Jerry Boggs | Arkansas news, politics, opinion, restaurants, music, movies and art

Jerry Boggs 
Member since May 30, 2012


Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Stats

Recent Comments

Re: “Rolling Stone forgot the truth

Good commentary!

Of all the facts you presented, this shocked me the most:

"Have I mentioned that Erdely teaches journalism classes at the University of Pennsylvania?"

Let's look at this Rolling Stone mess from another view that few have considered:

Suppose a UAV male student had accused seven unnamed campus women of assaulting him. How long after it was learned that he had made a false accusation would he be protected, his ID shielded? Ten seconds? How soon would he be hounded out of town?

To me, the real issue is that this case, along with many of the responses it generated, reflects the different way society, including both Rolling Stone and the Columbia Journalism Review, still generally tends to see men and women: women in a more favorable light and men in a more negative light, a fundamental anti-male sexism that drives the image of women as victims and men as victimizers.

That image, I believe, is mainly how Erdely found the courage to ignore journalistic integrity and write a wildly unsubstantiated piece, and Rolling Stone to publish it.

A primary root cause of the female-victim/male-victimizer image is examined in:

"The Sexual Harassment Quagmire: How To Dig Out" http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2011/1…

Posted by Jerry Boggs on 04/09/2015 at 10:13 AM

Re: “Control of the U.S. Senate: Is black turnout the key?

All Democrats have to do to secure votes is study President Obama's campaign and resort to their previous strategy.

"Why Barack Obama Won Twice" http://relevantmatters.wordpress.com/2013/…

2 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Jerry Boggs on 08/31/2014 at 8:23 AM

Re: “Democrats press equal pay; lots to work with

It does absolutely no good to say this:

In general, women don't just live longer and enjoy better health than men, who on average die sooner and at a higher rate of the 12 leading causes of death. They as a group also control most of the consumer spending and most of the nation's wealth. Soon they will control even more.

"Over the next decade, women will control two thirds of consumer wealth in the United States and be the beneficiaries of the largest transference of wealth in our country’s history. Estimates range from $12 to $40 trillion. Many Boomer women will experience a double inheritance windfall, from both parents and husband." -http://www.she-conomy.com/facts-on-women

The typical wife is 2.5 years younger than her husband and she outlives him by five years. Thus she enjoys her and her husband's wealth 7.5 years longer than the husband, who much more often than she created their wealth alone.

To put these statements in the proper gender perspective, reverse the sexes in them. Just by themselves, the statements would signify enough male power, privilege, and advantage that feminists would explode out onto the streets in visceral, thunderous protest.

Women are hardly the oppressed group that the Democrats want us to think women are -- the group that is actually the longer-living, healthier, AND wealthier group.

And men are hardly the powerful group that the Democrats want us to think men are. Men are perceived as having more power than women because of the apex fallacy. "The apex fallacy is the idea that we use the most visible members of a group to make generalizations about the entire group; i.e., we see prominent men at the top of the pyramid and think all men are doing well, when in fact there are a great many at the bottom of the pyramid, too." -Alison Beard, a senior editor at Harvard Business Review

About the gender wage gap, women's 77 cents to men's dollar:

No doubt most pay-equity advocates think employers are greedy profiteers who'd hire only illegal immigrants for their lower labor cost if they could get away with it. Or who'd move their business to a cheap-labor country to save money. Or replace old workers with young ones for the same reason. So why do these same advocates think employers would NOT hire only women if, as they say, employers DO get away with paying females at a lower rate than males for the same work?

Here are two telling examples showing that some of America's most sophisticated women choose to earn less than male counterparts:

"...[O]nly 35 percent of women who have earned MBAs after getting a bachelor’s degree from a top school are working full time." It "is not surprising that women are not showing up more often in corporations’ top ranks." http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2014/0…

“In 2011, 22% of male physicians and 44% of female physicians worked less than full time, up from 7% of men and 29% of women from Cejka’s 2005 survey.” ama-assn.org/amednews/2012/03/26/bil10326.… (See also "Female Docs See Fewer Patients, Earn $55,000 Less Than Men" http://finance.yahoo.com/news/female-docs-…)

A thousand laws won't close those gaps.

In fact, no law yet has closed the gender wage gap — not the 1963 Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, not Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, not the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, not affirmative action (which has benefited mostly white women, the group most vocal about the wage gap - tinyurl.com/74cooen), not the 1991 amendments to Title VII, not the 1991 Glass Ceiling Commission created by the Civil Rights Act, not the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act, not the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, not the Americans with Disability Act (Title I), not diversity, not the countless state and local laws and regulations, not the thousands of company mentors for women, not the horde of overseers at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, not TV's and movies' last two decades of casting women as thoroughly integrated into the world of work, and not the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Nor will the Paycheck Fairness Act and President Obama's executive-order salary transparency law for federal contractors.

That's because women's pay-equity advocates, who always insist one more law is needed, continue to overlook the effects of female AND male behavior:

Despite the 40-year-old demand for women's equal pay, millions of wives still choose to have no pay at all. In fact, according to Dr. Scott Haltzman, author of "The Secrets of Happily Married Women," stay-at-home wives, including the childless who represent an estimated 10 percent, constitute a growing niche. "In the past few years,” he says in a CNN report at tinyurl.com/6reowj, “many women who are well educated and trained for career tracks have decided instead to stay at home.” (“Census Bureau data show that 5.6 million mothers stayed home with their children in 2005, about 1.2 million more than did so a decade earlier....” at tinyurl.com/qqkaka. If indeed a higher percentage of women is staying at home, perhaps it's because feminists and the media have told women for years that female workers are paid less than men in the same jobs — so why bother working outside the home if they're going to be penalized and humiliated for being a woman, as illustrated by such titles as this: "Gender wage gap sees women spend 7 weeks working for nothing" http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/cwgba….)

As full-time mothers or homemakers, stay-at-home wives earn zero. How can they afford to do this while in many cases living in luxury? Answer: Because they're supported by their husband, an “employer” who pays them to stay at home. (Far more wives are supported by a spouse than are husbands.)

The implication of this is probably obvious to most 12-year-olds but seems incomprehensible to, or is wrongly dismissed as irrelevant by, feminists and the liberal media: If millions of wives are able to accept NO wages, millions of other wives, whose husbands' incomes vary, are more often able than husbands to:

-accept low wages
-refuse overtime and promotions
-choose jobs based on interest first, wages second — the reverse of what men tend to do (The leading job for American women as of 2010 is -- has been for over 40 years -- secretary or administrative assistant. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/g…)
-take more unpaid days off
-avoid uncomfortable wage-bargaining (tinyurl.com/3a5nlay)
-work fewer hours on average than men (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.h…), or work less than full-time more often than their male counterparts (as in the above example regarding physicians)

Any one of these job choices lowers women's median pay relative to men's. And when a wife makes one of the choices, her husband often must take up the slack, thereby increasing HIS pay.

Women who make these choices are generally able to do so because they are supported — or, if unmarried, anticipate being supported — by a husband who feels pressured to earn more than if he'd chosen never to marry. (Married men earn more than single men, but even many men who shun marriage, unlike their female counterparts, feel their self worth is tied to their net worth.) This is how MEN help create the wage gap: as a group they tend more than women to pass up jobs that interest them for ones that pay well.

Find out what law would close the gender wage gap almost overnight in:

"Does the Ledbetter Act Help Women?" malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/wi…

Posted by Jerry Boggs on 08/27/2014 at 11:39 AM

Re: “Arkansas: Red state on female mortality

Do these people realize there's another group that makes up almost half of the population -- men? On average males have poorer health, a shorter life span, and die sooner of the 14 leading causes of death.

Concern only for women's health is like concern only for men's financial well-being.

If you are an ideological feminist or anyone who doesn't think a male side to the gender dynamic exists, please be sitting down when you read:

“The Doctrinaire Institute for Women's Policy Research: A Comprehensive Look at Gender Equality”
http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2012/0…

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Jerry Boggs on 04/05/2013 at 11:59 AM

Re: “War on Women continues: Republicans again kill ERA in Senate committee

Here's a bit of the balance that is missing in many of the comments.

If you are an ideological feminist or anyone who doesn't think a male side to the gender dynamic exists, please be sitting down when you read:

“The Doctrinaire Institute for Women's Policy Research: A Comprehensive Look at Gender Equality”
http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2012/0…

Posted by Jerry Boggs on 04/03/2013 at 9:41 AM

Re: “Saturday To-Do: Rally for Reproductive Justice

On one side of a sheet of paper, list women's reproductive rights (and women's rights generally in the world of children), and on the other side, list men's. Stare at it.

Do you think there is a war on women -- or on men?

Test your blind sexism: "Wives Belong at Home with the Kids"
http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2012/0…

See "A Male Matter’s Explanation of The World of Children/The World of Work"
http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2012/0…

Then explore:

"The World of Children and the World of Work"
http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/catego…

Posted by Jerry Boggs on 03/23/2013 at 10:18 AM

Re: “Secret stalkers

Democrats wage an insidious war on women, a war that, oddly enough, is undergirded by an unrecognized war on men. If it sounds too complicated, don't bother reading:

"Is there a war on women?" http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2012/0…

See this as an example of the real war, the war on men: "The very worst Canadian feminists in action" at http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2012/1…

Posted by Jerry Boggs on 12/13/2012 at 5:19 PM

All Comments »


 

© 2018 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation