Comments on The Day in Women

That cheerleader is HOT!
I bet the chics in Colorado are so HOT that they don't even have to buy their own drinks ever.

HOT! HOT! HOT!

Erica, What a sad empty life you must lead. (You clearly need a good man.)

One of the best quotes from the cheerleader story:

"'It’s probably toughest on some of the parents,' said John Allen, athletic director of the Chenango Valley Central School District, just northeast of Binghamton. 'All of a sudden they’re at games, and there are no cheerleaders.'"

One hopes he means parents of the cheerleaders specifically; otherwise, he'd sound kinda creepy!

You_gotta_be_retarded. ECB is the shit.

Ladies nights could be revived in a hurry if they just changed them to "Attracted to Men Night." The whole reason for the disparity is that women are needed so straight men will come. Gay men aren't benefiting from the presence of straight women, and lesbians (at least the kind I hang out with) aren't enticing the hetero men to the bar. Since Colorado doesn't give a damn about discrimination based on sexual orientation, it would be all nice and legal. Any lady or gay man wearing a wristband would get cheap drinks and agree that on a basic level, they're open to being hit on by guys. Macho homophobia would weed out the straight men who just want cheap drinks and no cover, and if that didn't work, scores of queens making passes upon seeing the pink bracelet would do the trick.

The Dry Cleaning disparity is just plain misinformation; there's a logical, generally acceptable reason that women's shirts cost more to launder than do men's shirts. Men's shirts are laundered in such great numbers, are relatively uniform in shape, that it is cost effective to build and buy automatic pressing machines. Women's shirts are rarely similar in shape and size and those that are are laundered so rarely, and are so much smaller than men's shirts that they don't fit on the automatic machines, and there aren't enough of them to justify the business expense of buying a separate machine that they are most frequently pressed by hand.

Is that sexism? Not in my book.

Gotta love this from the NYT column:

Rather than allow the college administration to handle the situation, his accuser filed criminal charges

Because God forbid that an alleged rape victim demand real justice. I guess victims of pedophile priests should just leave it up to the Church "to handle the situation." Oh, wait.

Check out our own 'Burqini' swimwear, here in the States, "Because the need for modesty in swimwear is greatest and the supply is almost non-existent"

Follow this link for your turn-of-the-century (20th Century, that is) swimsuit styles.

Women pay more for haircuts?

I'm pretty sure any of the salons I go to on Capitol Hill will charge you gals the same as I pay for the same haircut I get - number 4 on the sides, 1.25 inches on top. And it only takes about 15 minutes.

While I love Gitai's idea, I think a better new label might be "Date Rape Facilitation Night." Sometimes even misogynistic assholes can accidentally make life better for women.

Women pay more for Shoes?

I find that hard to believe.

Yawn... I just don't know who could possibly care about anything in this post. I just can't give a shit.

i am glad this was posted, thank you for covering the nyt column in particular.

Regarding differential pricing for haircuts, etc., the law of supply and demand is the likely explanation.

Perhaps Salons find that cutting women's hair takes longer and/or requires more skill, thus driving up the cost of labor (that is, supply goes down); and/or that women are more demanding customers than men and thus are willing to pay more for higher quality (that is, demand goes up). Discrimination is an unlikely explanation here, since salons that discriminate would start losing customers to those that don't and would eventually go out of business.

Does my argument pass the sniff test? Ask yourself this: Do guys (in general) care less about their haircuts than women (in general)?

Similar arguments apply to clothes, shoes, dry cleaning and wages.

Ladies nights are really designed to benefit men who want to get laid by buying women drinks. The whole idea originate as means to attract women and then make it easier for men to buy drinks for multiple women in a sad attempt to get sex.

Kind of ironic that a sad lonely man is attempting to stop an institution designed to benefit people like him.

As for cheerleaders they really should just get some more male ones for those so inclined, because you know, everyone loves leering at highschoolers.

@ 2& 12 "you_gotta_be_kidding_me (that_you_underline_your_stupid_moniker)" Uh, you must be kidding us that you don't give a shit about this post...you bothered to post twice already. Must be rrreeeaaalllyyy bored today.

I love the bending over backwards to explain differential pricing of women's and men's stuff. It can be explained pretty easily with one word: sexism.

Also, I take offense to the "ladies nights" and I'm surprised that an anti-feminist would try to get rid of them. The former Justice Rose Bird of California helped get rid of differential pricing based on gender. However, everything is back to women pay more (unless women paying less increases the chance of women being raped) since she was kicked off the bench, and no one has been able to fill her shoes. And G-d Bless her, she died almost ten years ago.

RE: Cheerleeding. My favorite comment “We joined sports to have fun, but they’re basically taking the fun away and giving us more work,” she said. “The interest is down so much, and it’s going to keep dropping, until there’s no cheerleading anymore.” Oh that it could be so.

Women pay more for haircuts?

I'm pretty sure any of the salons I go to on Capitol Hill will charge you gals the same as I pay for the same haircut I get - number 4 on the sides, 1.25 inches on top. And it only takes about 15 minutes.

And I'm sure you would just love it if all women had your haircut.

Papaya @ 17: Businesses don't set prices; customers do. Any business that incorporates a "sexism premium" into their pricing will lose customers to their competition who does not. Few customers = lower profits. If sexism is the reason women's haircuts cost more, then you must be prepared to accept that greedy capitalists care more about discriminating against women than earning a buck. Now who's bending over backwards?

OK, the haircut thing is obvious. Women in general (yes, ladies, this is a generalization so even though you know ONE woman who is not like this doesn't mean the rule isn't true) have longer and more elaborate hair cuts than men. My #2 on the sides/trim on the top takes 10 to 15 minutes. But now here comes Missy High Maintenance over there who fusses over every strand cut and takes freekin forever to get her hair done. Frankly, it is disrespectful to march yourself into a BARBER SHOP, get some complicated do and expect to pay the same as the man with a 10 minute trim. And yes, bitches, I'm talking about how you RUINED Rudy's on Phinney!

Go back to the goddam Beauty Shop and leave Barber shops to men, you selfish See-You-Next-Tuesdays!

Easy, fella. Good gracious.

Definitely agree with the jerk about the Ladies Nights and I'm a lady. Then again, it's handy to know which bars not to go to.

Former State Representative Pat Thibaudeau tried to outlaw the "different prices for men and women" thing in 1996 and got laughed at, booed, and basically ridiculed into submission and not by economic arguments. Male legislators got up to say dumb shit like "I guess Pat wants us men to walk around in pearls! HAR HAR HAR! If we pass this, that's what's going to happen". 1996. Good god.

There was a short-lived debate at my old high school about cheerleader's cheering for girl's teams and other less-represented teams. They started cheering for the girl's basketball team (who ended up at the Final Four)and even went to cross-country track meets (wearing team sweats, not skirts, of course). Everyone lived.

I haven't looked at this rapist's case at all. But the courts are pretty bad at trying people, and the news papers are much worse. The number of "rapists" who were convicted on undisputed facts and then released on DNA evidence years later shows how very wrong the courts can be. This is largely due to eyewitness testimony. Testimony from someone who has just experienced emotional and physical trauma is unreliable, but rape cases by their nature must rely on this sort of testimony. So more than a few convicted rapists aren't rapists. And it's not unusual for the prosecution to present a set of facts that appear to be undisputable but are later revealed to be fabricated.

Now I have read the news coverage of this case. There was no trial. He plea bargained, like over 90% of all people who are charged with crimes. And most likely, he plea bargained not because he was guilty, but because he was afraid. The "undisputed" facts cited by the article are undisputed only because he can not dispute them if he wants the sweet, sweet deal of 18 months house arrest. They are the state and his accuser's version of the facts, and there was never any trial to determine their validity.

In short, we don't know if he's a rapist or not. The author's story is plausable, but maybe she was duped. Maybe this story doesn't apply to this man, who really did rape his friend. But the story applies to someone. There are many, many people who beleive they are innocent but are tempted into bargains with the state out of fear and loose their lives because of it. I think the story was brave and powerful.

And one last thing. If the state had a leg to stand on its offer would have been for a short prison term (like six months), not house arrest. I'm going to sleep now.

In regards to 23-25:

"And most likely, he plea bargained not because he was guilty, but because he was afraid."

"There are many, many people who beleive [sic] they are innocent but are tempted into bargains with the state out of fear and loose [sic] their lives because of it."

Thank God, we have a mind-reader in the house! I am sooo envious of your skill. Please, I am intrigued, what else was he thinking? While you're in his head and the head of other alleged criminals, can you check to see if they really did it? Inquiring minds want to know.

The thing with rape is not that there are more false allegations then other crimes, there isn't, but that it is more difficult to tell if a rape is real compared to other crimes. There can be little or no difference between consensual sex and date rape from an evidence perspective. What you have is evidence of sex with one person saying rape and the other denying it. The sad thing is that this makes it very difficult to both convict and prove innocence as the result can come down to who the jury trusts.

Bingo.

Exactly, Giffy @ 27. And in this case, there was no trial, by judge or jury. So it came down to the prosecution intimidating the defense into a plea bargain.

Trev @ 26, I wasn't reading his mind. I said "we don't know if he's a rapist or not." I said he probably plea bargained out of fear because most people do.

Re the 'women, everywhere, make .75 to men's 1.00,' what a load. Not at any job I've ever worked, and I doubt it's the case there at the Stranger. Hey, Dan, if you're reading this, IS that the default wage scale over yonder?
THe fact that most big corporation heads are men, and make exponentially more than their (male and female) workers, means exactly bupkis to the average working guy, who isn't going to be considered for Bill Gates' job anytime soon, and doesn't get a check at Christmas for having a Y-chromosome.

How heeLARious that the clueless "major anti-feminist" guy thinks that Ladies Night are a feminist thing. Offering cheap drinks to women in an effort to lure men smacks of sexism to me. Women as bait? Yeech. I'd much rather pay full price for my beverages, thanks very much. The way I see it, Mr. Major Anit-Feminist guy has done us feminists a favor. I salute you, Mr. Anti-Feminist, for your valient efforts on behalf of the cause! Thanks to you, women are now one (tiny) step closer to parity with men. Huzzah.

ValiAnt efforts, that is. I should have spent more time on fraking spelling at feminist indoctrination school.

From the Crimson account of the case:

But, according to court documents obtained yesterday by The Crimson, there seems to be little doubt about the events of last April 4.

Statements by a Middlesex County prosecutor--to which Douglas pled guilty under oath--show Douglas forced his way into the woman's room and onto her bed before the assault.

Instead of "miscommunication," the court documents reveal a situation in which the woman continually told Douglas to leave her House, her suite and her bed. Before entering her room, Douglas "slammed her against the wall" and began kissing her, even though she "told him to leave [and] was struggling to get away from him." His advances continued even as she repeatedly told Douglas to leave and tried to push him off her bed.

Douglas pled guilty to indecent assault and battery in Middlesex Superior Court on Sept. 24, 1998. Before the case went to court, the Administrative Board determined that a rape had occurred and recommended dismissal to the Faculty. [...]

The court's account of the incident is takenfrom the hearing in which Douglas pled guilty toindecent assault and battery. In the courtrecords, the prosecutor reads an account of theincident, after which Douglas is recorded assaying, "I admit to committing the crime."

According to the account, both students hadbeen friends for a year. On April 3, the night ofthe incident, the woman saw Douglas while on adate with another man.

The victim told The Crimson yesterday that shewas "feeling the effects of alcohol" that night.

Court documents state that the three attended aparty together. Afterwards, as her date walked herhome, Douglas began walking along with the pair.

The other man left her at her dorm, but Douglas"told her he wanted to go home with her," andstayed behind, prosecutors told the court.

"She told him that wasn't going to happen andwas attempting to get into her door," theprosecutor told the court. "The defendant wasblocking access to the card key [reader] sheneeded to use."

He followed her into the dorm and up thestairs. "She repeatedly told him that he was notgoing to come in," the document states. "Thedefendant kept telling her that it's his choice;she did not have input into that decision."

Outside her room he threw her against the wall,pushed her dress and grabbed her buttocks. He alsobegan kissing her, the prosecutor said.

"[She] told him to leave [and] was strugglingto get away from him," the documents said.

She managed to open the door to her suite, butdid not shut it in time to prevent Douglas fromfollowing her inside.

"Once she was inside, although annoyed that thedefendant was still there, because she was afriend of the defendant, [she] wasn't particularlyfrightened," the prosecutor said. "She told him toleave; she was going to bed."

She lay down fully clothed on the bed and beganto doze off. "She next became aware that [Douglas]had removed all of his clothing and had gotteninto bed with her," the document reads.

Once in bed with her, he proceeded to sexuallyassault her, though the court document does notdescribe any penetration. Some time later, theprosecutor said, Douglas left the bed.

"These are essentially the facts as they relateto this incident, Your Honor, although theincident continued," the prosecutor said.

The prosecutor said the woman assaulted byDouglas found a handwritten note under her doorthe next day apologizing "for pressuring her,forcing her to engage in these activities."

"On April 20, she had another conversation with the defendant in which he again admitted that he had not been under the influence of alcohol, that he had forced her to do things she had not wanted to do and apologized," the prosecutor told the court.

I love the bending over backwards to explain differential pricing of women's and men's stuff. It can be explained pretty easily with one word: sexism.

I'm sorry, but that's a serious oversimplification. Why is it so inconceivable that market forces might conclude a woman's haircut, for instance, is more expensive than a man's? Men visit haircutters less frequently, seldom seek complicated styles, and are less picky about where they get their haircut. To demand that men's haircuts cost as much as women's would be basically enforcing price gouging.

The Burqinis are quite possibly the most futuristic clothes I've ever seen... ever! 20 years from now, when the sun burns through anything not coated in a half inch of SPF 85 you're going to see men in women wearing.... Burqinis. MARK MY WORDS!

Yikes, Sandy! I realize that the youthful Harvard rapist may have been a nice enough kid, but he was also a rapist.

A quick checklist: 1) He asked his victim (a friend of his) for sex before entering the dorm, she said no.

2) He followed her to her room, even as she repeatedly asked him to leave.

3) He pushed his way into her room without being invited. She again insisted he leave.

4) She announced she was going to bed and got into bed and again told him to leave.

5) He waited until she was falling asleep, then took off his clothes and got into bed with her without being invited.

This is clearly a rape. Therefore the Harvard boy is clearly a rapist.

One more thing. I was sickened by this sentence in Ashley's apologia: "Rather than allow the college administration to handle the situation, his accuser filed criminal charges." Why wouldn't criminal charges be filed when a crime was obviously committed?

As far as pricing/sexism goes, you're not talking about purchasing the same products or services at all in many of these examples. You're paying for a professionals TIME and EXPERTTISE, not simply purchasing a commodity (hair stylist, tailors, dry cleaners, etc.).

And as if a "ladies night" isn't antiqueted and creepy enough, that wierd crusader is such a typical asshole, hopefully whateve sketchy bars he frequents he'll be identified as the freak who kept all the women out and made short work of. Again, he'll undoubtably sue.

Now that I think about it, if I were to bring in some items for my girlfriend to have dry cleaned, and am charged whatever it is they charge for those items, what has just taken place?

Sexism is totally last century. Just like racism!

For fuck sakes.

No one said sexsim is dead is, but some of these are bad examples.

Oh, and I totally agree with J.R. #36, I was only addressing the "lighter" issues.

Re the 'women, everywhere, make .75 to men's 1.00,' what a load. Not at any job I've ever worked...THe fact that most big corporation heads are men, and make exponentially more than their (male and female) workers, means exactly bupkis to the average working guy, who isn't going to be considered for Bill Gates' job anytime soon, and doesn't get a check at Christmas for having a Y-chromosome.

Your anecdotal evidence means nothing. Of course, statisticians and people who research this kind of information for a living couldn't possibly understand what their talking about. Go ahead and proclaim to actual experts that they are wrong and you are right, because you personally have never witnessed sexism or wage discrimination.

The facts say that, on average, women are paid 75 percent less than men for doing the same work. Therefore, female attorneys make 75 percent less than male attorneys. Female pencil pushers make 75 percent less than male pencil pushers. Female construction workers make 75 percent less than male construction workers. Some of this disparity is due to women having to sacrifice their careers for family. It seems that men need to be encouraged to make those same sacrifices so we can have a little more parity.

The number of "rapists" who were convicted on undisputed facts and then released on DNA evidence years later shows how very wrong the courts can be. This is largely due to eyewitness testimony.

Please. There have been a number of men released after DNA evidence proved them innocent, but most convicted rapists have not been exonerated, because they are guilty.

Testimony from someone who has just experienced emotional and physical trauma is unreliable, but rape cases by their nature must rely on this sort of testimony.

Not so much anymore because now there's DNA evidence. Duh.

And it's not unusual for the prosecution to present a set of facts that appear to be undisputable but are later revealed to be fabricated.

Yes, and, unfortunately, our judicial system isn't perfect. Luckily, the prosecution has a very high burden of proof so erroneous convictions are rare.

He plea bargained, like over 90% of all people who are charged with crimes.

Most of them plead guilty because they are guilty and they can get usually get less jail time if they take a plea. Do you have any idea how much extra money it would cost to fully prosecute all those 90 percent of defendants? There's a very good monetary reason why prosecutors offer plea deals even, or especially, when they have a solid case.

And most likely, he plea bargained not because he was guilty, but because he was afraid.

No, most likely he pleaded because he was guilty. He had to undergo horribly traumatic counseling (according to his girlfriend) and had to register as a sex offender. The case entirely rested on consent. If he had hired a cut-throat attorney, he might have been able to get away with it, but, since he was guilty, he decided to take 18 months house arrest.

there was never any trial to determine their validity.

You don't seem to have much faith in the court system, Sandy. So, I hardly expect that you would believe he's guilty even if he had been convicted.

There are many, many people who beleive they are innocent but are tempted into bargains with the state out of fear and loose their lives because of it.

You're right. Many rapists believe that they are innocent. Studies have been done of convicted rapists. Those studies have shown that, even when rapists use extreme force when committing the crime, when asked by a psychiatrist whether they raped their victims, they say no. They claim that their victims "consented." It's not a rape victim's responsibility to somehow make her rapist understand that no means no. If a man thinks holding a woman down a fucking her is ok, then that's his problem.

And one last thing. If the state had a leg to stand on its offer would have been for a short prison term (like six months), not house arrest.

Or maybe not. Maybe the prosecutor thought that an extended sentence of a year and a half would have been more meaningful. At least it gave the defendant less opportunities to try to rape someone else during those 18 months.

Keshmeshi, I think you mean 25 per cent less, not 75 per cent less, as women make 75 cents for every 1 dollar men make.

Well, Kashmeshi, I’m still trying to find an expert that says women who work the same hours, with the same experience, at the same jobs, make ¾ of what a man does at the same job. If you have such an expert, who does this thing for a living, please pass his/her name along.

No, what I found was pretty much what I expected; ‘Using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, economics professor June O'Neill found that, among people ages twenty-seven to thirty-three who have never had a child, women's earnings are close to 98 percent of men's. Professor O'Neill notes that "when earnings comparisons are restricted to men and women more similar in their experience and life situations, the measured earnings differentials are typically quite small."
“The 74 percent figure is derived by comparing the average median wage of all full-time working men and women. To obtain figures for individual states, average wages of men and women within that state are compared. So older workers are compared to younger, social workers to police officers, and, since full-time means any number of hours above 35 a week (and sometimes fewer), those working 60-hour weeks are compared with those working 35-hour weeks. These estimates fail to consider key factors in determining wages, including education, age, experience, and, perhaps most importantly, consecutive years in the workforce. That is why in States such as Louisiana, where it is less common for women to work, and where they have less education and work experience, the wage gap is wider. In areas where it is more usual for women to work, such as the District of Columbia, the gap is smaller. But this average wage gap, as it is known, says nothing about whether individuals with the same qualifications who are in the same jobs are discriminated against.”
A study by the Center for Policy Alternatives and Lifetime television found that 71 percent of women prefer jobs with more flexibility and benefits than jobs with higher wages, and nearly 85 percent of women offered flexible work arrangements by their employers have taken advantage of this opportunity.

You mentioned construction work, an overwhelmingly male workforce. This means that most of the supervisors, foremen, and workers with the most experience, and thus worth the most to the company, will be men. Mirable dictu, ‘construction worker’ is not a much-sought-after job title for most women. Did you expect women with no construction experience to walk in off the street, and automatically get paid the same as a 15-year veteran?
Women are more likely to enter and leave the workforce to raise children, take care of elderly parents or move with their families. Working mothers are nearly twice as likely to take time off to care for their children as are working fathers in dual-earner couples. This has nothing to do with women who decide not to have children. If the child-related work is inequitably divided in the relationship, this is not the fault of the employers. If you’re suggesting that women with children who work fewer hours get paid the same as women, and men, who work more hours, well, you can start a company and do what you want with it.
If employers really could pay female employees 75% of what men got, from Sears cashiers to accountants, who would employ men, when they could employ 5 women for the price of 4 men?

I take it that, if indeed new Stranger employees were met with a “Guys? You start at $10 an hour. You pack of broads? You get $7.50. Have a nice day,” we would have heard about it from ECB, who has apparently used her standard ‘spout something questionable, then drop it like it’s on fire’ tactic.
So, have at it with the statistician experts who tell us that all women, everywhere, are paid ¾ of what men make.

Ah, Cat brother, comparing social workers (a field dominated by women) to police officers (a field dominated by men) is NOT an equivalent economic comparison. Social workers, at a minimum have baccalaureate degrees and, more often, Master's Degrees. Cops have, at a minimum a GED and, sometimes, an associates. If you take the comparison seriously, than women must have 4-6 years of additional education to earn comparable wages.

This comparison is carried out in lower-level positions as well. In retail sales, comparing two employees hired at the same time, one male and one female, the male is more likely to get a larger raise sooner than the female employee. He is also more likely going to be promoted to a management position faster than the female employee.

Many corporations also forbid disclosure of raises and other fiscal information between employees. So, no, the discrepancy is not announced. It's in the hiring practises - "Joe, we'd like to offer you the job. It starts at $8". Three hours later - "Jill, we'd like to offer you the job. It starts at $7.50". And in promotion, advancement, raises, and benefits.

Furthermore, child-rearing should not be considered punative in the corporate world - but it is, nonetheless. You see, women have a medical condition associated with child-birth. Should people who get cancer be deprived of promotion and raises because they take time off for treatment?

This is the kind of thing you people at The Stranger push for. Your kind likes all forms of equality, even when it makes no sense. Shame on you.

You think you're so righteous, but you throw all decency and common sense out the window in your robot-like quest for your asinine ideals.

dewsterling @ 46:

comparing social workers (a field dominated by women) to police officers (a field dominated by men) is NOT an equivalent economic comparison. Social workers, at a minimum have baccalaureate degrees and, more often, Master's Degrees. Cops have, at a minimum a GED and, sometimes, an associates. If you take the comparison seriously, than women must have 4-6 years of additional education to earn comparable wages.

That's right -- it's not an equivalent comparison, which is why your subsequent comparison is totally bogus. Education is not the only basis for pay. Cops are much more likely to die or be seriously injured on the job than social workers, thus their employer (in this case, the public) compensates them at a higher rate. The fact that police officers (predominantly male) make more money than social workers (predominantly female) is an example of the relative value of different fields of work -- not sexism.

(And for the record, all new SPD officers must hold a bachelor's degree or higher.)

This comparison is carried out in lower-level positions as well. In retail sales, comparing two employees hired at the same time, one male and one female, the male is more likely to get a larger raise sooner than the female employee. He is also more likely going to be promoted to a management position faster than the female employee.

Perhaps -- care to back this up?

Furthermore, child-rearing should not be considered punative in the corporate world - but it is, nonetheless. You see, women have a medical condition associated with child-birth. Should people who get cancer be deprived of promotion and raises because they take time off for treatment?

First of all, yes, people who get cancer and take time off for treatment should probably be deprived of promotions and raises. Promotions, raises, and bonuses are generally granted on the basis of increased performance on the job, not just time spent with an employer. Employees on sick leave should be compensated, no doubt, but they shouldn't be rewarded above their salary for a job they didn't do.

Secondly, comparing pregnancy to a terminal illness is ridiculous. Carrying a child to term is a decision, and pregnancy can be planned in advance. Getting cancer, on the other hand, is an unexpected illness (cigarettes notwithstanding -- and some employers are cutting down on that as well). That is, having a child is an option; getting cancer is not. Of course they're treated differently.