A post for Olivia H and Luxury Daphne, and anyone else who cared to ask

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by WTF

Let me get this straight. You commented first in this thread about male chauvinists (page 2, post #18) before I had ever entered the thread. Later in the thread you say that your comment was in response to a comment I made. When I point out that your comment was before I had even posted in the thread.....instead of saying "Opps I was wrong, Sorry".

Sigh, we've been having this conversation over four threads since before Christmas. Really, you aren't that stupid. I know you can carry a thought from one thread to another one.

Originally Posted by WTF

You are trying to convince me that your male chauvinists comment , was in response from some comment I had made in another thread? That is what you are trying to sell here?

There's nothing to sell. You have been going on and on and on for literally months about one sexist bullshit idea after another across multiple threads. I don't need to wait to hear your current nugget of socially depraved nonsense to know you are a chauvinist. And then, thank you very much, you go on to say in this tread that women are too lazy, dumb or desperate to go on strike for better wages proving my assertion: You are plainly a male chauvinist. Your slavish devotion to the idiotic notion, and not a notion shared by people educated on the subject, that this is simply a supply and demand issue. Even Old T who thinks all women are subject to if not already involved in fucking their ways to the top and are therefore nothing but whores doesn't agree with you. Your view, as well as his, are completely sexist and pedestrian. NOTE: The Mommy Track is a real issue, but the rest of his dribble is all antidotal tales told by grapes that soured literally decades ago with little or no hard data – per the tale teller – to back them up if it is even a real study/ies.

Originally Posted by WTF

Not only must you think I sexist but dumb as a stump it seems. Come on now give the audience a little bit of common sense credit.

This is just stupid. It’s as stupid as Old T’s comment above. How the fuck am I, or anyone really including Old T, to know what he was responding to when you quoted him. Only his arrogance compelled him to respond.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

[/SIZE]





There's nothing to sell. .

Finally you admit you have nothing to sell, yet you are still trying to sell it.

You bring up male chauvinist in this thread before I have ever even entered it. Then try and say you were replying to a comment I made in this thread. When I point out that I had not even entered the thread , you switch gears and say it was a comment I made three threads ago that you were replying to.

No damn wonder Old-T and others are confused , you lying more than a old mare on her way to the glue factory does about her age.

You clearly blamed misogynist and / or moralist for women being paid 70 cents on the dollar. You only changed your tune after folks like myself, SpiceItUp and Old-T introduced links showing that to be yet another lie.

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

. Especially if said misogynist and / or moralist are part of the social fabric that still pays women seventy cents on the dollar that men make. .

[Guest050715-1]

No, I never said it was to a post in THIS thread. If I were, I'd have quoted it. We've been through this Pet, you are entitled to your own opinions not your own facts. You and I have had this argument over and over. I know what your philosophies are. They don't change from one thread to another.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

No, I never said it was to a post in THIS thread. If I were, I'd have quoted it. We've been through this Pet, you are entitled to your own opinions not your own facts. .

These are the facts....
You did quote it. You quoted Unique_Carpenter in post #18 in this thread. Like I have told you I was not even in the thread at this time.....yet you lie and lie and lie and say you were talking to me from some other thread.

So you quote Unique_Carpenter and then lie and proclaim you were responding to me , when I point out that I was not in the thread at the time you made your comment, you flip flop to it was me in another thread.

The fact of the matter is you were responding to .Unique_Carpenter, not me. You went so far as to quote him.....but you kept up the lie that it was me you were responding to to the very end.

Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

But do not most of us ignore misogynists and moralists that attempt to impose their beliefs on others?

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Many can’t, and that’s just the long and short of it. Especially if said misogynist and / or moralist are part of the social fabric that still pays women seventy cents on the dollar that men make. Or those that strip widows of their social network and so-called friends because they had the bad taste to be married to a man that didn’t out live them.

He was telling you to ignore folks that use the whore word....you then doubled down and tried to blame misogynist and / or moralist as the reason for women making 70 cents on the dollar. Thus we are here....me debunking two lies of yours...1) That you were responding to me and 2) That misogynist and / or moralist are the reason women make less...



Here is your entire post....





01-21-2014, 12:27 PM #18 OliviaHoward
Gone Baby Gone

Join Date: Dec 17, 2009
Location: Houston
Posts: 5,822
My ECCIE Reviews


Quote:
Originally Posted by cinderbella
"As long as prostitution is kept illegal, and women are persecuted for acts which harm no one, prostitute women will be subject to brutality at the hands of misogynists and moralists- they are, arguably, the same group. And when prostitutes are treated as second class citizens, and in extreme cases are less than human, then all women who dare to step out of their social constructs will be labeled as whores and treated accordingly. For these reasons, the rights of all women are contingent upon the rights accorded to the most vulnerable women." From Dr. Jocelyn Elders: March 1997 International and Prostitution Conference highlights. Dr. Elders also said: "We say that (hookers) are selling their bodies, but how different from athletes? They're selling their bodies. Models, they're selling their bodies. Actors? They're selling their bodies."


Olivia H, I think this may be a little bit of what you were trying to convey. Lux. Daphne, don't know what to say about your opinion on the matter but I do not agree with your sentiments on the matter. Not being rude, just my opinion.



The long and short of what I’m trying to say is women need to stop being complacent with and hand maidens of societal structures that denigrate, ostracize and apply negative social pressure on women. Until women stop sheltering under men for their financial and social resources they will continue competing – and fiercely I might add – with other women for said financial and social resources from men. We as women need to abandon that tired track that only leads to second place and earn the social and financial positions on their own. Then, and only then will this negative, downward pressure begin to wane.

Prostitution being legal or illegal is just a cog in the wheel though I agree it should be decriminalized. As an example when the West was being settled prostitution was policed, but not strictly speaking illegal. Prostitutes were the first women to populate the West. It wasn’t until the men that were settling the West brought their wives or marriage class women out with them that the pressure to run the prostitutes out began. The women didn’t want the prostitutes around and the women brought religious structure – male religious men – with them as they traveled West.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cinderbella
And although she said it along time ago, Dr. Jocelyn Elders and Pastor Lia Claire Scholl who authored "I heart Sex Workers" are the astute women out there who are our voice of reason in an unreasonable, so called United States of America.



And this is the crux of the reason men don’t care for prostitutes. We are astute women. We were also the only women throughout antiquity that had their own purse unless a woman was extremely lucky enough to be a wealthy widow that somehow managed to hold on to her money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter
But do not most of us ignore misogynists and moralists that attempt to impose their beliefs on others?



Many can’t, and that’s just the long and short of it. Especially if said misogynist and / or moralist are part of the social fabric that still pays women seventy cents on the dollar that men make. Or those that strip widows of their social network and so-called friends because they had the bad taste to be married to a man that didn’t out live them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter
“The paramours of courtesans are well and satisfied, content.” Charles Baudelaire d1867, Laments of an Icarus, from his collection: Flowers of Evil.



I would tend to agree. It can also be said that it is nice to be nice to the nice.
__________________
Visit me and my musings on my blog:

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

This is just stupid. It’s as stupid as Old T’s comment above. How the fuck am I, or anyone really including Old T, to know what he was responding to when you quoted him. Only his arrogance compelled him to respond.

Olivia,

When you quoted me it came out blank.
When you quoted WTF you attributed my words to him.
Now, somehow, those are MY fault?

Wow. Just wow. (And no, it is not my arrogance that compelled me to post that, it was your continued attacks on me. And your seeming inability to quote correctly. Stop pulling me into your conversations with WTF and I will stop posting on this. Is that clear enough for you?)

I think in my entire time on this board I have hit the “Report To Mod” button ONCE, but I have come close to it on your continued lies on this thread. Misunderstanding what I posted is one thing. Disagreeing with me is certainly within the purview of anyone on here. But your incessant lying about what I posted is quite different. Fine, but then let’s request this be moved to the Politics Forum where your comments would fit in quite well because truth is just an accidental occurrence there anyway. I doubt they will do that, but if they do then you might actually see me post some hostile comments. I keep my posts here quite civil--though I admit you have tested my patience.

--I have never stated that women make it to the board room because they sleep with the boss. I did say that many women themselves reported they have used sex as a tool for advancement. Others on here have corroborated my point.

--I made no statement remotely claiming “all”

--I made no statement claiming cause and effect, only proximity. There was nothing to actually allow us to determine whether it was effective or not (though many of them thought it was). In fact I stated it was very difficult to account for the effect of sex in advancements—exactly the opposite of what you claim I said.

-- I never claimed it was “one of the three top reasons women were promoted”,

--I stated that younger women in the workforce have less issues about using sex as a tool (or at least admit to it more openly than the older women we interviewed). This is in synch with general statements in many venues about the overall sexual mores of the 25-35 y/o generation. I have not made a value judgment that such changed sexual views are good or bad morals.

--I never stated that people got promotions/opportunities they didn’t deserve because of sex.

You keep claiming I drew conclusions I did not draw, and keep claiming I made value judgments I did not make. You can ask about the data and the study all you want—and I have answered what I can. But if you claiming I said something, please start giving the reference or shut up on those accusations.

You also seem to have a serious issue with the difference between statements of data vice the interpretation of it. Much of your argument is trying to interpret it—go right ahead and do so. I am not in any way challenging your right to put forth theories to explain why the data is what it is. I do take exception to you stating the data was biased or we made certain conclusions when we did not.

The only conclusion I stated as fact was this:

After statistically separating out factors such as education, grades, experience, duration, willingness to relocate, willingness to donate free hours to the company/organization, and every other factor we could isolate, we found no statistical difference between men and women’s salaries in the aggregate in the companies and organizations we studied.

Unless you can quote me—not make distorted statements about what I said—please quit claiming I said otherwise.

PS: Personally I see no moral difference between a woman who sleeps with a guy from here for direct financial gain, and a woman who sleeps with her boss for indirect financial gain. I see a significant difference in the potential risks on many levels, but not the moral difference. Do you? If so, why?

[Guest050715-1]

What Unique_Carpenter said is that most people ignore moralists and misogynists that attempt to impose their beliefs on others. What I responded, was many can’t as they are subject to said malcontents due to finances and social pressure/s to conform. I gave three reasons in the paragraph below. One, many in our social fabric are misogynists and / or moralists. Two, the financial pressure of earning less. And three, unattached women, due mainly to divorce or widowhood, are unwelcome in what used to be their social circles. I did not say the misogynists / moralists are the ones that pay women less because of their beliefs as you are trying to imply.

Not that the intricacies of English are too much for you to grasp, but……………Please note what I’ve bolded, “Especially if”. If I were to trying to say that all those that pay women less are misogynists and moralists, I’d have said “Especially since”. Also note that I said misogynists and / or moralists. I am not saying all moralists are misogynists nor am I saying all misogynists are moralists. What I am saying is Unique_Carpenter lumped them together presumably as like-minded so I responded in kind. For the record, I do think both subsets of malcontents are like-minded.

Quoted from WTF's quote of Unique_Carpenter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter
But do not most of us ignore misogynists and moralists that attempt to impose their beliefs on others?

My Response as quoted by WTF from a previous post:

Many can’t, and that’s just the long and short of it. Especially if said misogynist and / or moralist are part of the social fabric that still pays women seventy cents on the dollar that men make. Or those that strip widows of their social network and so-called friends because they had the bad taste to be married to a man that didn’t out live them.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

What Unique_Carpenter said is that most people ignore moralists and misogynists that attempt to impose their beliefs on others. .

What went over your head at the time and appears to still be...... was that you were trying to impose your belief about the use of the word whore on others.

That was his point. Your moral judgment is no different than moralists and misogynists.....just as misguided and a waste of time.

He was actually telling folks to ignore your nonsense just like we ignore moralists and misogynists.

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Olivia,

When you quoted me it came out blank.
When you quoted WTF you attributed my words to him.
Now, somehow, those are MY fault?

Wow. Just wow. (And no, it is not my arrogance that compelled me to post that, it was your continued attacks on me. And your seeming inability to quote correctly.

Alas, yet another thing we disagree on. I think you are remarkably condescending and arrogant. As in why would anyone believe some guy on the internet that said he did some kind of governmental study that has little or no hard data to back it up that contradicts a vast body of published works that are backed by hard data. Oh, because it’s Old T? Not a good enough reason for me. But since you are supporting the chauvinistic hypothesis and undercurrent of WTF’s rant, he has chosen to ally himself with you and your so called study.

I am not attacking you but rather your claims. If I were attacking you, trust me, you’d know it.

Originally Posted by Old-T

Stop pulling me into your conversations with WTF and I will stop posting on this. Is that clear enough for you?)

I am not pulling you into my conversation, if one could call what he’s doing conversing, with WTF. I am answering you and he’s looking to you with your bogus “study” to support his assertions and hypothesis.

Originally Posted by Old-T

I think in my entire time on this board I have hit the “Report To Mod” button ONCE, but I have come close to it on your continued lies on this thread. Misunderstanding what I posted is one thing. Disagreeing with me is certainly within the purview of anyone on here. But your incessant lying about what I posted is quite different.

Originally Posted by Old-T

Fine, but then let’s request this be moved to the Politics Forum where your comments would fit in quite well because truth is just an accidental occurrence there anyway. I doubt they will do that, but if they do then you might actually see me post some hostile comments. I keep my posts here quite civil--though I admit you have tested my patience.

What you said is:

Originally Posted by Old-T

For over 20 years I have been involved in a number of cases looking at this issue. I've done statistical analysis for a number of gender-equality-inequality issues that congress was very interested in.

Then:

Originally Posted by Old-T

One of the hardest issues we had to adjudicate how to count was the use of sexual favors by women. Most the time it was very difficult to distinguish decades later in individual cases whether women were pressured into sex or whether they initiated the use of sex to get an advantage. We found some clear cases of both, but many were unclear. That is another area where a study in 2030 will likely show very different results—it is quite clear that today many young career women actively push themselves sexually on higher-ups not because they feel pressured to do so by the bosses, but because they are afraid their female competitors are doing so and they don’t want to be at a disadvantage. It is also a growing trend to have sex with the boss’s boss a few levels up, keep some incriminating evidence—anything from e-mails to used condoms—and then make implied threats of sexual harassment against the seniors. What surprised us was the number of young women who saw nothing wrong with it and were shocked to be told such things might be seen as blackmail by LE.They truly seemed not to have comprehended.

What you said Old-T is you held yourself out as an expert that is contracted by the government to evaluate gender based economic discrepancies. Then you go on to say, and particularly see what I changed to red above, it is quite clear that many – bolded no less – women actively apply sexual pressure on their supervisors. Then you go on to say if they can’t get advanced by fucking their way to the top, they turn to criminal methods of blackmail. But in your words, not mine, “the women saw nothing wrong with it…..they seemed not to have comprehended.” Are you saying here that women are innately immoral or innately ignorant? I’m not sure which way you’ve offended me. Maybe both.

Originally Posted by Old-T

--I made no statement remotely claiming “all”

Yes you did. You said, it is quite clear that today many young career women actively push themselves sexually on higher-ups not because they feel pressured to do so by the bosses, but because they are afraid their female competitors are doing so and they don’t want to be at a disadvantage”

Which women in this statement aren’t fucking their way to the top? The ones that are fucking their way to the top or the other women that are the conniving sluts think are fucking their way to the top.

And all this brings us back to your statement:

Originally Posted by Old-T

--I have never stated that women make it to the board room because they sleep with the boss. I did say that many women themselves reported they have used sex as a tool for advancement. Others on here have corroborated my point.

No offence, but these two statements are in conflict with one another. The one in red, which was your original “women are whores” comment says that some women were fucking their bosses for gain because they thought other women were doing it CLEARLY implies the person doing the talking is fucking her boss for advancement. But later you go on to say it was OTHER women saying they heard that Suzie the Slut was fucking her boss and that’s why she made it all the way to Mail Room Supervisor. You can’t have it both ways.

Originally Posted by Old-T

--I made no statement claiming cause and effect, only proximity. There was nothing to actually allow us to determine whether it was effective or not (though many of them thought it was). In fact I stated it was very difficult to account for the effect of sex in advancements—exactly the opposite of what you claim I said.

Of course you stated there was a cause and effect. You said:

Originally Posted by Old-T

ne of the hardest issues we had to adjudicate how to count was the use of sexual favors by women. Most the time it was very difficult to distinguish decades later in individual cases whether women were pressured into sex or whether they initiated the use of sex to get an advantage. We found some clear cases of both, but many were unclear.

No what you said was you couldn’t account for who initiated the contact: the boss or the subordinate. Then you go on to qualify your inane remark with this;

Originally Posted by Old-T

That is another area where a study in 2030 will likely show very different results

Who are you trying to kid. You are saying women are sluts, or conniving whores I'm not sure, that fuck their way to the top, but you’re not sure who iniated the sexual contact, but you ARE sure there will be different results in 2030 as to whether the women fucked their way to the top? They were pressured to keep their job? Or that the slutty behavior wasn’t effective. Which is it?

Originally Posted by Old-T

I never claimed it was “one of the three top reasons women were promoted”,

You claimed to be an expert then you listed three contributing factors to limiting or women’s economic advancement or to explain your hypothesis why women weren’t in fact at an economic disadvantage in the 70’s and 80’s:

The Good Ole Boy Era

The Mommy Track

Sexual Favors for the Men

That adds up to three. However, let’s suppose that you do not consider there the top three mitigating factors. If that’s the case, then being the self-proclaimed expert that you are, why did you list them?

Originally Posted by Old-T

--I stated that younger women in the workforce have less issues about using sex as a tool (or at least admit to it more openly than the older women we interviewed). This is in synch with general statements in many venues about the overall sexual mores of the 25-35 y/o generation. I have not made a value judgment that such changed sexual views are good or bad morals.

Sex is more liberated now. People having sex in the workplace doesn’t mean they are having sex for advancement. Besides, the ACTUAL REAL WORLD antidotal evidence that you luv so much stated here is that the most junior person, for the purposes of this conversation I’ll stipulate that we are talking about the woman, are the ones to get the hit to their career. So, what’s your point?

Further, no you didn’t make an overt judgment regarding sexual behaviors, but you inadvertently did if, as you now claim, sexual favors was not one of the top contenders for why women advance / ed. So, ya, you kinda did make a moral judgement.

Originally Posted by Old-T

--I never stated that people got promotions/opportunities they didn’t deserve because of sex.

We’re all adults here. Yes you did.

Originally Posted by Old-T

You keep claiming I drew conclusions I did not draw, and keep claiming I made value judgments I did not make. You can ask about the data and the study all you want—and I have answered what I can. But if you claiming I said something, please start giving the reference or shut up on those accusations.

See above.

Originally Posted by Old-T

You also seem to have a serious issue with the difference between statements of data vice the interpretation of it. Much of your argument is trying to interpret it—go right ahead and do so. I am not in any way challenging your right to put forth theories to explain why the data is what it is. I do take exception to you stating the data was biased or we made certain conclusions when we did not.

You challenge your own data. You CLEARLY state that in several years you “antidotal” evidence that was testimonialized by OTHER women that THOUGHT that MAYBE their competitors were fucking the boss to get ahead. That’s not evidence. Evidence is if a woman plainly says “I fucked my boss and therefore I got the promotion”.

Originally Posted by Old-T

But for the people who are willing to sell themselves body and soul to the corporations and aspire to the corner offices on the 50th floor, everything we found says the corporation cares most about how much profit you can generate, not what sex you are. Ruthlessness and 80 hour weeks are valued and rewarded.

This is absolutely who I was for many years. Like I said, with no college degree, I came up from data entry clerk at $8.00 per hour leaving Corporate USA fifteen years later in upper management of a division of a multi-national corporation whose parent company you’d easily recognize. I took the money I made and started my own company that made me even more money, and has afforded me even more independence and significant asset based, passive income. So, yes, I know about sixty to eighty hour work weeks and literally months of working with no days off.

Originally Posted by Old-T

As a class, there seem to be fewer soul-less sleep deprived ruthless women than men. Personally, I think that is a complement towards women.

Who knows if this is true. Women have been acculturated to accept, since the dawn of time, to behave in a certain way. Things are changing. We’ll see in twenty years if this still stands as a truism.

Originally Posted by Old-T

After statistically separating out factors such as education, grades, experience, duration, willingness to relocate, willingness to donate free hours to the company/organization, and every other factor we could isolate, we found no statistical difference between men and women’s salaries in the aggregate in the companies and organizations we studied.

Education – women were barred from certain instititutions and degree paths until I’d say the 60’s and in some instances up into the 70’s. It’s still going on today to a smaller degree. Remember the issue with the Harvard Business School. Until recently, men still outnumbered women graduating from college.

Grades – Female students were and still are driven towards certain subjects and therefore diploma types from k – 12. I do not know of any study that says female students make lower grades overall.

Experience – From your own mouth the breakthrough to promoting women started in the 90’s.

Duration – is a factor. It’s part of the Mommy Track.
Willingness to Relocate – Part of the same.

Long Work Weeks – Part of the same.

Originally Posted by Old-T

Unless you can quote me—not make distorted statements about what I said—please quit claiming I said otherwise.

See above.

Here’s a true story. I worked for a company for about five years and was promoted up to manager at the same time four other work withs, that were all men, were promoted when the company re-organized creating this particular position.

Through the years, I quite twice. The first time I was given a stay-on package which I took. The second time the offer was too sweet and I left. At my new company, I offered two of the other four men that had the same position I had at the old company a spot where I went. We all three had pretty much the same work experience, though I can say I worked more than they did. When they faxed over their W2’s I was stunned. Literally stunned. One made almost twice what I had made and the other one made about 20% more than I had made. I hired them both, made more money that both of them and my work load decreased significantly.

Pardon if I don’t believe your conclusions. You wouldn’t be the first person to have an agenda and built evidence to support it.

Originally Posted by Old-T

PS: Personally I see no moral difference between a woman who sleeps with a guy from here for direct financial gain, and a woman who sleeps with her boss for indirect financial gain. I see a significant difference in the potential risks on many levels, but not the moral difference. Do you? If so, why?

So we’re back to women being whores. Fine. Let me explain the difference between the two. Prostitutes are in the business of selling sex for money. Women working at other professions are in the business of whatever their business is not selling sex. Get real.

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by WTF

What went over your head at the time and appears to still be...... was that you were trying to impose your belief about the use of the word whore on others.

What other beliefs? That women are discriminated against?

Originally Posted by WTF

That was his point. Your moral judgment is no different than moralists and misogynists.....just as misguided and a waste of time.

That's not a moral judgment. That's just the way it is - The Golden Rule approach and all: Those with the gold make the rules.

Originally Posted by WTF

He was actually telling folks to ignore your nonsense just like we ignore moralists and misogynists.

Pet, it all boils down to you want me to agree with you. It's an obsession with you. I don't agree with you. Personally, I doubt you discriminate against women, but you have a sick obsession when it comes to me. I'm not going to agree with you. You're my Pet not the other fucking way around.

Nightie-night now .

[WTF]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

What other beliefs? That women are discriminated against?


E]

No , your belief that women should not call other women whore's. They judge you and then you judge folks that use the word whore. A lesson in futility.

[Hot to Trot Daphne]

You whores are funny...

[JESSE JAMES]

Originally Posted by WTF

No , your belief that women should not call other women whore's. They judge you and then you judge folks that use the word whore. A lesson in futility.

I feel for you: W T F and Old T having to deal wIth the likes of .O.H' you don't think the best strategy would be to ignore her ? She lies so much I don't think she knows what the truth is

She obviously is a cretin I, E. A person that is brainless, stupid, child like and full of pointless information that makes no sense and appeals only to other cretins. They can be found in every single populated forum, where they race to post as many mind-numbing messages as possible in a single session

In addition, they seemingly interbreed with other cretins, ensuring that their cretinous genes continue long after they end up dead meaning the internet will never be rid of their kind Mores the pity

Clearly they should be eradicated from existence

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Alas, yet another thing we disagree on. I think you are remarkably condescending and arrogant.
You wish to believe that, I doubt I will change your mind.


As in why would anyone believe some guy on the internet that said he did some kind of governmental study that has little or no hard data to back it up
No one has to. That is everyone’s option


that contradicts a vast body of published works that are backed by hard data.
Actually, not anywhere near as many studies as you would think. Most of the work done has serious, SERIOUS flaws—mostly because they did not factor out issues of experience, age, etc.


What you said Old-T is you held yourself out as an expert that is contracted by the government to evaluate gender based economic discrepancies. Then you go on to say, and particularly see what I changed to red above, it is quite clear that many – bolded no less – women actively apply sexual pressure on their supervisors.
Yes, I said that. “Many” is “More than an insignificant number”. It is not “Most”, or “All”, or “The Majority”.


Then you go on to say if they can’t get advanced by fucking their way to the top, they turn to criminal methods of blackmail. But in your words, not mine, “the women saw nothing wrong with it…..they seemed not to have comprehended.” Are you saying here that women are innately immoral or innately ignorant? I’m not sure which way you’ve offended me. Maybe both.
Yes, I said that. And to clarify, I am saying that from their answers to follow-up questions they seemed ignorant more than immoral. And no, not “Innately ignorant”, whatever you mean by that. Some even then (upon being asked the follow-up questions) tried to explain that they were doing it to “protect themselves”. I suspect some were, and I suspect some were not above thinking about more sinister uses. I have no clue what the percentages might be.


Originally Posted by Old-T
--I made no statement remotely claiming “all”
Yes you did. You said, it is quite clear that today many young career women actively push themselves sexually on higher-ups not because they feel pressured to do so by the bosses, but because they are afraid their female competitors are doing so and they don’t want to be at a disadvantage”
Nope. “Many” is NOT “All”. You may have read it as such, but that would be an error on your part, not mine. And—as I clearly stated—it was near impossible in most cases to tell who pressured whom. YOU are assuming which way it was, not me.


Which women in this statement aren’t fucking their way to the top? The ones that are fucking their way to the top or the other women that are the conniving sluts think are fucking their way to the top.
Your categories are neither mutually exclusive nor collectively exhaustive. A woman could fall into both categories, and there are certainly women who fall into neither. That is logic error #1 on your part.

The other error in your logic—which seems fundamental to much of the false implications you draw is this: Because a woman THINKS having sex with someone will help her career is not the same as ACTUALLY having a positive (or negative) effect. I expect almost all the women who claimed they used sex as a tool to move up the ladder THOUGHT it would/did help them. In most cases we could not really determine if it did. There were definitely some instances where it seemed to help, but more that we could not discern. It could well have been the Prisoner’s Dilemma being played out in real life. Again, that was one of the reasons we had a hard time accounting for sexual activity as a causal variable. And why the study did NOT say women got to the top by sleeping with the boss. We said they slept with the boss because some of them THOUGHT it would help.


And all this brings us back to your statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old-T
--I have never stated that women make it to the board room because they sleep with the boss. I did say that many women themselves reported they have used sex as a tool for advancement. Others on here have corroborated my point.
No offence, but these two statements are in conflict with one another.
Actually, no they don’t. See above.


The one in red, which was your original “women are whores” comment says that some women were fucking their bosses for gain because they thought other women were doing it CLEARLY implies the person doing the talking is fucking her boss for advancement.
Yes, THOSE women were fucking their boss (or often their boss’ boss to be more accurate) because they THOUGHT it would help advance them. Not the same thing as your statement.


But later you go on to say it was OTHER women saying they heard that Suzie the Slut was fucking her boss and that’s why she made it all the way to Mail Room Supervisor. You can’t have it both ways.
Huh?!?!?!? Never said any such thing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Old-T
--I made no statement claiming cause and effect, only proximity. There was nothing to actually allow us to determine whether it was effective or not (though many of them thought it was). In fact I stated it was very difficult to account for the effect of sex in advancements—exactly the opposite of what you claim I said.
Of course you stated there was a cause and effect. You said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old-T
ne of the hardest issues we had to adjudicate how to count was the use of sexual favors by women. Most the time it was very difficult to distinguish decades later in individual cases whether women were pressured into sex or whether they initiated the use of sex to get an advantage. We found some clear cases of both, but many were unclear.
No what you said was you couldn’t account for who initiated the contact: the boss or the subordinate.
True, we couldn’t. And in most cases neither could we determine how much it did/didn’t actually help. Or whether the benefit came first and THEN she felt obliged to repay. How many times do I have to point out there was NO CAUSAL CLAIM MADE.


Then you go on to qualify your inane remark with this;
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old-T
That is another area where a study in 2030 will likely show very different results
Who are you trying to kid. You are saying women are sluts
No. I said no such thing. YOU read that into my comments. “Slut” is a very negatively connoted word.

, or conniving whores
Again, no, I did not say that—you are reading your anger into a statement I never made.


I'm not sure, that fuck their way to the top, but you’re not sure who iniated the sexual contact,
Correct, we could not tell who initiated it in most cases.


but you ARE sure there will be different results in 2030 as to whether the women fucked their way to the top? They were pressured to keep their job? Or that the slutty behavior wasn’t effective. Which is it?
You are REALLY off base now. That is not at all what I was saying. Based upon the changing attitudes about sexual conduct by the 20-30 y/o population I suspect the same study done in 2030, looking back on those who are “successful” at that time will find the people of both sexes more willing to talk open about what they did or didn’t do, and why. They seem much less likely to see anything wrong with having sex with the boss (or with anyone else if they feel like it). One of the problems we had this time was that the older MEN were very reluctant to talk about sex with coworkers which made it difficult to corroborate the stories of the women statistically. THAT I suspect will change. And no, I am not “sure” they will—but confident enough to wager a large meal on it.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Old-T
I never claimed it was “one of the three top reasons women were promoted”,
You claimed to be an expert then you listed three contributing factors to limiting or women’s economic advancement or to explain your hypothesis why women weren’t in fact at an economic disadvantage in the 70’s and 80’s:

The Good Ole Boy Era

The Mommy Track

Sexual Favors for the Men

That adds up to three. However, let’s suppose that you do not consider there the top three mitigating factors. If that’s the case, then being the self-proclaimed expert that you are, why did you list them?
Wrong again. In my initial post I mentioned:
--Children (the mommy track)
--Grades/recognition in school
--Experience, both qualitative & quantitative
--Blue collar vs white collar jobs
--Advanced degrees
--Diversity of skills
--Race
--Religion
--What specific church they went to
--Being well known in the company

My first mention of sexual activity—and my repeated message—was that while it almost certainly happens more than we would like to think, accounting for it is very difficult. YOU were the one who pulled it out and fixated on it to the exclusion of all the other items I mentioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old-T
--I stated that younger women in the workforce have less issues about using sex as a tool (or at least admit to it more openly than the older women we interviewed). This is in synch with general statements in many venues about the overall sexual mores of the 25-35 y/o generation. I have not made a value judgment that such changed sexual views are good or bad morals.
Exactly so. As I commented on above. Again.


Sex is more liberated now. People having sex in the workplace doesn’t mean they are having sex for advancement.
True. I never said it all was for that purpose. The women we interviewed said (some) of their sex was for that purpose. We had no reason to ask about their other sexual adventures in or out of the office.


Besides, the ACTUAL REAL WORLD antidotal evidence that you luv so much stated here is that the most junior person, for the purposes of this conversation I’ll stipulate that we are talking about the woman, are the ones to get the hit to their career. So, what’s your point?
I have no idea—what is your point? It looks like you are finally understanding that having sex because you THINK it will help your career is not the same as fining out it did.


Further, no you didn’t make an overt judgment regarding sexual behaviors, but you inadvertently did if, as you now claim, sexual favors was not one of the top contenders for why women advance / ed. So, ya, you kinda did make a moral judgement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old-T
--I never stated that people got promotions/opportunities they didn’t deserve because of sex.
We’re all adults here. Yes you did.
Hell no I didn’t! This one you completely made up. Try reading what I actually wrote. Here is a short tutorial on Cause & Effect:
--Some of the women interviewed said they has sex with a senior person in their org.
--Many of those thought it helped their career
--Much of that we could not confirm with hard data
--For those where we could confirm a “plum assignment” or a promotion. We could not confirm that the sex had anything to do with it. Maybe it did, maybe it didn’t. But many of the women thought it did.
--It is unknown whether they “deserved” the project/promotion. We assumed anyone who got it WAS deserving. There was essentially no way to differentiate. WE MADE NO STATEMENT THAT THEY WERE UNQUALIFIED, i.e. ‘UNDESERVING”. We didn’t go there at all. The issue of sex was NOT the primary point of the study. It was a side note at best, a footnote where we identified it as a factor we had difficulty addressing. Only you are trying to turn it into the primary issue.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Old-T
You keep claiming I drew conclusions I did not draw, and keep claiming I made value judgments I did not make. You can ask about the data and the study all you want—and I have answered what I can. But if you claiming I said something, please start giving the reference or shut up on those accusations.
See above.
Yes, see above.


You challenge your own data. You CLEARLY state that in several years you “antidotal” evidence that was testimonialized by OTHER women that THOUGHT that MAYBE their competitors were fucking the boss to get ahead. That’s not evidence. Evidence is if a woman plainly says “I fucked my boss and therefore I got the promotion”.
Yes, I caveated the data, acknowledging where there were verification issues. That is part of doing proper analysis.

Wrong on the other part. The statements were by women who said THEY had sex for advancement. Some of them said they did it because they thought others were doing it, but they said THEY THEMSELVES were as well. We used the first person statements as true, we ignored reference to others, other than for the reason the first person women did it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Old-T
But for the people who are willing to sell themselves body and soul to the corporations and aspire to the corner offices on the 50th floor, everything we found says the corporation cares most about how much profit you can generate, not what sex you are. Ruthlessness and 80 hour weeks are valued and rewarded.

This is absolutely who I was for many years. Like I said, with no college degree, I came up from data entry clerk at $8.00 per hour leaving Corporate USA fifteen years later in upper management of a division of a multi-national corporation whose parent company you’d easily recognize. I took the money I made and started my own company that made me even more money, and has afforded me even more independence and significant asset based, passive income. So, yes, I know about sixty to eighty hour work weeks and literally months of working with no days off.
I never claimed you didn’t.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Old-T
As a class, there seem to be fewer soul-less sleep deprived ruthless women than men. Personally, I think that is a complement towards women.
Who knows if this is true. Women have been acculturated to accept, since the dawn of time, to behave in a certain way. Things are changing. We’ll see in twenty years if this still stands as a truism.
I suspect the difference will shrink. Just as women are catching up to men in heart disease, I suspect they will be able to catch up to men in these negative areas as well. I do not think soul-less sleep deprived ruthlessness is something people should aspire to. Men or women.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Old-T
After statistically separating out factors such as education, grades, experience, duration, willingness to relocate, willingness to donate free hours to the company/organization, and every other factor we could isolate, we found no statistical difference between men and women’s salaries in the aggregate in the companies and organizations we studied.

Education – women were barred from certain instititutions and degree paths until I’d say the 60’s and in some instances up into the 70’s. It’s still going on today to a smaller degree. Remember the issue with the Harvard Business School. Until recently, men still outnumbered women graduating from college.
Agree, it was certainly true. I also agree it still happens in some cases. But our study was not to assess or fix the education system. If a man had a degree from Stanford and a woman from Northwest Eastern Carolina Regional University, yes, the man is likely to be making more. We looked only at from the entry point to the company/organization.


Grades – Female students were and still are driven towards certain subjects and therefore diploma types from k – 12. I do not know of any study that says female students make lower grades overall.
Actually, most studies I have seen show that women get higher grades. But you are right, not as many go into the hard-science/math subjects.

And while the schools likely do some steering of women into certain courses early on, the biggest influence in that seems to be family and peer pressure. Universities I work with will seriously fight over women who have good math/science skills coming out of HS. The problem is far below the University level. But again, I would not expect a company to solve that one.


Experience – From your own mouth the breakthrough to promoting women started in the 90’s.
No argument. I said before that it started earlier, but I can agree with the bow wave being in the 90s.


Duration – is a factor. It’s part of the Mommy Track.
Willingness to Relocate – Part of the same.
Long Work Weeks – Part of the same.
Yes, that all can be. Kids are certainly one influence on that. But again, a company will value the employee who doesn’t have gaps in service, and value the one who will relocate mid school year if that is where their need is. It isn’t that they are anti-mommy, they are pro-profit.


Here’s a true story. I worked for a company for about five years and was promoted up to manager at the same time four other work withs, that were all men, were promoted when the company re-organized creating this particular position.

Through the years, I quite twice. The first time I was given a stay-on package which I took. The second time the offer was too sweet and I left. At my new company, I offered two of the other four men that had the same position I had at the old company a spot where I went. We all three had pretty much the same work experience, though I can say I worked more than they did. When they faxed over their W2’s I was stunned. Literally stunned. One made almost twice what I had made and the other one made about 20% more than I had made. I hired them both, made more money that both of them and my work load decreased significantly.

Pardon if I don’t believe your conclusions. You wouldn’t be the first person to have an agenda and built evidence to support it.
And this is not the first time I have had someone who didn’t like the results of the analysis scream that I had an agenda—with zero evidence that I did.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Old-T
PS: Personally I see no moral difference between a woman who sleeps with a guy from here for direct financial gain, and a woman who sleeps with her boss for indirect financial gain. I see a significant difference in the potential risks on many levels, but not the moral difference. Do you? If so, why?
So we’re back to women being whores. Fine. Let me explain the difference between the two. Prostitutes are in the business of selling sex for money. Women working at other professions are in the business of whatever their business is not selling sex. Get real.
Still missing my point it seems. I didn’t ask for the legal definition difference, or the dictionary difference. I wasn’t claiming every woman at work is sleeping with the boss. And I asked strictly on a moral basis. FOR THE WOMEN WHO DO USE SEX AS A TOOL TO TRY AND GET AHEAD, whether it is one woman or a million of them, is there a moral difference between having sex with a guy for $5,000 for a weekend, or having sex with a guy for a $5,000 promotion?

My answer would be no, there is no moral difference—and I have no problem with either. To take it a step further, I also see no moral difference with a mistress, a sugar baby, etc. You seem to believe there is a very large moral difference. Why?

.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

What Unique_Carpenter said is that most people ignore moralists and misogynists that attempt to impose their beliefs on others. What I responded,

. Finally you admit you were responding to Unique_Carpenter and not me. Why did you keep lying about who you were responding to? I clearly stated I had not even entered the thread.


Originally Posted by OliviaHoward
The comment was in response to your using the word feminist like it's pejorative, because you think that feminism is a is a threat.

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by WTF

No , your belief that women should not call other women whore's. They judge you and then you judge folks that use the word whore. A lesson in futility.

I do believe women shouldn't call other women whores. But I have been known to say I use it referring to myself simply to take the power away from whore-hating whore-mongers. As in like a billion times to you alone.

Originally Posted by JESSE JAMES

I feel for you: W T F and Old T having to deal wIth the likes of .O.H' ……………………………She lies so much I don't think she knows what the truth is……………..

And the resident theif is back. You know the one that lost his P411 account because he’s a shoplifter. Oh, my bad, too old or illiterate to read the difference between Olivia Howard and Olivia88.

We forgot to tell the nice people that I called you and gave you twenty-four hours to call me. In fact, if you’d have called and explained, I’d have pretended to understand. You know everyone makes mistakes and all. I’d have laughed at you after I hung up as well as put a private alert out on you via text to all my working girl friends, but I can guarantee you I’d have written the other half of my fee off to avoid you stalking my reviews with your poisons and anonymous negative remarks.

Originally Posted by JESSE JAMES

……………….you don't think the best strategy would be to ignore her ?................

Might that be some good advice to yourself? But it’s ok. I luvs to death my haters.

Originally Posted by WTF

. Finally you admit you were responding to Unique_Carpenter and not me. Why did you keep lying about who you were responding to? I clearly stated I had not even entered the thread. [/SIZE][/FONT]

Yes, I never said I wasn't.

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward
The comment was in response to your using the word feminist like it's pejorative, because you think that feminism is a is a threat. [/QUOTE]

This is what I was responding to. I did not even remember the comment to U_C when you picked up this banner and started running with it like it's something other than a diversionary tactic.

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

And you male chauvinists aren't realistic if you think it will go on forever like it has. It will change. Maybe not in my lifetime, but it will. It's not lost on me why you've kept this topic going. One, and I thank you, but it's not necessary for you to make everything about me. But more importantly, you try to keep the population you want to control fighting so you are in charge of the chaos. Personally, I'm not interested in controlling people in general let alone that way. Too much static and effort.

To recap, I think any man that thinks feminism is a dirty word is a chauvinist. I also think that that any man telling women to ignore misogynists and / or moralists is being over simplistic.