This is probably the most naive article I've ever read. I'm stunned yet again this evening and I've only read three things on this site. -- at least I'm hoping that it is naive. Otherwise we're looking at either dreadfully challenged in the "short-bus & Scooby-Do lunch box" way, or sexist denier on the "foaming mouth" level.
"Here’s another inconvenient fact for the narrative:77 percent of human resources positions are held by women. Given that HR personnel are deeply involved in the areas of hiring, pay, promotion, and investigating workplace discrimination it’s a little hard to believe that all there’s an institutional bias against women…perpetrated by other women." -- Rob Port
Yes... because your low-paid HR person, frequently seen as an "over-paid secretary" -- and who you would not have at all if you could get away with it, but your insurance won't let you -- is so very often the person who negotiates salary and benefits.
Right, yes... that's the way it works, yes... let's go with that fantasy shall we?
I can recall that every time I've been interviewed it was the HR person who made those two decisions for the company. This of course is the HR person who has typically signed 3 separate contracts, which deny her the right to discuss anyones salary with anyone else, or offer any insight into how much should be asked for raises or any insight at all about who is getting what benefits...
And DEEPLY INVOLVED must indicated how far they had to walk to get you a cup of coffee and fetch the paperwork, yes?
When exactly have you ever SEEN the HR person on the first or last interview for any company of substance?
"And speaking of choices men and women make, how about this statistic: For every one female workplace death there are twelve male deaths."So, you are actually penalizing women for not choosing to die. Wow.
This is a stat which shows men are stupid. Alright? If they are working a job, which has this much risk, then --- this justifies that "other" men have the right to make more than women? I'm sorry, I'm just not clear what side of the equation you are creating should have the "X" we're solving for here. So, alright.. you are working a job that has a huge risk factor... like the Alaskan crab boats... huge risk there. Injury and death happening every year. Massively dangerous. What the Hell does that have to do with the VP of Marketing in ND? What is your correlation here? And what does that have to do with women --- at all?
See, what you have really done here is demonstrate the problem. Women in your eyes are not people. You have created arguments over and over which only make sense if Women are in fact, another race entirely, and are sub-class citizens of our country who also have an innate responsibility for their own class status -- Such as the argument, which was given so beautifully in the 1800s "Well, if he wasn't meant to be a slave, then God would not have made him a negro." -- only then do any of your arguments make sense.
How about this..-- Twelve men died today working on the side of the road picking up trash when a speeding car hit the brakes on a black-ice section of the freeway and careened into them, smashing the group into red and orange goo. -- So, we are docking your pay, because you have a nice safe job as a writer. And writers hardly ever get smashed into goo... but don't worry -- it's not meant as an insult. I have the highest regard for writers. I love reading. I do it at home all the time. I still respect you completely... and its not your fault that cars hardly ever crash into the fourth floor now is it? So we're not being insulting in anyway. Alright? It's just a matter of general fairness really. You're undoubtedly going to live longer so you simply should make less money.. because you'll .. well.. Because you will alright?!
Now, go home Rob, and kiss your wife, and thank her for not throwing your sexist ass out on the street, and promise never to be so fucking patronizing ever again.
