Prominent Republican: Women Need To Be Paid Less So They Can Find Husbands

[Crabtownboy]

It's clear to me what Phylllis is saying.

She is saying that the primary characteristic that a woman looks for in a husband is his money. And, if SHE has money, then she won't need a man - or won't be able to find one because she looking for one who makes more than her.

I wish I could talk to her in person. She's so misguided here in her blanket statements and broadbrushing of women as money-seekers.

I wish you could talk to her also. I have a feeling you could "bend her ear" as my mother used to say.

She insulted both men and women.

Annsni, yes, I thought of women who support their husbands while the husband is in college.

Also there are wives whose husbands are disabled. They have to work also.

 

[InTheLight]

No one here should be scoffing at her achievements in that regard....
Whether someone likes all her views or not....
She was academically gifted and very intelligent.

You wouldn't know it judging by what she said in the linked article. Or by these quotes:

“Men should stop treating feminists like ladies, and instead treat them like the men they say they want to be.”

“Sexual harassment on the job is not a problem for virtuous women”

"Putting women in military combat is the cutting edge of the feminist goal to force us into an androgynous society.”

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

You wouldn't know it judging by what she said in the linked article.

The linked article is a crock. It is dishonest liberal spin on a conservative icon's factual statements, lifting her comments out of context and making them appear empty-headed and out of touch. If you actually read Schlafly's editorial in the Christian Post, you'll see what I mean. All she did was reflect truth and reality for the majority of modern American women. She didn't propose any of these facts as optimum, and she certainly didn't endorse any of them.

But none of you bothered to read the editorial, did you? You just read the media's spin and took it as "gospel."

Y'all need to get your heads out of dark places and find out what is really being said. Most of you need to repent for leaping to conclusions based on biased information.

And if you're going to disparage Schlafly for a correct analysis, you might want to take CNN and ABC to task while you're at it.

CNN: Why marrying for money isn't a bad idea

ABC News: Smart Women Marry Rich, Says New Book

 

[InTheLight]

[ If you actually read [URL="http://www.christianpost.com/news/facts-and-fallacies-about-paycheck-fairness-117959/']Schlafly's editorial in the Christian Post[/URL], you'll see what I mean. All she did was reflect truth and reality for the majority of modern American women. She didn't propose any of these facts as optimum, and she certainly didn't endorse any of them.

But none of you bothered to read the editorial, did you? You just read the media's spin and took it as "gospel."

This is in the original article:

"Suppose the pay gap between men and women were magically eliminated. If that happened, simple arithmetic suggests that half of women would be unable to find what they regard as a suitable mate.

Obviously, I'm not saying women won't date or marry a lower-earning men, only that they probably prefer not to. If a higher-earning man is not available, many women are more likely not to marry at all."

http://m.christianpost.com/news/facts-and-fallacies-about-paycheck-fairness--117959/

This idea that half of all women (or is it many women, hard to tell) will not get married because they make the same or make more money than a potential mate is poppycock. That's just a dumb statement. It ignores other motivations for getting married like the desire to have children, wanting to be loved, companionship, etc. There is no spin being made on her statements, they are right there where any one can see them.

Y'all need to get your heads out of dark places and find out what is really being said. Most of you need to repent for leaping to conclusions based on biased information.

OK, Zaac.

 

[Crabtownboy]

You wouldn't know it judging by what she said in the linked article. Or by these quotes:

“Men should stop treating feminists like ladies, and instead treat them like the men they say they want to be.”

“Sexual harassment on the job is not a problem for virtuous women”

"Putting women in military combat is the cutting edge of the feminist goal to force us into an androgynous society.”

Responding to your comments in the order they appear in your post.

1. I wonder how she thinks men should treat men?
2. So it is the woman's fault that a man harasses her sexually as automatically this means she invited the harassment. Shads of, it is her fault she was raped. Rather like in Paskistan where women are executed because they were raped.
3. So far out it is flabbergasting .

 

[Bro. Curtis]

The O/P is grossly mis-titled. She is not a prominent republican. The rest of the info in this thread has to be taken with the title in mind, that this is a pretty dishonest attack on republicans.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

………..

OK, Zaac.

Good one. I LOL'ed.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

This is in the original article:

"Suppose the pay gap between men and women were magically eliminated. If that happened, simple arithmetic suggests that half of women would be unable to find what they regard as a suitable mate.

Did you note the context??? Schlafly is simply stating the facts regarding the choices American women are making. And she concludes the article by suggesting a strategy based on the choices they're making. She precedes that statement with:

Schlafly: In two segments of our population, the pay gap has virtually ceased to exist. In the African-American community and in the millennial generation (ages 18 to 32), women earn about the same as men, if not more.

It just so happens that those are the two segments of our population in which the rate of marriage has fallen the most. Fifty years ago, about 80 percent of Americans were married by age 30; today, less than 50 percent are.

Again, if you folks aren't going to read the whole, original article in context, your comments are useless.

 

[InTheLight]

Did you note the context??? Schlafly is simply stating the facts regarding the choices American women are making. And she concludes the article by suggesting a strategy based on the choices they're making. Again, if you folks aren't going to read the whole, original article in context, your comments are useless.

Yep, I read the whole article. Schlafly is not "stating facts" she's making biased assumptions. She's saying if the pay gap were to disappear half of American women would not get married because they prefer a man that makes more money than they do. This is unsupportable drivel.

 

[go2church]

Too funny a conservative woman telling other woman not to do the same thing she did. Oh well.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Yep, I read the whole article. Schlafly is not "stating facts" she's making biased assumptions. She's saying if the pay gap were to disappear half of American women would not get married because they prefer a man that makes more money than they do. This is unsupportable drivel.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever ...

 

[InTheLight]

And if you're going to disparage Schlafly for a correct analysis, you might want to take CNN and ABC to task while you're at it.

CNN: Why marrying for money isn't a bad idea

Article is a personal anecdote about what the author of the blog would prefer to do and does not provide any evidence or statistics that women are not marrying because they are looking for a man with more income than they have.

ABC News: Smart Women Marry Rich, Says New Book

Excerpt from the article:

The best hope for a stable and satisfying marriage is one where both husband and wife share the bread-winning, child care and housework, according to Coontz.

"Women mostly say it is less important to have a man earn a lot of money than a man who can communicate and share his feelings," she said. "And that doesn't mean they want to marry a deadbeat."

The book's authors agree that economic equality is important.


Epic Fail.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Article is a personal anecdote about what the author of the blog would prefer to do and does not provide any evidence or statistics that women are not marrying because they are looking for a man with more income than they have.

Anyone who doesn't see the appearance of blogs on the subject as being indicative of a trend of thought among the members of the demographic to which it is directed has their head in the sand, or their fingers in their ears going "nananana, I can't hear you."

That's the "epic fail" here. Bloggers don't write of things which no one will read.

If you want statistics, though, I can provide those, too, proving Schlafly is just writing about confirmed trends, and it isn't just women who are looking for love in a cash drawer or a checking account.

Wall Street Journal: Marrying for Love ... of Money

According to a survey by Prince & Associates, a Connecticut-based wealth-research firm, the average "price" that men and women demand to marry for money these days is $1.5 million.

The survey polled 1,134 people nationwide with incomes ranging between $30,000 to $60,000 (squarely in the median range for nationwide incomes). The survey asked: "How willing are you to marry an average-looking person that you liked, if they had money?"

Fully two-thirds of women and half of the men said they were "very" or "extremely" willing to marry for money. The answers varied by age: Women in their 30s were the most likely to say they would marry for money (74%) while men in their 20s were the least likely (41%).

The emboldened phrase near the end is the exact demographic Schlafly was talking about. Not so old, doddering and out of touch as some of you who didn't bother to research the subject thought, huh?

Sometimes I don't know why I bother ...

 

[Inspector Javert]

Anyone who doesn't see the appearance of blogs on the subject as being indicative of a trend of thought among the members of the demographic to which it is directed has their head in the sand, or their fingers in their ears going "nananana, I can't hear you."

That's the "epic fail" here. Bloggers don't write of things which no one will read.

If you want statistics, though, I can provide those, too, proving Schlafly is just writing about confirmed trends, and it isn't just women who are looking for love in a cash drawer or a checking account.The emboldened phrase near the end is the exact demographic Schlafly was talking about. Not so old, doddering and out of touch as some of you who didn't bother to research the subject thought, huh?

Sometimes I don't know why I bother ...

:thumbsup::thumbsup:
I'm wondering if any of these detractors understand that Schlafly is merely making DESCRIPTIVE statements, not PRESCRIPTIVE statements....and she is dealing with the choices that women themselves are making.

Nothing in the article is offensive. Her larger point is about how "equal-pay" trends are deceptive.....She's right, they are.

 

[Inspector Javert]

“Men should stop treating feminists like ladies, and instead treat them like the men they say they want to be.”

I don't disagree.
She is aware of the larger reality that the modern/ post-modern feminist doesn't want "equality" at all.

“Sexual harassment on the job is not a problem for virtuous women”

As a general statement....this also holds true, I believe. Obviously, it's a generalization, but this is wise insight. I would agree that a truly virtuous woman who carries herself as such is less likely (far less likely) to be the victim of sexual harassment than one who does not.

"Putting women in military combat is the cutting edge of the feminist goal to force us into an androgynous society.”

I agree 100%.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

:thumbsup::thumbsup:
I'm wondering if any of these detractors understand that Schlafly is merely making DESCRIPTIVE statements, not PRESCRIPTIVE statements....and she is dealing with the choices that women themselves are making.

Apparently, in these parts, just you and me. :thumbsup:

Nothing in the article is offensive. Her larger point is about how "equal-pay" trends are deceptive.....She's right, they are.

Absolutely. And she takes that fact, adds in the trends as I've proven are in play, and diagnoses the natural outcome.

 

[annsni]

"The survey polled 1,134 people nationwide with incomes ranging between $30,000 to $60,000 (squarely in the median range for nationwide incomes). The survey asked: "How willing are you to marry an average-looking person that you liked, if they had money?"

See, I don't see this question as being "would you marry for money?" I would answer the opposite question the same: How willing are you to marry an average-looking person that you liked, if they had no money?" I'd say that I would be very willing for this question as much as the other question. I would marry any looking person with any amount of money if they loved the Lord, we got along well and we had a plan for the future. It's not the money and it's not the looks that are important to me. So I'd say that a survey with that question would not be honest because the question is not written well.

 

[go2church]

Whatever you want to believe about Eagle Forum and Phyllis is fine.

But the virtuous woman comment is so ignorant and akin to blaming the woman for being sexually harassed. Not very bright statement.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Sure, I've no doubt that you think that way Ann. And there's nothing wrong with that. But, the general trend is that women themselves tend to prefer (and this is their choice) a mate which makes more than they do/ can be a provider.

As a young man who had no money....I used to call that "gold-digging".

Now that I'm older (and have a little) I realize that being a provider is inherently Scriptural, it is a critical part of my duties as a husband and father, and the practical considerations of a man who is financially capable and stable is something women SHOULD look for. (We even insisted on that being included in my wedding vows). A man has a BIBLICAL mandate to do all he can to shoulder the burden of providing for his family. Granted, in our Western Romantic outlook; we want Romantic Love to be an integral part of marriage, and that's fine. But, that shouldn't mitigate men's responsibilities.

But Schlaflys point isn't to make a commentary about marriage, it's to dispel myths about the supposed "un-fairness" of un-equal pay by sexes. Women, on average do make less....but her point is that it is BY CHOICE.

Her point about women preferring men who make more money is that if men AREN'T BEING the providers that these women prefer, and we aren't focusing on helping them do better and make more, than women will be less likely to find what they consider to be IDEAL mates. You'll notice she ends the column carping about high-paying blue-collar jobs that men traditionally take. This is the important point she concludes with:

Just a coincidence? I think not. The best way to improve economic prospects for women is to improve job prospects for the men in their lives, even if that means increasing the so-called pay gap.

The real economic story of the past 30 years is that women's pay has effectively risen to virtual parity, but men's pay has stagnated and thousands of well-paid blue-collar jobs have been shipped to low-wage countries. Nobody should be surprised that the marriage rate has fallen, the age of first marriage has risen, and marriage, in general, has become unstable.

Notice that she speaks in terms of women's OVERALL "economic prospects" (not simple wages) ....and they are entailed largely in increasing the prospects of the men in their lives.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Whatever you want to believe about Eagle Forum and Phyllis is fine.

But the virtuous woman comment is so ignorant and akin to blaming the woman for being sexually harassed. Not very bright statement.

It is not akin to "blaming the woman". And it is informed and correct. It's a generalization of course, but Schlafly assumes people are smart enough to realize that. Therein only did she err.

Don't you tell your daughters, "If it isn't for sale, don't advertise"?
Why?

Women who have the demeanor or appearance of being more "loose" WILL be targeted for "sexual harassment" more than women who dress and act modestly and virtuous. It helps protect women.
You are not doing women any favours nor truly caring to protect them from such harassment if you refuse to tell them the truth and encourage them to dress or act any kind of way.

That is a coward move.

Any man who TRULY CARES will encourage them to help themselves by dressing and acting virtuously and modestly.

Ask yourself HONESTLY...
Setting aside any celebrity status:

Put Miley Cyrus and Katherine Hepburn in the same working environment....
which one is MORE LIKELY to suffer from sexual harassment???

If you answered Miley, you are correct
If you answered neither, than you are deceiving yourself, and buying into relativist thinking.
If you answered Katherine....you are deranged.

Phyllis is right. There are exceptions of course.....any thinking person already will know that.