A study by economist Liston-Heyes found that even for the same haircut, women paid more than men.“We started calling different hairdressers and explicitly said we had the same haircut [as a man],” she says.Still, she says, in almost every case, the price for the woman’s cut was more than a price for a man’s cut.A 1996 study done in New York City had similar findings: Nearly half of hair salons charged women more for a simple haircut. (New York City now prohibits gender-based pricing, though the practice persists.)Liston-Heyes says that this may be because, on average, it takes more time and effort for salons to cut women’s hair than men’s hair, so when they create their pricing structure, they make women’s cuts more expensive.What’s more, the 2015 study by the NYC Department of Consumer Affairs found that the largest price discrepancy between men’s and women’s products existed for shampoo and conditioner (women, on average, paid 48% more for a similar product)4. Deodorant and other personal care products:Stopping odor is a pricier proposition for women than for men, according to a 2011 study published in the journal Gender Issues.While on the surface, prices for a stick of deodorant for men and women seem the same (roughly $3.15 per stick), men’s deodorant sticks tend to be larger than women’s (2.86 ounces vs. 2.29 ounces).This means that, on average, women pay $1.44 per ounce of deodorant, compared with $1.15 for men — a difference of about 20%.Among the other pricier products for women:Razor cartridges and razors cost more for women than men by an average of 11%, according to the NYC study of similar women’s and men’s productsBody wash costs 6% more.“Of all the industries analyzed, personal care had the highest premium for women, with products costing, on average, 13% more than personal care products for men,” the study concluded.“Women’s and men’s deodorant are the same,” says New York City-based dermatologist Dennis Gross.“If you check the label there are the same active ingredients at the same percentage based on FDA regulations.”5. Cars:A 2001 study published in The American Economic Review found that car dealers made better initial offers to white men than to white women (more than $200 lower) and black women (more than $400 lower).What’s more, the final markup was about 50% higher for white women than for white menMore than 100% higher for black women.“Without any negotiating at all, two out of five white males obtained a better offer than their counterparts achieved after bargaining on average for more than forty minutes,” the authors write.6. Clothing:Adult women, on average, pay 8% more for their clothes than men do.The largest price discrepancies were in shirts (15%), dress shirts (13%) and jeans (10%).The Pink Tax: [23]Whether it's razors, dry cleaning or toys, women still pay more for those gender-specific items than men, studies show…"Price discrimination adds another layer to the wage inequality women face, making it harder sometimes for women to make ends meet," said Surina Khan, CEO of the Women’s Foundation of California, a group devoted to advancement of gender equality.The Bureau of Labor Statistics said that in the decade between 2004 and 2014, women earned 80% to 83% as much as men.The Pink Tax, so named because of the color of products directly marketed to girls & women, is the price difference for female centered products compared with gender neutral goods or those marketed to men. And even though the issue has been around for decades, it is still profound.In late 2015, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs published a study comparing nearly 800 products from more than 90 brands, looking for price differences in items marketed to different genders.On average, products for women or girls cost 7% more than comparable products for men and boys.For example:Apparel:Girls' clothing cost 4% more than boys, and women's clothing cost 8% more than men’s.Toys:Girls' toys and accessories cost an average of 7% more than boys' toys.Separately, a side-by-side comparison of two Radio Flyer My 1st Scooters showed this: A red scooter cost $24.99 and a pink scooter cost $49, despite them being identical in all other ways.Personal care:Women's personal care products also cost 13% more than men’s, according to the department's study.Normally, consumers look to supply and demand to remedy inequities. If prices get to high on a product or service, someone finds out how to provide it cheaper.But “not all markets are perfect,” said Michael Cone, a customs attorney who filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade in 2007 that raised the broader question of whether different tariff rates for men’s and women’s apparel violate constitutional equal protection provisions.The case was dismissed, but discussion around the issue goes on.Here is a basic visual of the pink tax:Edit #2: another commenter suggested they’d be interested in how auto repairs costs differ for women, so I looked into that as well and found further evidence of gender discrimination in pricing.According to a 2013 paper from the Kellogg School of Management, this is definitely another area that the pink tax affects: [24]For male callers, there is no difference between having “no idea” about an expected price and being a savvy consumer: either way, you are quoted something right around market price. But for female callers, says Zettelmeyer, “you’re much worse off saying you know nothing as opposed to quoting the price of $365."Below is an exert from a Washington Post article [25] regarding a study done by RepairPal[26] :77 percent of respondents said mechanics are more likely to sell women unnecessary repairs, and 66 percent believed that mechanics charge women more than men for the same services.Health insurance has consistently been more expensive for women. The fact that some women give birth does not justify the discrepancies: [27]…if we ignore all costs directly associated with pregnancy and childbearing (the logic here being that it takes two parties to create a child and both parties should be willing to pay equally to support that endeavor), men aren't actually any cheaper to insure than women."When you get older, men cost more to insure than women," explained Jonathan Gruber, a health economist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Later in life, men are more likely to have a variety of conditions including heart attacks, lung cancer, and liver cancer. They're also more likely to smoke, drink, and get in accidents, according to experts.Larry Levitt, a senior vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, said that while Kaiser doesn't have any independent analysis of this, insurers have historically charged younger women more than men in the individual market, even though those plans rarely covered maternity services. "That tends to reverse at older ages, when men have generally been charged more than women," he said. "It's reasonable to assume that insurers set those premiums based on the patterns of health care use that they saw."In 2008 the average expenditure per person with an expense, including expenses covered by insurance and those paid out-of-pocket, was slightly higher for women ($5,635) than for men ($4,952), according to data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. But the difference in expenditures is largely attributable to childbirth.…men's average expenditures significantly exceeded women's for hospital inpatient services ($18,984 versus $12,997, respectively).The New York Times investigated some of the themes in charging women more for health insurance after the ACA had passed (which was an attempt to end gender discrimination in pricing): [28]Women still pay more than men for the same health insurance coverage, according to new research and data from online brokers.The new health care law will prohibit such “gender rating,” starting in 2014. But gaps persist in most states, with no evidence that insurers have taken steps to reduce them.For a popular Blue Cross Blue Shield plan in Chicago, a 30-year-old woman pays $375 a month, which is 31 percent more than what a man of the same age pays for the same coverage, according to eHealthInsurance.com, a leading online source of health insurance.In a report to be issued this week, the National Women’s Law Center, a research and advocacy group, says that in states that have not banned gender rating, more than 90 percent of the best-selling health plans charge women more than men…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.In Louisville, Ky., according to eHealthInsurance.com, a 40-year-old nonsmoking woman pays $196 a month for a HumanaOne policy. That is 53 percent more than the $128 premium paid for the same coverage by a nonsmoking man of the same age.In addition, the nonsmoking woman pays 14 percent more than the $172 premium charged to a man of the same age who has used tobacco in the past year.In an article from Public Policy, there is more evidence that the amount women pay for health insurance is not justified by pregnancies: [29]...ratings say that the different rates for men and women are justified because women and men use different amounts of healthcare. They also often point to childbirth and maternal care as reasons why men and women’s healthcare may differ in cost.The first part of this argument, that men and women use different amounts of healthcare and women are thus more expensive to insure, is false. The fact is, if you remove maternity services, women are not more expensive to insure than men are—they simply use healthcare differently. Women cost the healthcare system more when they are younger, since they use preventative healthcare more than men do.Men cost the healthcare system more when they are older, since they are more likely to have heart attacks, lung cancer, and liver cancer. Also, men are more likely to smoke, drink, and get in accidents. It is unjust to penalize women when in fact both men and women cost the health system relatively equal amounts, just at different points in their life.Additionally, we should not punish women for their cautiousness while rewarding men for their recklessness. The argument that women are charged more because they use healthcare more is also incorrect because the parts of healthcare that women and men use at the same rate, such as specialty clinics and the emergency room, charge women more.The second tenet of this argument is also untrue; women cannot be “more costly to insure” due to coverage of the maternal and child health services, since very few of the plans that gender rate cover maternity services.According to a 2012 report from the National Women’s Law Center, before the implementation of the gender rating ban and inclusion of maternity services on insurance:92% of best-selling insurance plans engaged in gender rating.Of those plans, only 3% covered maternity services.Regardless of the verity of this argument, however, this should never be a reason that women have to pay more for healthcare. Men and women play equal roles in the conception of a child—they should both have to pay for childbirth.Aside from financial facts behind gender rating, it is clear that unequal rates are unethical. The $1 billion that gender rating costs women is especially impactful because women tend to have a lower income, often due to the wage gap. Before the passage of the ACA, 52% of women reported delaying medical care because of cost, and 32% of women reported giving up basic necessities in order to pay for healthcare expenses.The BBC pointed out that women are also more likely to be overcharged in ride share companies. POC experience more cancelations and longer wait times: [30]Ride-hailing companies such as Uber and Lyft may discriminate against black people and women, a study from three US universities suggests.Black riders faced longer wait times and more frequent cancellations than white riders, the research indicates.Women were more likely to be overcharged or taken on elongated routes, it says.Researchers took nearly 1,500 rides in Seattle and Boston, gathering data from three taxi-hailing companies.The sexist stereotype that you (the person who asked this question) are trying to push - that women love to shop and buy things more then men - doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.Spending trends/habits: [31]“We found that men and women impulse shop about the same amount, but the way they feel and how much they spend when they do it are different,” said Credit Cards - Compare Credit Card Offers at CreditCards.com senior analyst Matt Schulz.Men were significantly more likely than women to spend serious money on that unplanned purchase.While just 7% of the women said they had spent $500 or more, 21% of the men did.Men also made more impulse purchases of $1,000 or more.Women tend to keep their impulse purchases small, under $25.Men are more than twice as likely to make an impulse purchase when they’re intoxicated.Women are twice as likely to buy impulsively when they are sad.Women are more likely to regret making an impulse purchase:52% of the women vs. 46% of the men said they experienced buyer’s remorse at one time or another.Women tend to be “in charge” of purchasing what everyone else needs (traditional gender roles): [32]In virtually every society in the world, women have primary care-giving responsibilities for both children and the elderly…In this primary caregiving role, women find themselves buying on behalf of everyone else in their lives.The list is long: in addition to buying for themselves, women buy on behalf of husbands, partners, kids, colleagues, adult children, friends, relatives, elderly parents, in-laws, their businesses and even their kids’ friends, to name just a few. If somebody, somewhere needs a gift, chances are there's a woman thinking about it; tracking it down; wrapping it; making sure it’s accompanied by a personal message and then arriving to the person on the appointed day.I sometimes think entire industries would collapse overnight if women stopped being so thoughtful. Consider the impact to the greeting card industry alone.There are a lot more variables that need to be considered; neither the gender wage gap or the “spending gap” (which is a red herring and is being used by you to obscure a real issue) is something that one basic pie chart can explain or that your uninformed opinion disproves or proves - I would encourage you to educate yourself instead of using Quora as a way to trivialize real issues by regurgitating talking points that originate in hostility.What is your goal here in denying real problems besides reinforcing the status quo, which further disadvantages women?Footnotes[1] Why Parental Leave Policies Are Changing[2] What Women Breadwinners Want[3] https://www.icedr.org/research/documents/15_millennial_women.pdf[4] A Dollar Short: What’s Holding Women Back from Equal Pay?[5] http://content.thirdway.org/publications/853/NEXT_-_Fatherhood_Motherhood.pdf[6] Why Women Don't Ask For More Money[7] Negotiation and the Gender Divide[8] Why Women Don’t Negotiate Their Job Offers[9] https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/10/31/women-more-likely-to-graduate-college-but-still-earn-less-than-men[10] Gender Pay Gap Ratios, Stats and Infographics | PayScale[11] https://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/graduating-to-a-pay-gap-the-earnings-of-women-and-men-one-year-after-college-graduation.pdf[12] Here's How Much Doctors Actually Make in 2016[13] Occupational Feminization and Pay: Assessing Causal Dynamics Using 1950–2000 U.S. Census Data | Social Forces | Oxford Academic[14] As Women Take Over a Male-Dominated Field, the Pay Drops[15] Gender in Home Kitchens and Restaurants[16] Taking The Heat: Is Foodie Culture Making Room For Female Chefs?[17] The Whole Woman[18] Why Are Female Chefs Paid so Much Less Than Their Male Colleagues?[19] A Change in the Kitchen[20] Gender Pay Gap Ratios, Stats and Infographics | PayScale[21] collegepayoff-complete.pdf - Box[22] 6 times it’s more expensive to be a woman[23] 'Pink Tax' forces women to pay more than men[24] The Importance of Appearing Savvy[25] The auto-repair industry discriminates against women. So I quit my engineering job to become a mechanic.[26] https://repairpal.com/consumer-survey-march-2013[27] Why Making Women Pay More Than Men for Health Insurance Doesn't Make Sense[28] https://mobile.nytimes.com/redirect?to-mobile=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2012%2F03%2F19%2Fhealth%2Fpolicy%2Fwomen-still-pay-more-for-health-insurance-data-shows.html%3Freferer%3D[29] The End of Gender Rating: Women’s Insurance Under the ACA[30] Uber 'race and sex discrimination'[31] Guess which gender spends more on impulse[32] The Real Reason Women Shop More Than Men

Let me just say what many people are thinking, that it’s been about a year since Colin Kaepernick felt relevant and that biting the (many) hands that feed him right before 4th of July and the kickoff of yet another NFL season was a great way to become a part of that conversation, yet again.As some are calling it, it’s a PR stunt.So, I’d just like to thank him. Looking at the perpetual controversy from my side of the aisle, it appears he’s taken one step too far and finally shot himself in the foot.So, first, we really need to get all the context right, and there is a lot of context. There is far too much to mention in this answer, but I will link to the 16,000 word response that gives the full history of the #TakeAKnee protests from a conservative perspective. You’ll find there is much many of you have never heard before:Jon Davis's answer to How is #TakeAKnee perceived by politically conservative communities in the US?That said, one of Kaepernick’s main go-tos has been to attack the United States for his perception of its flawed history, its flawed mentalities, its flawed institutions, its flawed existence. Yes, that was a part of what he said. He repeatedly made arguments that America is a racist nation and that the anthem is racist. But those arguments have, frankly, been put down… right about the time that the media stops reporting on them.But now he’s making the argument that the Betsy Ross flag is racist because at some place and at some point in time, some racist people used it. Well, let’s reductio ad absurdium that one and see that you’ll find some very uncomfortable events. For example, do you know many bombings and assassinations took place in the United States over the course the late 60’s ahd early 70’s[1] that can be attributed to groups who patroned some variant of the clenched fist?It would be very easy for anyone who put even the mildest amount of study into linking that with actual left-wing hate groups. Yet, it’s still alive and powerful today.Here’s another example that I had to deal with. You remember when this image went viral right after the election?Well, from a different angle, this was what they looked like…It turns out that there was a lot of untruth to the original viral sensation, as with many accounts of alleged hate crimes, and that the facts of the matter never were reported very well. When I made that point clear immediately following the election in 2016 in an answer asking for more people to check the facts rather than give into hysteria, I was still confronted with accusations that they were KKK because of the use of one flag in particular that the people on the bridge used, this one…The Christian flag.I had a long argument with a woman declaring that anyone who uses that flag is KKK by default because some KKK members have used it. That it is actually a KKK symbol first and foremost. But it is waving over my church as we speak. It waves over the churches of many millions of other people. It represents some two billion people. But because someone in the KKK used it, it and all of Christendom are by extension, members of the Ku Klux Klan. That’s the logic, it seems.Here, I’ll quote Gayle Laakmann McDowell. We disagree on very many things, but here she makes a point I wish other progressives would heed (rather than post pictures of gang signs with black hands because white people can’t see them otherwise…)We should all be able to agree that if a symbol is only rarely used by a white supremacy group, then it’s still okay to use it. But if the usage becomes really wide spread, with little other usage, then it can become hurtful.She’s right. So we have to ask how often groups like the KKK could possibly use it as part of hateful ideologies. For that, let’s look to the Southern Poverty Law Center. For a moment, try to guess how many people are part of the KKK today.………The answer is about 7,000, or at least that is how many the Southern Poverty Law Center said there were. Even more revealing, according to their site, those 7,000 are divided into numerous feuding factions. [2]Mind you, this is from the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has had numerous lapses in judgment, qualifying many right leaning groups as hate groups which weren’t. One such labeling even resulted in the attempted assassination of members of a pro-life lobbying group in their DC offices. [3]So if anything, their reputation for exaggeration probably means that number is even higher than the actual membership total.What does that mean?It means that the KKK is so defunct today that it can’t generate nearly the attention for itself that others give it through misleading attention to the threat it poses. The same is true of virtually all hate groups in the US, even the dreaded Alt Right, which sustained a major collapse after the Summer of 2017.Balance that with answering who else uses the Betsy Ross flag, brought together nicely by another liberal progressive, Connor Wielgos. The people who still wave it include not just every reenactor of the era, every museum of the era, but also the United States Defense Department, the City of San Francisco, and… Disney World.Oh… and one… Barack Obama…How is possible to say that the actions of a handful of some 7,000 defunct racists matter more than the millions upon millions of other people and the context they provide to the symbol?But I think the best and final argument comes from Rob Weir and his answer, which I’m just going to echo for pure absurdity of what we’re seeing today that he makes clear.Betsy Ross was a Pennsylvanian Quaker. The Quakers were the original abolitionists, organizing against slavery even in colonial times. It is due to their efforts that Pennsylvania abolished slavery in 1780. That date should be kept in mind, considering the first documented use of the Betsy Ross flag was 1792.The Quakers were also involved later in the “underground railroad” and 19th century abolitionist movement in the northeast.I think Betsy Ross, her flag, and the tradition it came from ought to be celebrated. The day we decide to suppress the work of religious minorities, progressive social movements, and women entrepreneurs is a sad one.Colin Kaepernick shot himself in the foot on this one. In what is clearly coming off as another attention seeking PR stunt, he attacked his own sponsor for a ridiculous reason. His attack was so out of left field that now, only the most ideologically bent hard leftists can still defend him. How? By insulting whites who disagree.Instead, I see many liberals uncomfortably being forced to say, for the first time, yeah, he went too far. It’s not that they’re angry. It’s just that they are very uncomfortable with how wrong he obviously is. Some are embarrassed because of how this makes their old views from a year ago look. Just as much, I’m seeing a lot of people finally ready to start questioning many of the assumptions of the #TakeaKnee protests that propelled Kaepernick to fame in the first place.That’s great, and I’m happy about that. Again, here you go — How is #TakeAKnee perceived by politically conservative communities in the US?What I am really happiest about, though, is how this made Nike look. I’m going to be honest, Nike needs to be called out.They know that many black Americans are poor. Growing up poor myself, American blacks display a common behavior to poor groups, they buy luxury items to present an image of wealth and status. Others believe that, having no other options for escape from the poverty of their communities, expensive shoes and other accessories will give them an edge in athletic competition. An interesting combination for at least one company. For that reason, Nike likes to sell shoes that should cost $20 dollars for $300, and sometimes, much more.Worse yet, they do so by making sweat shop workers produce the shoes for dollars a day. This has been well documented by protest organizations critical of the company going back since the 70’s[4]. They are a company that exploits both its overseas labor force and its target market, as well as an audience susceptible to championing them through one brilliantly timed ad campaign.Look, I’m all about capitalism, but it allows some nasty behavior, and Nike is probably the nastiest in how it manipulates everyone in the effort to sell overpriced shoes to people who really can’t afford it.And it works. By all accounts, it worked great. It seems that their sales boomed 31% after Kaepernick was named their spokesperson. Boycotts from people like me didn’t mean very much, when we were never their target market in the first place. I spent most of my adult life shopping at Payless (I know, sucks for me, right?) But they did wonders at selling overpriced shoes made by underpaid workers to underprivileged black Americans. What’s ironic is how many die-hard left wing people championed them through that. That’s why it really doesn’t surprise me in the slightest that with a single tweet, Nike made a knee-jerk rush to pull a product, yet again, alienating millions of potential buyers. They will do anything not to lose their target market.All that to say, I’m not really a fan of Nike, anymore. It’s fine with alienating me at the drop of a tweet, but whatever. What’s really gross is how they exploit their own, be that their own customers or the people who actually build their shoe for them. So they pulled a symbol off their shoes that I’m pretty proud of.I’m actually okay with that. Frankly, I don’t want Nike ruining the good image of my country anymore anyway.Happy Independence Day everyone!Relaxed. Researched. Respectful. - War ElephantFootnotes[1] Jarred Dunn's answer to What parts of American history are forgotten by most people?[2] Jon Davis's answer to How do we get the mainstream media involved in dismantling the alt-right?[3] Jon Davis's answer to Why do evangelicals like President Trump?[4] Nike sweatshops - Wikipedia

The Nazis were absolutely the worst that history had seen until then. There are several factors:Massacres of civilians. It is expected that soldiers die in war. It is expected that there will be a toll on civilians because of bombing or famine. However, the Nazis went out of their way to massacre civilians. As "revenge" for isolated partisan actions, or sometimes without any given reason at all, ca. 100 villages were wiped off the face of the earth by German troops, with all inhabitants - men, women and children - shot and then burned. Look for place names like Lidice, Lingiades, Oradour, Sant'Anna di Stazzema. These are more than isolated incidents.Industrialization of murder. The Nazis wanted to kill so many civilians, they had to invent new ways to do it. At the beginning of the war, civilians may have been taken out of town, forced to dig their own mass grave, and then mowed down by machine guns, as in many conflicts before and after. This was not efficient enough for Hitler - we have several angry letters about lack of progress - so a few years later, there was well-oiled machinery in place which brought a steady stream of civilians to the concentration camps, separated them into those who would be allowed to work themselves to death and those who would be sent to the gas chambers right away, and enabled places like Auschwitz to kill an estimated 20,000 people per day. Here's a difference to slavery: the healthier of the Nazi victims were used as slave labour as well, but the purpose was not to keep them as slaves, the purpose was to get the last bit of usefulness out of their bodies while killing them slowly of hunger and overwork. The Nazis partly financed their war by taking the victims' every possession, including the clothes off their back and the gold fillings from their teeth.Experiments on humans. The Nazis and their allies are also known for their unprecedented cruelty disguised as medical interest. For example, they killed many people by intentionally infecting them with diseases while looking for cures. They did vivisections without anesthesia. They did experiments on twins, for example making both undergo incredible pain in order to see if pain tolerance was a hereditary trait. On the German side, Doctor Mengele became infamous for his inventive cruelty. He once personally stitched together two 4-year-olds back-to-back, connecting their veins as in Siamese twins, causing both to die in agony. On the Japanese side, Unit 731 is infamous. They used a lot of prisoners in multiple experiments, for example they would dip the victim's forearm in water and then have the victim stand outside in freezing weather until frostbite set in, then amputate the forearm, repeat with the upper arm... once all limbs were gone, assuming the prisoner had survived until then, test an infectitious disease on him. Mengele fled to South America and lived out his life undercover there. Unit 731 was never persecuted and it is believed that they were granted immunity in exchange for providing the results of their research to the Americans. Too many influential Nazi scientists later wound up in good positions because they had acquired valuable knowledge that Allied scientists could not ethically get.1933-1945 is just 12 years, but they showed mankind an abyss that we're still collectively reeling from. Never forget.