Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Men with traditional views of women, belief in male superiority, earn more money than those who are seduced by the idea of equality between the sexes after salaries were adjusted for other factors. Men with traditional attitudes about gender roles earned $11,930 more a year than men with egalitarian views. This seemed to distress the researchers. It's heretical to leftist dogma.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

Johnson

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

"This seemed to distress the researchers. It's heretical to leftist dogma."

But it's fine with me.
But I digress. . .
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
Ahem . . .
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
~Johnson "You Can Call Me Ray" Johnson.

Correlation does not imply causation.

I am sure that there are variables and factors that can explain this difference. For example, people who are hotshots and earn a boatload of money may have the "luxury" of having their wives stay at home.

The apologetics begin.

Another brilliant contribution by "Doc" Sarvis, who has a doctor's degree in what? Spewing misinformation? Is there a DrBS? It must be issued by a leftist "people's university," since what other institution would accord "Doc," recognition? And the major, "Doc," it it in "baffling them with bullshit" in the absence of anything credible?

#2 | Posted by member2586 at 2008-09-23 10:04 AM

Correlation does not imply causation.

Are you sure that you want to use the word, "imply," here?
I am sure that there are variables and factors that can explain this difference. For example, people who are hotshots and earn a boatload of money may have the "luxury" of having their wives stay at home.

Just why are you "sure," 2586? The people doing what may be a sort of longitudinal study, weren't able to come up with a "reason" compatible with their "liberal" outlook after adjusting for a variety of factors. Keep in mind that the "populations" were selected early on and the ages at which the categorization occurred, also considering the level of involvement with money-making activities at the time. Why again are you "sure" without access to information, that there is some explanation compatible with leftist ideology?

Could it be something quite basic in the nature of men who are not feminized and/or not subject to being browbeaten and succumbing to feminist ideological precepts regarding the sexes being "the same" despite all sorts of physiological markers to the contrary, that enables them to prevail over less assertive feminized "wusses?

Ok, I am not sure, but I am guessing, happy now?

And today's faux femenist are precisely the ones who are perpetuating the idea that even though women are equal (at work) the man should still pay for dates, child support and pull our chairs for them and other outmoded Victorian era traditions.

"Sarvis, who has a doctor's degree in what?"

History and political science.

"History and political science."

Does is piss you off that in many schools it's the football coach that teaches history? Now wonder people don't know shit about the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

For example, people who are hotshots and earn a boatload of money may have the "luxury" of having their wives stay at home.

#2 | Posted by member2586

Just because you are doing well enough and are happy to have your spouse stay home doesn't meant that you believe their proper place is in the home.

And Johnson, how is this study "heretical to leftist dogma"?

MEMBER2586 -

I'm not really pissed off that the football coach teachers history. But I am pissed off when the football coach (or whoever) is supposed to be teaching history and knows fuck all about it. I ran into a guy the other day who's studying (I guess) to become a teacher. I asked him what he wanted to teach. "Well, I wanna be a football coach," he replied, "so I guess it'll be history."

A lot of people seem to think all that's required to move toward understanding history with crystal clarity is a cable hookup to the History Channel.

Carl Becker offered some interesting perspectives in "Everyman His Own Historian" (www.historians.org).

"Another brilliant contribution by "Doc" Sarvis, who has a doctor's degree in what?" Posted by Johnson

"History and political science." Posted by Doc_Sarvis


Damn sure coulda fooled me. I thought you were called "Doc" because you were an expert in the use of certain pharmaceuticals."


"I thought you were called "Doc" because you were an expert in the use of certain pharmaceuticals."

Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away . . .

"A lot of people seem to think all that's required to move toward understanding history with crystal clarity is a cable hookup to the History Channel."

Sad but true.

Got to go now, I am going to watch Animal Planet so I can become a veterenarian, I'll be an animal Doc, lol!


I guess I am guilty of this. I married a woman that had 2 young sons. We are not obsessed with money but I make enough for us to live comfortably and for her to stay at home and provide a house and a home for raising the boys. How sexist of me!!!

In actual fact, she loves being a housewife and she works harder than i do on my job. somebody has to raise the children.

She is also very intelligent and knows more about our government and the political system than many of you do.

There is no fucking way that doc sarvis has a phd in anything.


Doc sarvis is a god, I tell you. Come one Doc, say something smart.

14 | Posted by JOE at 2008-09-23 11:16 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
eGONG_GOES_OFF_IN_PEANUT_GALLER
Y


"Come one Doc, say something smart."

Oooga-booga!

Johnson, I see you are still at your favorite game, claiming "could be" equates to "definitely is". Silly game. Does it ever fool anyone, in your experience?

This is borne out by the Obama campaign. His female staffers earn far less than their counterparts on the McCain team, and what's more, Obama picked an old, retreaded white guy as his VP instead of a Hillary or a Sebelius which--it's obvious now--would have been a lot more helpful.

And, he hauls in more money than McCain. Quod errat demonstrandum.

"The empirical evidence in the study showed a connection between people's attitudes about gender roles and their salaries. It was not designed to explain why those disparities come about or how people's attitudes -- supposedly a private matter -- affect how much money they make."

-From the article

Defiantly not a longitudinal study. Besides, longitudinal studies take a long time and money. Never mind that they are the only studies that actually find any real connections. Who could actually expect a social scientist to make that kind of investment when having people answer a few questions on a piece of paper is so much easier.


***** There is no fucking way that doc sarvis has a phd in anything..... Posted by JOE *****

......there is no way Joe graduated high school....

Since the "Moosiah" espouses a lot of the same attitudes and beliefs as most chauvinists...


Wouldn't that also make her a "male chauvinist"?

Neat! Another rethug in drag!

Rudy Girly-ani, call your orifice.......

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable