Feminism

[wizards8507]

Amy Schumer to Star in Live-Action ‘Barbie’ Movie at Sony | Variety

 

[IrishinSyria]

Good article. Post excerpts if you wish to.

Another way to calculate is by the number of total patients. Recall Planned Parenthood health centers saw 2.7 million patients (men and women) in 2013. If the 327,653 abortion procedures were given to individual patients, patients who received abortions would account for 12 percent of total patients.

Seems like the most sensible of all the proposed measures.

 

[tussin]

Bumping this to point out what an insufferable asshole Lena Dunham is. First she says that she "wishes she had an abortion," then claims it wasn't a scalding hot SJW take but a joke, and finally apologizes and blames her "delusional girl persona."

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/95693012/

A truly despicable human being.

 

[NorthDakota]

Bumping this to point out what an insufferable asshole Lena Dunham is. First she says that she "wishes she had an abortion," then claims it wasn't a scalding hot SJW take but a joke, and finally apologizes and blames her "delusional girl persona."

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/95693012/

A truly despicable human being.

It's very rarely I think people should do us all a favor and take themselves out....but Lena Dunham, a lady I didn't know existed a few months ago, might be one of those rare cases.

 

[Legacy]

GOLDMAN SACHS PROMOTES RECORD NUMBER OF WOMEN, AND IT’S STILL JUST 25 PERCENT
About 75 percent of those promoted at Goldman on Thursday were men. (Vanity Fair, Nov 2015)

Goldman Sachs promoted 425 employees on Thursday, and the numbers show that the old boys’ club on Wall Street is still an old boys’ club, just slightly less so.

The storied investment bank promoted a record proportion of women to managing director, the highest rank you can reach before becoming partner, and they still made up only 25 percent of those given the career boost. That means 106 out of the 425 employees are women; 319 are men.

In 2013, the last time the bank elevated employees to managing director, 20 percent of those promoted were women. A year earlier, it was 23 percent, and the year before that, 19 percent, according to a Goldman Sachs spokesman.

The gender gap is significant because these roles typically lead to larger base salaries and much-higher bonuses. The number is particularly striking when you consider that women make up 37 percent of total U.S. employees at the firm, according to Bloomberg. That means that if the vast majority of Goldman employees in general are men, and the vast majority of the people promoted are men, even those women who do manage to land a job at the firm are likely to lag behind when it comes to pay and the opportunity to advance within the company.

This has resulted in the bank being subject to a number of gender-discrimination lawsuits over the last five or so years. Two women, Cristina Chen-Oster and Shanna Orlich, first filed suit in 2010, and sought to expand it to a class action last year, to include nearly 1,800 female Goldman employees. The suit alleged that women were promoted more slowly, paid less, and working in a hostile “boys’ club” environment, according to Bloomberg. Goldman denied the allegation. Bloomberg also reported that another female employee settled a discrimination case with the bank in London earlier this year.

It would be remiss to position this as a problem unique to Goldman Sachs. Most major financial firms have faced similar lawsuits, including a sex-discrimination case against Morgan Stanley that settled for $54 million in 2004.

Looking at the raw pay data, it’s easy to see why. Jobs in the financial-services industry have some of the widest gender wage gaps, in line with supervisors of housekeepers and janitors, farmers, and morticians, according to a report from Fusion, based on Census data....

 

[NorthDakota]

GOLDMAN SACHS PROMOTES RECORD NUMBER OF WOMEN, AND IT’S STILL JUST 25 PERCENT
About 75 percent of those promoted at Goldman on Thursday were men. (Vanity Fair, Nov 2015)

37% of these employees are women?

What percentage of those are in administrative roles?

We aren't being given enough information.

 

[Legacy]

37% of these employees are women?

What percentage of those are in administrative roles?

We aren't being given enough information.

Goldman Sachs Promotes More Women Than Ever—But It’s Still Not Enough (Fortune)

The share of women with the MD title—the second-highest rank in the firm after partner—is now 25%, up from 20% in 2013, 23% in 2012 and 19% in 2011, according to Bloomberg. The bank did not name a class in 2014.

For context, the firm as whole is 37% female, while the total proportion of the U.S. workforce is 47% female. Clearly there is still work to be done to retain and develop women in a culture that has been compared to a "frat on steroids."

Goldman Sachs (GS, -0.55%) is also still battling a gender discrimination lawsuit, which was filed in 2010 by Cristina Chen-Oster and Shanna Orlich. In the filing, the firm's culture was described as a “‘boy’s club’ atmosphere, where binge drinking is common and women are either sexualized or ignored."

Goldman declined to comment on the suit or on the percentage of female employees and MDs.

On the plus side for the bank, its latest group of MDs shows more gender diversity than that of close competitor Morgan Stanley (MS, -2.06%), which recently announced a new class that's 22% female.

One possible way to speed up the pace of progress? Do what the British government recommends and tie banking executive's bonuses to how many women hold senior positions in their firms.

 

[NDPhilly]

I love that these articles from "reputable" news sources leave out the fact that women just aren't as interested in finance as men and it has nothing to do with discrimination. Every class I've taken pertaining to finance and Econ has been atleast 2/3 male.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I love that these articles from "reputable" news sources leave out the fact that women just aren't as interested in finance as men and it has nothing to do with discrimination. Every class I've taken pertaining to finance and Econ has been atleast 2/3 male.

A record number of our poorest countrymen are literally killing themselves out of despair, but let's make sure that the golden road between Harvard and Wall Street has just the right mix of Government-Approved Victim Classes on it. Liberalism is great.

 

[IrishLax]

Goldman Sachs Promotes More Women Than Ever—But It’s Still Not Enough (Fortune)

"Do what the British government recommends and tie banking executive's bonuses to how many women hold senior positions in their firms."

Soooo.... a quota for the sake of a quota, such that every woman with a senior position will then be unfairly judged as undeserving on account of perceived ulterior motives to promote.

The entire problem with the SJW mentality on "equality" it that it's based on the false premise that all people of every shape are the exact same so any statistical difference is based on an exterior factor. At some point people will realize that "traditional gender roles" exist for a reason. More girls inherently like to play with dolls than boys. More boys inherently like to roll around in the mud than girls. And when extrapolated to things like investment banking, even at the lowest levels (i.e. classrooms in undergraduate programs) the ratio to guys vs girls dedicated to achieving a highly-competitive, highly-selective career is skewed towards men. And then once in the workforce, the retention rate for women also drops precipitously for various organic reasons...

There are tons of female dominated industries (see: advertising) where the majority of the workforce is female. Even in those instances, many women struggle with balancing procreation with being career oriented and there are a lot of people who "quit" around the middle-management level by their own volition. There will always be disparate retention rates between genders in industries that require 80+ hours a week... it's not sexism, it's biology.

 

[GATTACA!]

"Do what the British government recommends and tie banking executive's bonuses to how many women hold senior positions in their firms."

Soooo.... a quota for the sake of a quota, such that every woman with a senior position will then be unfairly judged as undeserving on account of perceived ulterior motives to promote.

The entire problem with the SJW mentality on "equality" it that it's based on the false premise that all people of every shape are the exact same so any statistical difference is based on an exterior factor. At some point people will realize that "traditional gender roles" exist for a reason. More girls inherently like to play with dolls than boys. More boys inherently like to roll around in the mud than girls. And when extrapolated to things like investment banking, even at the lowest levels (i.e. classrooms in undergraduate programs) the ratio to guys vs girls dedicated to achieving a highly-competitive, highly-selective career is skewed towards men. And then once in the workforce, the retention rate for women also drops precipitously for various organic reasons...

There are tons of female dominated industries (see: advertising) where the majority of the workforce is female. Even in those instances, many women struggle with balancing procreation with being career oriented and there are a lot of people who "quit" around the middle-management level by their own volition. There will always be disparate retention rates between genders in industries that require 80+ hours a week... it's not sexism, it's biology.

Mansplaining.

Triggered.

Please check your privilege.

 

[irishroo]

Should also be noted that the 37% referenced in the quote represents GS as a whole, whereas MDs are in the front office investment banking/sales and trading divisions. NY Times reported that 77% of first year IBD/S&T analysts at GS in 2013 and 2014 were male. Not a perfect comparison because analysts are not the same as VPs or SVPs, but a decent proxy nonetheless.

 

[Legacy]

I love that these articles from "reputable" news sources leave out the fact that women just aren't as interested in finance as men and it has nothing to do with discrimination. Every class I've taken pertaining to finance and Econ has been atleast 2/3 male.

For those that are....

What It Was Like to Be a Woman at Goldman Sachs (Atlantic, 2012 before the lawsuits)

An older article, which cites 23% of MDs are female (latest is up to 25%), says that Goldman promoted 14% of the bank's newly promoted Partners are female. (Why Don't More Women Get Promoted at Goldman Sachs?)

 

[NDBoiler]

A record number of our poorest countrymen are literally killing themselves out of despair, but let's make sure that the golden road between Harvard and Wall Street has just the right mix of Government-Approved Victim Classes on it. Liberalism is great.

Whiskey is dead on as usual.

I'm still waiting to read the article that one day lets us know what the "correct" numbers are and by what authority that person or entity derives that power to make such a judgement. Pointing out an apparent problem without offering a concrete solution with a detailed plan to get there isn't accomplishing anything, that's just called complaining.

 

[Legacy]

A record number of our poorest countrymen are literally killing themselves out of despair, but let's make sure that the golden road between Harvard and Wall Street has just the right mix of Government-Approved Victim Classes on it. Liberalism is great.

For life expectancy, money matters
'You might expect two or three years of life differential ... but 10 or 15 years … it’s an immense difference'
(Harvard Gazette, April 11, 2016)

Being poor in the United States is so hazardous to your health, a new study shows, that the average life expectancy of the lowest-income classes in America is now equal to that in Sudan or Pakistan.

A Harvard analysis of 1.4 billion Internal Revenue Service records on income and life expectancy that showed staggering differences in life expectancy between the richest and poorest also found evidence that low-income residents in wealthy areas, such as New York City and San Francisco, have life expectancies significantly longer than those in poorer regions.

While those differences can be chalked up, in part, to healthy behaviors — low-income residents in New York City smoke and drink less, exercise more, and have lower rates of obesity than the poor in other cities — it’s unclear what other factors might contribute to the difference, said David Cutler, the Otto Eckstein Professor of Applied Economics and a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

“It’s not an overwhelming correlation with medical care or insurance coverage,” he said. “It’s not that the labor market is getting better — it’s not correlated with unemployment, or the expansion or contraction of the labor force, or how socially connected people feel. The only thing it seems to be correlated with is how educated and affluent the area is, so low-income people live longer in New York or San Francisco, and they live shorter in the industrial Midwest.”

Among men, that gap is 15 years, roughly equivalent to the life expectancy difference between the United States and Sudan. For women, the 10-year difference between richest and poorest is equivalent to the health effects from a lifetime of smoking. The study is described in a paper published in the Journal of the American Medical Association online on April 11.

“This paper really has two missions,” said Cutler. “One is to present this data, but the other is to create this data set so it can then be used by policymakers and researchers everywhere. This data has never been looked at with this level of granularity before.

The richest American men live 15 years longer than the poorest men, while the richest American women live 10 years longer than the poorest women, according to the Health Inequality Project. Graphic courtesy of David Cutler

“Previously, we could say what life expectancy was like in Massachusetts as compared to Michigan, but the problem is that Massachusetts is much richer than Michigan, and we know mortality varies with income,” he continued. “What we wanted to do was compare the same people in both cities — a shopkeeper in Detroit with a shopkeeper in Boston, not a biotech executive. That’s what we can do with this data that people haven’t been able to do previously.”

Cutler and his co-authors, including former Harvard Economics Professor Raj Chetty, now at Stanford University, collected federal tax records from 1999 through 2014, and sorted people into 100 percentiles according to income. By matching that income data with death records, the researchers were able to calculate the mortality rate and subsequent life expectancy at age 40 for each income level. (JAMA article link)

While researchers have long known that life expectancy increases with income, Cutler and others were surprised to find that trend never plateaued.

“There’s no income [above] which higher income is not associated with greater longevity, and there’s no income below which less income is not associated with lower survival,” he said. “It was already known that life expectancy increased with income, so we’re not the first to show that, but … everyone thought you had to hit a plateau at some point, or that it would plateau at the bottom, but that’s not the case.”

Cutler and Chetty then examined how life expectancy changed over time, and found that while life expectancy has increased for the wealthiest, it has edged up only slightly for low-income Americans.

“The increase has been approximately three years at the high end, versus zero for the lowest incomes,” Cutler said. “This is important, because it has major implications for Social Security policy. People say, ‘Americans are living longer, so we ought to delay the age of retirement,’ but … it’s a little bit unfair to say to low-income people that they’re going to get Social Security and Medicare for fewer years because investment bankers are living longer.”

When they laid the data over maps of the United States, Cutler and Chetty again found unexpected results, with low life expectancy concentrated not in the Deep South, but across the Midwest Rust Belt.

“What emerges strongly is that there is a belt from West Virginia, Kentucky, and down through parts of southern Ohio, through Oklahoma and into Texas — it’s not a story of the Deep South,” Cutler said. “The variability in where high-income people live longest is not as large and is much less geographically concentrated. You don’t see this same type of belt — it’s scattered all over.”

Going forward, Cutler, Chetty, and their co-authors have made the data publicly available in the hope it will spur further research into whether certain public policies or other economic indicators are associated with longer life expectancy. (Link- The Health Inequality Project)Cutler believes it also underscores some worrying truths about economic disparity in the United States.

“These differences are very, very troubling,” Cutler said. “The magnitude is startling. You might expect two or three years of life differential — which is roughly what we would get by curing cancer — but 10 or 15 years … it’s an immense difference. We don’t know exactly why or what to do about it, but now we have the tools to ask those questions.”

The research was supported by the U.S. Social Security Administration by a grant to the National Bureau of Economic Research as part of the SSA Retirement Research Consortium, the National Institutes of Health, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Smith Richardson Foundation, and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation.

Whiskey,
This study should reinforce your point about worsening wealth and income inequality disparities adversely affecting health and life expectancy in widening longevity gaps.

 

[Irish#1]

"Do what the British government recommends and tie banking executive's bonuses to how many women hold senior positions in their firms."

Soooo.... a quota for the sake of a quota, such that every woman with a senior position will then be unfairly judged as undeserving on account of perceived ulterior motives to promote.

The entire problem with the SJW mentality on "equality" it that it's based on the false premise that all people of every shape are the exact same so any statistical difference is based on an exterior factor. At some point people will realize that "traditional gender roles" exist for a reason. More girls inherently like to play with dolls than boys. More boys inherently like to roll around in the mud than girls. And when extrapolated to things like investment banking, even at the lowest levels (i.e. classrooms in undergraduate programs) the ratio to guys vs girls dedicated to achieving a highly-competitive, highly-selective career is skewed towards men. And then once in the workforce, the retention rate for women also drops precipitously for various organic reasons...

There are tons of female dominated industries (see: advertising) where the majority of the workforce is female. Even in those instances, many women struggle with balancing procreation with being career oriented and there are a lot of people who "quit" around the middle-management level by their own volition. There will always be disparate retention rates between genders in industries that require 80+ hours a week... it's not sexism, it's biology.

+1...........It's always been biology. Some refuse to believe it

 

[Legacy]

Whiskey is dead on as usual.

I'm still waiting to read the article that one day lets us know what the "correct" numbers are and by what authority that person or entity derives that power to make such a judgement. Pointing out an apparent problem without offering a concrete solution with a detailed plan to get there isn't accomplishing anything, that's just called complaining.

Since we can agree that the problem is affording Equal Opportunity, but you have not seen a detailed Action Plan that accomplishes that goal, one starting point for you might be the Supreme Court's decisions on EO issues.

Selected Supreme Court Decisions (EEOC)

As for G-S's gender discrimination lawsuits, they work towards preventing cases with multiple female complaintants's suits becoming class action suits and settling out of court. One current case:
Goldman Sachs Gender Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit
Chen-Oster v. Goldman Sachs, Inc., Case No. 10-6950 (S.D.N.Y.).

Lieff Cabraser and Outten & Golden serve as Co-Lead Counsel for plaintiffs in a gender discrimination class action lawsuit against Goldman Sachs. The complaint alleges that Goldman Sachs has engaged in systemic and pervasive discrimination against its female professional employees in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York City Human Rights Law. The complaint charges that, among other things, Goldman Sachs pays its female professionals less than similarly situated males, disproportionately promotes men over equally or more qualified women, and offers better business opportunities and professional support to its male professionals.

class action status was denied, but that is being appealed.

A recent settlement:
Goldman Sachs settles sex discrimination case with former analyst (Guardian) (in London)

Of course legal recourse is generally not available to middle and low income complaintants due to expense.

 

[Wild Bill]

Of course legal recourse is generally not available to middle and low income complaintants due to expense.

Right, b/c there is a real shortage of degenerate attorneys willing to enter into a contingency agreement with a plaintiff, rich or poor, who has the facts on their side.

 

[Legacy]

Right, b/c there is a real shortage of degenerate attorneys willing to enter into a contingency agreement with a plaintiff, rich or poor, who has the facts on their side.

Imagine yourself in this position. Sitting at a stop light, you are rear-ended by someone who is distracted totaling your car. He carries the minimum for liability at $10,000 towards your $20,000 car replacement. Your insurance covers the remaining $10,000 so you can replace your car, recovering it from him with a lawsuit, since he is clearly liable and responsible.

You have ongoing medical bills (non-hospitalized) and miss work time, amounting to another $10,000. His insurance stalls, refuses to pay those costs, and finally offers $1,000. You look for a lawyer who will take your case against them for the $10,000. If the lawyer charges $100-200 an hour, how fast will their cut of $10,000 be consumed? Expect the insurance company to stall the lawyer, request more documentation, with phone consultations, etc. etc.

Lawyers for these kind of cases are difficult to find because it may not be worth their time - unlike a GS lawsuit for a $200k a year ex-employee or a class action suit. Females (or males) with lower level salaries at GS, for example, would also find it similarly difficult to find someone to take a case on contingency.

 

[Legacy]

LISTEN LIVE: Women's March Floods Washington, Sparking Rallies Nationwide

Admirable that with so many in so many cities that there's no violence.

Crowds Swamp Washington for Anti-Trump Women's March (Fox)

Impressive organization.

Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy (Breitbart)

I doubt anyone here believes this, but posted for humor.

 

[wizards8507]

 

[NDBoiler]

Whenever the pro life vs pro choice debate comes up, I often think of the famous quote from Ronald Reagan on abortion - "I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." If you honestly look at it that way, it will probably cause some serious soul searching to take place.

 

[wizards8507]

Whenever the pro life vs pro choice debate comes up, I often think of the famous quote from Ronald Reagan on abortion - "I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." If you honestly look at it that way, it will probably cause some serious soul searching to take place.

 

[IrishinSyria]

 

[Legacy]

Where we are on abortion statistics...

U.S. Abortion Rate Reaches Record Low Amidst Looming Onslaught Against Reproductive Health and Rights (Guttmacher Institute)

The U.S. abortion rate reached a record low in 2014, for the first time falling below its level in 1973—the year abortion became legal nationwide.1 The January 2017 publication of these new abortion data coincides with the arrival of the Trump administration and the 115th Congress, both hostile toward abortion rights and toward programs and policies that ensure access to affordable contraceptive care. The federal government is widely expected to pursue far-reaching policy changes that will have a negative impact on reproductive health and rights. In the daily lives of many women, these changes will be layered on top of the state-level onslaught against abortion access and family planning services that has been ongoing since 2011.2

A previous study on abortion rates from 2008-2011 showed abortion rate had fallen to 16.9 per 1000 women ages 15-44, the lowest in 40 years, since the Roe v Wade decision (16.3). The latest study cited above covers up to 2014 with the rate of 14.6. By 2017....?

 

[wizards8507]

 

[Bishop2b5]

Serious question: Why does the woman above (and her like-minded friends) think someone should provide her with free birth control? As we know, it's not really free. She just wants it to be free for her, which means someone else has to pay for it.

 

[wizards8507]

Serious question: Why does the woman above (and her like-minded friends) think someone should provide her with free birth control? As we know, it's not really free. She just wants it to be free for her, which means someone else has to pay for it.

They have a different view of liberty than you or I. You and I believe in "negative liberty," which means we can do whatever we want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else or infringe on their ability to do the same. These people want to be able to do whatever they want, period. Meaning no consequences and no responsibility. They're completely oblivious to the fact that getting something without working for it means that someone, somewhere, had to work for and and not receive.

 

[Rack Em]

Serious question for anyone who has followed the marches today. What is the agenda and what do they reasonably expect to happen? I honestly cannot tell.

 

[wizards8507]

Serious question for anyone who has followed the marches today. What is the agenda and what do they reasonably expect to happen? I honestly cannot tell.

Pro-abortion has been the driving issue. Anti-Trump a close second.