Castellanos kills Rachel Maddow on women's pay
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 04. 2012
- Alex Castellanos did his best to balance things as David Gregory held a left wing mediafest today, rolling out Hilary Rosen as in the role of pundit in order to establish the "War on Women" as a fact that Republicans have to defend. "How Rachel, should this conversation actually be framed, " Gregory asked Maddow. Alex Castellanos busted her on her equal pay argument. 4-29-12
How dare he try to correct her with facts.
hahahaha! so true
"Aww, shit, he could be right, better shut him down before he convinces someone else."
You have no point Rachel! Except for your witch hat...Lol
she is a machine,
😂😂😂😂
"It's weird that you're interrupting me, and not letting me make my point" yet she wouldn't let him say a damn word without interrupting.
swansea007791 She's bad at debating. She demands that he not interrupt her, yet it's ok for her to do it. That's not equal rights, that's demanding that men bow down to you.
the strategy is screem "oh help me I'm so abused" when ever things don't go there way
+swansea007791 tru but also is rude and a hypocrite
She is the QUEEN of interruption.
+KerayZ I was going to point that out as well. It's amazing how she thinks it's ok for her to talk over him, but every time he tries to complete a point, she keeps stopping him or changing the topic.
“I wish you were as right as you were passionate” 😂😂
Every SJW ever
She's not even passionate, she's just desperate.
💀
"It's good that you're interrupting me." Interrupts him, constantly.
I guess it may be because it's her show. I don't really know.
@@JustWinBabee she should do the show alone then if she won't give people the same respect she expects. They always jump to the "interrupting me" thing to try play the victim
She said it's "weird", not it's good. Lol
@@JustWinBabee it will catch up with her when someone refuse to follow her bad level of managing conversations, this guy was polite and calm.
she was running her mouth over him non stop and asking him to listen to her not all guests will be OK with that and it will only dilutes the quilty of the show not because the guest but because she can't manage a conversation without ranting randomly with 0 facts after he gave her a valid argument so she is not replying she is not listening and she doesn't care about facts I already dont wanna watch the show..
There's something very common on cable news. When someone is being challenged on a claim they just made, or if another person starts to rebut what you just said with facts and common sense.... the typical line of defense is to interrupt and talk over the other person. As long as you keep talking and shut the other person down, you will feel superior, smarter and think that you've won the argument. That someone is usually a democrat.
"Don't tell me the reasons why"
Spoken like a true liberal. "Don't tell me facts! I just care about rhetoric"
usucdik
Cherrypicked? The entire 78 cents on the dollar argument from the left is from cherrypicked data. When you take out career choices and hours worked women make less than men. However, that's not institutionalized discrimination. That's personal choice. If you look at the same job with the same hours worked, women make the same as men. In fact, women make more than men from the ages of 20-30. They only stop making more when they DECIDE to have children. Try looking at facts before you debate.
usucdik
We're getting into a nature vs nurture argument. You probably believe the roles of women and the impact they have on career choices are a social construct. I tend to believe it's much more natural for them to choose those career paths. And if we're talking about the 21st century, there is ZERO institutionalized discrimination against women. In fact, the opposite exists. There are universities begging for women to join STEM fields. The military, police and fire departments have changed physical requirements (sometimes foolishly) just to get more women to join. However, with all of these leg ups, women still CHOOSE different career paths than men. Why can't you accept that the possibility that men and women are different and want different things in a career and that plays much more of a role in the supposed wage gap than anything else? Can't it be that simple?
usucdik
Thanks for not addressing one point I just made. Also, thank you for completely destroying your own point.
I'm taking that word literally because anyone who uses it is being literal.
"Institutionalized discrimination refers to the unjust and discriminatory mistreatment of an individual or group of individuals by society and its institutions as a whole, through unequal selection or bias, intentional or unintentional; as opposed to individuals making a conscious choice to discriminate."
Sounds exactly like the point you were trying to make earlier. Also sounds like a point I, and this video were trying to debunk for you.
I guess now you're claiming when someone says "this country is institutionally discriminatory towards group A", they're being ironic or hyperbolic with their use of the word "institutionally"? Can the same be said when someone uses the word "systemic"? If you guys are just being exaggerative
or sarcastic when you use these terms then I guess I misinterpreted them. You got me! However, that would also imply that I was right the whole time when I said the wage gap and the glass ceiling isn't as bad as people claim it is.
+usucdik The system has bent over backwards, and spent millions to get women into stem and other high paying fields. Women still choose, despite these efforts to go into lower paying fields. You ignoring facts will not change them.
This woman is one stupid fkn bitch
"Hey, don't interrupt me with your facts. I don't want to hear them so I'm a keep on talking until we forget about your points."
+Rain Drifter lol her response had nothing to do with the stats he mentioned. LOL i heard Mitt Romney in there somewhere LOL
+Rain Drifter Typical talk from so many liberal women.
+Rain Drifter He didn't quote ONE single source. So, garbage in garbage out. They were as good as pulling 'em outta his ass. Which is where he probably got them.
B Goode Actually he was correct. Unless if you want to believe that Hillary Clinton paid her female employees 72 cents to every dollar her male employees earned using the same method as the census bureau? And 72 cents is even worse than 77 cents.
B Goode So which is it? Is he incorrect or did Hillary Clinton pay women 72 cents to every dollar a man made?
11 years later and this still needs to be explained to them.
She just cant handle being wrong.
jonathan curtis agreed.
There's noting wrong being wrong it's how we grow. But political discussions are treated like pro wrestling where it just becomes a dog an pony show.
Looks like she just memorized some lines and just wanted to vomit them out. Even the women in the panel don't know how to react!
Good point. Some people just go with the facts they like.
money.cnn.com/2016/03/23/pf/gender-pay-gap/ more recent realistic look at the data ,.. 95% is a much better figure, and very near equal, compared to the 70 something percent always tossed around that is simply a twisting of data to create an issue that DOES NOT exist.
Women and Men get paid the same if they do the same job. If man has a different job that makes more money, of fucking course he's gonna make more money.
+Gabriel Bron That's a nice point, but feminists aren't interested in rational discussion!
*SEXIST!1!!*
+Gabriel Bron WHAT A FAST FOOD WORKER MAKES LESS THEN THE GUY WHO GOT A SPACESHIP AND COLONIZED MARS........ PATRIARCHY!
So basically women want to get payed more by doing less.
"It's weird that you're interrupting me" says Rachel seconds after interrupting him for like the 3rd God damn time
FanelliFilms ikr
FanelliFilms She has to play the victim at all costs.
Rachel, stop talking. Why ask questions if you are not allowing for an answer?
I love how he keeps throwing facts at her and she doesn't address a single one directly. Typical feminist.
Madcow is a waste of air, she hates men but tries soo hard to look like them........
She can't admit to being wrong because her job revolves around spreading misinformation like this.
I know nothing about her.
Except every video of her I've seen she is stating incorrect facts and information.
Wth is wrong with her and America.
That and she leads with emotion therefore she can’t even process what he’s saying. She can’t get past her own negative emotions. Sounds exhausting. I’m so happy to have been born a man
She's doing all the interrupting! She's the rude one AND she's wrong.
She is spouting off out-dated and flat out wrong information.
He's being sensible and intelligent and talking about provable statistics.
What a horrid woman. He won this debate easily.
Women are notorious for debating based on emotions, the sad fact is that there are many idiots that relate with this and take a baseless argument by the merits of how many emotions were incited in them.
+Lrdvltr trump of so emotionless
calogero calogero Arguing based off emotion and arguing with emotion are two different things.
Lrdvltr
Very good point. I think passion in your words is important.
Emotion with NOTHING else [including facts] is damaging and unproductive.
Adam Ant Yes, this is why news mediums like Rachel Maddow and the view are just manufactured drama. Nothing is ever based on substantiated evidence from what we've all seen.
Most televised portions from these are just the host's reactions to real news or scientific studies.
"I wish you were as right as you were passionate". I'm a woman and this lady embarrasses me.
I get erectile dysfunction for about a week every time I watch Rachel Mandow.
79goldmaster1
I become asexual for three days straight,after I watch Rachel Maddow videos
I think you both have that problem all the time and you just try it on the days you watch her. 😅
"Actually if you look at the numbers Rachel there are lots of reason for that"
No don't tell me the reasons. loooooool
But none his reasons addressed the assertion.
And he interrupted her every time she tried to point that out.
LOL
Sorry, a Rhodes scholar with an IQ of at least 135 probably understands a bit better than you or Castellanos.
Merrill Clark let me guess, you probs have the same haircut and ignorance as that maddow guy. She was the rude one.
IQ of 135 and cant see that college is a scam.
bionic26 Feminism don't care about numbers.
damn. i STILL ahve not heard any response to the question--if a company can hire a woman for 24% less, why do they hire men????
because that expands the capacity of the female brain. Imagine theres more dimenions in our world, and if in thr 5th dimension smth was going on we wouldn't know what was going on. Her mind doesn't like to get close to criticism, she doesn't even hear logical things. Thats why the cunt keeps interrupting
It's hysterical she Refuses to allow him to talk & will Not Prove her point b/c it's not true & she has not given a single Data point...... Let's see Actual Company data w/ positions listed where women make $74,000 to every $100,000 a man makes......
ikr
+Jo Blow Is that sarcasm or do you really think that ANYTHING is as important as money to them?
and hopefully a thigh gap
I own a construction business and I cannot pay a woman laborer the same as a man labor because a man can carry 4-2x8"x8' boards on his shoulder and a woman can only carry two on her shoulder and no one a sells half Sheets of 3/4 plywood so I need someone to carry a whole 8 foot sheet it wouldn't be fair to pay them the same. sorry in more most trades you just can't compete with a man although is there are exceptions to the rule
augman exactly
augman you must own a rat shop.
I wish he would've simply smiled and said "Rachel, you are full of shit."
lmao "dont tell me the reasons" facts are irrelevant to her
+Death Trap Feminism! Its a disease that effects the brain, usually the logic and reason center.
Cathy Newman did the same thing. Non-sexist reasons are irrelevant for them.
Why is it that in every one of these videos, the woman interrupts the man all the time?
HaloEliteLegend Vagina.
HaloEliteLegend And then admonishes him for doing exactly the same thing to her.
I don't think they will, I think feminists will and are viewed in a similar way as north Korea is,interesting but stupid
HaloEliteLegend Ummm he was interrupting her...
Sarah Dorman She was also talking utter bollocks...
Maddow: "Stop interrupting me!"
Castellanos waits until Maddow is finished: "Well, Rachel, you see..."
Maddow interrupting: "No! You're wrong!"
facts vs feelings
I think any reasonable person would arrive at the conclusion that there's more to it than just claiming women get paid less than men. He makes an excellent point, and maybe someone can answer this for me; if women really do get paid less than men, why wouldn't these "greedy" businessmen hire a bunch of women to save on labor cost and look like heroes? Why wouldn't our work force be dominated by women if they cost less to employ? I long for the day when a liberal can truly grasp economics enough to understand this is complete bullshit.
I'm not taking sides here, but I wished to help you see what their point of view is. You explained perfectly why from a business standpoint it would make more sense to hire someone willing to do the same work for less. The Economist magazine has long held the view that women were the better investment because they work the same for less. I think where you falter is that you're presuming that since we don't see this happening (businesses hiring more women), that in fact women aren't being paid less, they must be paid the same or they're not working as well. Succinctly, you believe the market is the ultimate deciding factor, that it reflects only factors such as cost/profit, and since there aren't a disproportionate number of women working, there likely isn't a salary gap. -- The argument against this is that the market doesn't always work that perfectly (even if you take out government manipulations of the market). The other side of this argument is that women are being discriminated against by those "greedy" businessman. So as greedy as they may be, they dislike hiring women (or at least paying them the same) more than profit. It sounds a bit ridiculous, I know, but there has been precedent. In the age when racism was more common than it is today (though it still exists), it was common for jews and blacks to be passed on for a job they could have done just as easily and maybe for less than their white counterpart. The "greedy" businessman probably knew what they were giving up (profit), but to them the social costs of hiring other races (in large numbers) was not something they were willing to take on. So as it was back then, today in some places race and gender are the discriminatory factor. --- this is why people on the other side would not buy the argument of "If women were actually paid less, the market would hire more women."
Good point!
Usama Ahmad Thank you for the reply, let's get started.
The Economist Magazine is not something I trust to provide credible, factual information -they, like all sources, have biases and they place narratives on their content, this is just a fact of life. The Economist having a "long-held" belief that "women were the better investment because they work the same for less" is meaningless to me -if I created a magazine I'd publish my own opinions as well.
"...you're presuming that since we don't see this happening (businesses hiring more women), that in fact women aren't being paid less, they must be paid the same or they're not working as well." I'm not making any of these assumptions -as I said I think there's more to it than simply issuing the blanket statement of "women get paid less than men." This blanket statement doesn't account for what we're seeing in the market (businesses not capitalizing off this "fact" and hiring all-women).
As I said before, I think there's more to the issue than simply "women get paid less," and we know this because one of the many indicators we can use is in fact the market. It's not the ONLY indicator we can use to attempt to prove this one way or another, but I would argue that a market such as the one we have in this country would at least point us in the right direction to understanding the issue and would definitely have some value in this undertaking.
I'm not as convinced that all businessmen/owners would place social constructions over profit. The industrialization of the Gilded Age was a time in which businesses were not nearly as regulated as they are today in just about every aspect imaginable. These oligarchs and monopolists stopped at nothing to ensure the profits kept flowing -this included everything from hiring children and placing them in dangerous positions to hiring personal armies to violently put down strikes. They knew no bounds and had little care for how people viewed them, they were intent on creating the most powerful businesses possible at any non-monetary cost. How many examples can we think of in which companies partnered with entities they didn't agree with, went against their own personal ideals to move the company forward, and put up with unpleasantness to make a buck?
I'm not saying racism and sexism didn't or doesn't still have a presence in the American economy, but I don't believe it's remotely close to the level they claim it to be right now. Everyone these days is afraid of getting sued for just about a million reasons, and government is more involved now than it ever has been in business.
Let's take the White House as an example. Currently (2014) male White House employees take in an average of $88,600 while women earn an average of $78,400. That's a roughly 13% difference in pay between the men and women working in our President's own house. But how could this be? Why would our own President pay his female staff members less?
We should probably talk about the fact that there are 87 males and 53 females working in the White House, and moreover we should mention that there are more men in higher-paying positions than women. If we completely reversed the genders of all employees in the White House in their current positions, we'd have 87 females making an average of $88,600 and 53 males averaging $78,400. So I ask the question, is the problem that women are getting paid less than men, or are we looking at a glass ceiling issue? Even larger than that, are there forces at work we haven't even acknowledged yet? Maybe it's a combination of several key factors, not just one primary one that causing this.
Obviously I think the White House example is not an effective argument supporting the position that women get paid less than men. When I hear the argument "women get paid less than men" I think of a man getting, for example, $10 an hour but a woman only getting $9 for the exact same job. That's clearly not the case (at least at the White House), because there are more men than women filling higher-paying billets. Of course the average male earnings will be higher, there's more of them overall and there's more of them making more money because more of them are in more-demanding billets that pay more.
This all goes back to my original point: can we really throw a blanket statement over the issue by saying "women get paid less than men," or should we open up the hood and see how the numbers are interpreted to really see what's going on here?
I love the pay gap argument. It's just based on bollox. If I am an employer I pay the least to get the most, if I get EQUAL or MORE work out of a FEMALE than employing a MAN who gives me LESS for paying MORE then I hire a FEMALE. It's just logical it's business accruement, but the reality is MALES get the jobs so why would that be? Yes I'm an employee who just loves to give money away I just love to throw it out the window straight out just throw it into the street! Maybe just maybe MALES do a better job or give more value for money. What do YOU reckon ladies please tell me I'm wrong tell me my business logic is flawed, please anyone?
Usama Ahmad " the market doesn't always work that perfectly"
Your comment, while well-thought out and clearly stated, fails the logic test. First, its not a question of a "perfect" market." If the supposed wage-disparity were only a few %points different, one could see how a less-than-perfect market could might yield a less than perfect result. However, when the claim is made that women make 1/3 less? even a very imperfect market will take advantage of that and hire women before men.
Second, the argument that discrimination is trumping the bottom line also strains credulity. A) the supposed wage disparity averages out the same with businesses owned by women themselves, as it does through the entire economy. For your theory to be correct, one would have to accept that women are discriminating against themselves--that greedy businesswomen dislike women having jobs. Clear folly. B) If your theory were correct, then UE for men would be 0, before we see women getting jobs.
lastly, the discrimination (based on sex) notion might have been true in the 70s. But its ridiculous today. We all have wives, GFs, sisters, daughters, and we all want them to be successful in their careers. It makes little sense that we would want them to be successful, so we cut their pay and take unfair advantage of them.
Gender differences are a different dynamic from racial-cultural differences. People connect a lot easier with people who share common upbringings and cultural experiences. For example, Ex-pats who live in Germany (pick any foreign country) instantly become fast friends, even though they've never met before. Or, to reverse the example, there are "Irish American" communities (pick any other nationality, or ethnicity) Common culture and common heritage is a strong bond. But this type of cultural bonding occurs regardless of sex. It is the automatic strength of the cultural bond that leads people to instinctively connect better with people who are culturally similar. Im NOT saying discrimination is OK. Simply pointing out that people will instinctively bond and connect with people with whom that have the most in common.
This goes a long way to explain why Hispanics like to hire other Hispanics, Why small business owners from India tend to have over-representation of India-born employees, et cetera. Its not necc anything malicious, intentional. Its simply that people have a higher comfort level, connect easier, et cetera with people who they have more in common.
But that entire dynamic is irrelevant to the question of If someone is a man or woman. its simply not believable to expect that gender discrimination in the workplace is as strong as racial discrimination might be.
Lastly, there are dozens of factors what determine how much someone gets paid. For example, if someone is a lawyer: "How many hours do you bill a week? How important is it for you to make partner? How much do you re-schedule your work day to attend your kids school functions? How important is flex time to you?" et cetera. Also, women tend to drop out of the workforce to raise children. when the kids get into school, they go back to work. This 5-10 year gap makes a difference in your pay, when you DO go back to work. When those factors are normalized, there is little or no difference in pay based on sex.
So people on the other side may "not buy" that there is no gender discrimination based on sex. But they do so as a political calculation. Not because there is any factual basis to support the discrimination myth.
Clearly, the pay issue is too complicated for Rachel.
Joe Smith Bubble gum is too complicated for Rachel.
…and for a majority of our fellow Americans!!! Even in 2023, we are STILL talking about women making 77 cents on a dollar when the facts have been clearly laid out for us to interpret.
@@nondescriptnyc Not after adjusting for variables.
She says women are getting paid less for equal work. He's trying to explain to her that it's not equal work, and she won't listen to him.
I've come across a few people like that. Some of them think they're so much smarter than others that they won't listen to an opposing view, simply out of fear. The fear of being wrong. For others, being wrong isn't as bad as just admitting to themselves they've been lied to and fooled. It is too damaging on their precious egos. They think they're too smart to be fooled.
"Dont interrupt me!" Proceeds to interrupt him after she makes her point.
to ALL WOMEN that WANT EQUAL PAY:
DO the EQUAL JOB......
DO the EQUAL HOURS.
enough said......
That's too logical.
Pedro Gallegos aand... if you do as good a job as men, you will be paid the same!
@Dick Burns This is true. And if they don't get there way they claim harassment.
Me and my girlfriend debated this topic and we couldn't agree, so I beat my opinion into her
Like!
lol wtf
Lol white girl fo' you Shaka.
audubon crosby
Common sense is lost on clue less people.
Well done, sir. I hope you beat it into her real good.
“Don’t tell me the reasons” - *Feminism*
What would roger maddow know about being a woman?
Rachel - get your facts right and let others make their points as well.
she asked the host and he said yes it is less then men.
they're not comparing men and women entering into the same profession, they're comparing shit like CEOs (male dominated) vs secretaries (female dominated), or doctors (male dominated) vs nurses (female dominated). All men vs all women, which is stupid on its face. That stat is intentionally misleading.
haha His smile won the argument without even saying a word!
Best comment so far 🤣
@ :39, host says "Alright, let Rachel frame it the way she made it up." Exactly, she made it up.
She keeps interrupting him.
"i don't care about the reasons"
--Rachel "the dude" Maddow
I am a guy. So let me get this straight, if the guy next to me in the same job gets paid more it is not discrimination. But if I were female...then it would be discrimination. Interesting.
Welcome to leftist logic . Facts and reason are strictly forbidden .
Trick question, you were never hired in the first place because no sane business owner would hire anyone that arbitrarily demands 33% higher pay.
Rachel is the perfect example of "people believe whatever they want to believe."
I love that they tried so hard to stop him correcting her lies 😂
Castellanos has the patience of a monk
He keeps his cool and Rachel has her period on live tv
This guy was way too nice. She doesn't understand what the numbers mean. The findings are that women actually get paid more than men for equal work. But overall men are paid more ON AVERAGE. Meaning average the earnings of all women and average the earnings of all men, then compare. That is where the 77cents to the dollar comparison comes from.
You can even hear an educated woman in the background say " not for the same work ". If all women would actually understand what statistics mean we could debate about real issues. One example would be that 95% of parents that do not get to see their children are men.
Feminist Equality yep my ex plays keep away with my children but for a long time took me to court over and over again to-get bigger support payments . She also lied and said I left her and she had no job and she's a student and needs alimony payments and the truth was she had graduated and had been working as a nurse and had been given a $7000 bonus to work at a hospital. I get very little visitation and when she is to drop them off it's NOT unusual for her to make me wait for an hour. It's very geared for women when it comes to children and money. She came into my life with nothing when I had earned and paid for everything and I had a lot , she left with it all and I now sleep on an air mattress and have nothing to even sit on. Men are starting to wise up and marriages are on the decline!
where are all the lawsuits if women were getting paid less?
Here's one where a woman beat a Democratically-controlled county government. www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/a-female-engineer-earned-less-for-equal-work-now-prince-georges-must-give-her-lost-wages--and-a-raise/2017/06/05/de016e1e-4a10-11e7-bc1b-fddbd8359dee_story.html
Rachel doesn't want more pay, just more facial hair.
Hahaha
***** Maybe she's a he pretending to be a she and doesn't need artificial hardware. Hmmm
***** Can't say I have seen an "Adam's Apple" on Ann Coulter, but the one on Michelle Obama ...
LOL, glad I saw your comment. It gave me the chuckle I needed.
Skiller MGTOW You're welcome friend.
"I wish you were right on what you are saying as you are passionate about it" Bahahaha!
An ideologue will never understand why they're wrong.
They can't think.
Just show me ONE instance of an employer paying his female staff less than her mail counterparts for the same work and I will show you the easiest law suit in the world. ITs a sad day when women have run out of real things to complain about and so have to start making shit up.
Exactly! It would be a slam dunk case but facts don't bother Maddow...
"A sad day when Women have run out of real things to complain about and so have started making Shit up"
Haven't they always?
sharkie boardman do you know is really crazy? I gave you the ONE instance that you asked for and for some reason someone removed it so I'll give it to you again Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 in other words Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), a U.S. Supreme Court decision that the statute of limitations for presenting an equal-pay lawsuit begins on the date that the employer makes the initial discriminatory wage decision, not at the date of the most recent paycheck. Boy I tell ya some people just hate the facts!
chipsgirl1122 seems fair to me... So agreeing to work for a certain wage, then finding out someone negotiated a higher pay should have no claim limit? She wasnt a slave, she was presented a compensation package that she accepted, and only thought it was unfair once she found out someone else negotiated a better wage...
News flash not all wages are negotiable. Lilly worked her way through the company. That option was not given to her. If that option was given to her she would have no reason to complain that's not the case. Now let me give you a few examples of the unequal pay for blue collar workers the people who are not given the opportunity to negotiate:
Dishwashers Men $14,000-Women $12,000
Cooks Men $17,000-Women $15,000
Home Care Men $19,000- Women $15,000
Get my point? I can go on and on.
Wow. Rachel interrupted him first. And then she throws the righteous indignation when he reciprocates
Rachel did you REGISTER FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE? Rachel did you REGISTER FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE? Rachel did you REGISTER FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE? Rachel did you REGISTER FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE? Rachel did you REGISTER FOR THE DRAFT?
Lol "you're interrupting me" 😪😪 - with facts!!
Princess is complaining that he is interrupting her? Wtf..
yes, at 2:10 she does exactly what she complained about earlier... stfu bitch and let him speak.
Why was he always being cut off? She got to have her word, he allowed her to make her point, then he got about five seconds to talk before getting cut off by her, dso he let her speak again and got told to let her make her point, then he goes in to making his point after she finishes, and within ten seconds they cut him off again.
-Sigh- It's something I see feminists doing all the damn time. How can men expect to treat women as intellectually equal if you can't debate on equal terms and have to resort to speaking over people so that their opposition cannot be heard, thus showing that they believe the higher voice is right more so than the voice of reason?
Equality and Fairness is FOR FEMINIST ONLY!
Get with the programme dude!, if you try to make sense out of it, the feminist will simply interrupt the shit out of you until you submit :)
nodinitiative I like to differentiate between past feminists who had legitimate concerns, and the current feminazis clinging to anything to remain relevant during their crusade to be superior. At least then people don't just immediately right me off.
nodinitiative do you guys know that there are now more woman than men in some colleges. and these liberal woman groups are trying to hard to keep it like this. colleges are trying to even the enrollment to 50 to 50 and they are trying to stop it.
Because that's what the left does. As soon you start talking sense and supporting your arguments with facts they talk over you so that nobody hears what you have to say because if they hear what you have to say they might actually agree with you and then you've won the battle.
yeah she cut him off an awful lot
Don't interrupt me. Let me make my point. Then immediately interrupts him. Lol
He can't keep a straight face from laughing haha.
"Its weird that you are interrupting me" she says whilst interrupting him.
"Hey, i don't like the facts you're presenting me and would rather use "what if's" instead of "facts" in a *debate*."
Truly a smart person.
She cut him off while he was spitting facts. Then she comes back with a bunch of talking points.
Nothing pisses you off more than someone that cuts you off
I love that quote. "Don't tell me the reasons, just parrot my false conclusions"
Liberals are like little kids that just whine when they don't get their own way.
Liberal: I WANT COOKIES!
Conservative: You can't have cookies because.. (gets cut off)
Liberal: I WANT COOKIES!
Conservative: If you would just.. (gets cut off)
Liberal: I WANT COOKIES!
maxwell10206 It's more like this:
Male Teacher: "Okay kids, your grades came in and you all did pretty well, but Billy here scored the highest out of everyone! To reward billy we're going to give him a bag of candy, but don't worry, we'll give you all one piece of candy because you did well too!"
Little Susie who scored below average: "But I want more than one piece of candy, no fair!!"
Teacher: "Well Susie, if you want more candy then make sure to study hard and your grades might score the highest next time!"
Susie throws a fit and screams at the top of her lungs: "I WANT CANDY I WANT CANDY I WANT CANDY I WANT CANDY!!!"
Teacher sends Susie to time out for misbehaving and she gets NO candy. Susie goes home and tells her feminist liberal mom about what happened, and the mom reacts.
Susie's mom on twitter: "MY DAUGHTER HAS BEEN DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY THIS FEMALE HATING SCHOOL, THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF PATRIARCHY WE WILL BE MARCHING ON TUESDAY TO SPREAD AWARNESS! WOMEN ONLY! #KillAllMen "
Leftist news station picks up on tweet and makes fabricated factless story to spark controversy, titles story: "How one *insert name of city/town* Mother is fighting against discrimination against her daughter"
Teacher ends up getting fired by school board so the School cannot be blamed, and the teacher is labeled a sexist for the rest of their life, and ends up committing suicide, all because Billy got more candy since he had more skills to offer and worked harder.
maxwell10206 must have been a carpenter...hits the nail on the head.
maxwell10206 You have to be more deep in politics and feminish issue to understand the point. On what side your on, they have the right to argue about. They have agreed with many things. Just some part they disagree. What is you arguement. Liberals and Conservative. Your a dumb person to think its about liberal and conservative problem here.
Stricken4Pot You should write a novel. That was amazing.
SogMosee Maybe I'll name it, "The Liberal in the Rye"
She interrupted him MULTIPLE TIMES !
She wasn’t even going to try and explain what she said. She stated it as if it was Actual FACT!
Which it ISNT. and she’s a complete hypocrite
He is just smiling and chomping at the bit to correct her. Lmao
She really lives up to her last name. She may be passionate but she's truly MAD-dow. Dundundun...(Terrible pun, I know.)
Still a better joke than her life. OOOOHHHH REKT
+Scoring57 All these black people using white inventions like computers and the internet to make their lives more enjoyable. All these black people speaking and writing in English, which is a white European language. Shut the fuck up.
Lol this is not a math thing ...
"This is not a math, this is about my feelings", she almost said.
Let me make my unreal point...
Gets owned! 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
Hahah guy owns her. Woman are not paid less. It's a lie
77¢ on the dollar is based on yearly salary of full time workers, it looks ONLY at pay, and assumes work is the same. We know men work on average 44 hours a week vs women 41 hours, that's 7-8% gone right there. If you work more hours, I would guess you would be more likely to get promoted. Also, when you look at women who never had a family, they earn more than men, and when you look at young people, women earn more than men.
It's their choice regarding family that affects their wages, not some patriarcal conspiracy, and it's a choice I fully respect, taking more time to be a better parent is a noble compromise, but that doesn't mean you can have your cake and eat it too.
+Keven Harvey "I'm not interested in the reasons! I'm passionate about this!"
yet men don't complain women are making more than men or graduating colleges more than men.... because men dont give a fk. men only focus on their own business. feminist need to get into every fucking business they can
Actually, she keeps interrupting him. Big surprise.
That older, more sophisticated gentlemen sure taught Bieber a lesson.
Owned. Women tend to talk over logic until it shuts up.
That's liberals in general, especially blacks-- just listen to any of them"debate" and it's just about talking over the other person.
As a liberal woman this debate annoys me so much as there is no reason to even have it. Maddow couldn't even counter Castellanos point on cost that actually supports our view that businesses do whatever to save money so why would women be exempt from that? Cause corporations just hate money earned by us crazy broads that much? Come on.
What?
"Don't tell me REEEEEEEEEE-asons!"
She got her back blown out in this argument 😂
He's absolutely correct. The correlation to pay differences is represented in stats. Men tend to work longer hours per week, work in skilled / trade labor far more often. I never walked into an office building seeing wall to wall men on phone head sets, and I never walked into a construction, engineer, warehouse and seen wall to wall women. It's not fairly represented, the premise that it's the "same work" is not even a half truth.
It's the same thing talking about CEO pay vs average employee wages growing further adrift then decades ago. The simple economic answer is that Americas labor force has changed from the 40's and 50's to today. We don't make shit anymore. We are a nation of customer service and consumers. There is no town factory blowing lunch break whistles anymore. it's not because CEO's are getting greedier, it's the business dynamics have changed so much. Wal-Mart is by far the largest single employer, look at it's average employee base today... say in Detroit. Compare that to the average employee of 1940's in Detroit when we were a nation of industry. The ratio is astronomical. Nationally speaking instead of having a CEO with several 100 or even thousands employees you now have millions, world wide.
I think a lot of economic based arguments like social class envy is paper tiger arguments because the American Industry has been replaced with no skill customer service reps. Of course the gap between rich and poor is growing rapidly. It's not political ideology of either side, it's reality. It's like blaming one side for getting wet when it rains. Meanwhile the rich find ways to get out of the rain. You can blame the loop holes, but there are left and right wing millionaires doing the same things.
*****
You're absolutely right. I may even be a hypocrite myself to some degree. I'm a vet of course, with service connected disability. I got into a great VET vocation rehabilitation program. When asked if I wanted to learn a skill trade or go back to school I choose the later.
I'm currently in the Troops to Teachers program. Granted I have injuries that prevent me from doing industrial labor but most of my decision was based on the future context. I can't foresee a future in industry as viable as a future in education.
I guess everyone furthering education has an excuse but it doesn't change the sum. But in reality I can't relocate to find a job in industry if I choose that path.
I definitely do not adopt the elitist attitude that a college degree makes one better or even smarter. At the end of the day I rely on garbage collection, plumbers, and the local gas station attendant more than Dr's.
I still think it's the American appetite and changing dynamics as a collective more so than one political ideology or perception. But I guess my view conveniently gives me immunity to being a part of the problem. You make good points.
***** I absolutely agree. I struggle with the stupid more so in college then I ever have in the Military. I'm only just now starting my 3rd semester but I also had it up to my neck with the sexism too. Taking early childhood classes as a male is an experience all in itself.
And in two instances my VA sponsorship became known and most career students have a piss poor view towards our military.
Maybe the shift of ideology as you suggest isn't necessarily a negative one. I mean the elitist may snub their nose but that's individual prejudices. While individuals like yourself and myself appreciate and own the value of manual labor, skilled or unskilled. And not just in a political fever either. I really enjoyed your POV
bill mill Not to mention I've worked manual labor jobs were it was highly motivated by pay rates, I know for a fact I got paid more than most, and some got paid more than I did for the same job description. And not a single female was to be found.
I think that's another factor. Job position doesn't mean for the same work. It's easy to sum up things by saying two people have the "same job". Of course pay should reflect performance, hours, benefit, dependents and things come into play.
And there isn't an employer out there who takes themselves serious who would risk such an avoidable lawsuit as paying a penis more than a vagina. It's a farce.
I love how she complains that he is interrupting her, yet SHE is the only who won't let him talk.
she even listened , or pretended to listen for 50 seconds, hahahahaha.
How is this 10 years ago and we are still talking about this!?
because as a human, you won’t give up until you’ve achieved what you desire. This will go on for far longer.
Because I am male, it is assumed I can lift patients out of wheelchairs to get them ready for their exams. We are paid the same, yet when work = force x distance, I do more work for the same pay. fact
Not to mention women wanting to be "equal--" in spite of expecting men to earn 28% more on average, in order to be "worthy" of her; and on top of this, the women in the top income-groups have the gall to bitch that "they can't find a man," while neglecting to mention that they refuse men who earn less; and the rest can simply afford better.
So yeah, women are fuckin hypocrites.
***** It's all a matter of reducing most men to beta-status, so that women can fuck the top 20% alpha-males.. Thus feminism is about giving women all the choices men have, but not vice-versa-- despite saying that women are "just as good."
Women already got men earning 28% more in "equal" relationships, which become 2-headed monsters because nobody's in charge.
See how upset she gets? Her mouth even dried up. I bet her heart rate jumped. That's what happens when someone disagrees with something you believe to be true but don't know for fact and realize you might be wrong. That and argue based on feelings and instead of logic
DISGUST why would I bother with this argument though.
Also, surely you don't believe that all or even most leftists debate things just on "UH feelings UUUUHHHH"?
There are lots of differences in branches; workings within the branches and branches in the workings.
Cognitive dissonance
@@starb4453 Resonance?!
DISGUST
She said don’t tell me the reasons. 😂😂😂😂
Wow, every time I’ve had the audacity to bring up the facts with women on this matter a I get exactly the same reaction. They don’t want to listen!
Here is the funny part, she has her own show, she is an author, and a political commentator. Yet she is saying women are making less money. SHE is making money because (just an assumption) she worked hard to get into a high paying career. So what does that tell me? It depends on what women choose as far as jobs. I have rarely seen a situation where the man and woman had equal time at the workplace, similar credentials, and the woman gets screwed. Just more anti-male drivel. In isolated cases there is discrimination but I see no reason to believer there is an organized "patriarchy" that tells every corporate entity to screw the women and have the men get more money. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
like paying Krugman thousands to talk about inequality lol
A Mill Or Multi million dollar director Michael Moore crying about one percenters.
phoenix499 he doesn't count, because he personally said "No I'm not" lololol
So it's a woman's fault because she's being paid less. The point is not that woman should go for higher paying jobs, the point is that no matter what the job, woman make 77 cents to every dollar a man makes.
moeller536 that's not true.
the 77 cents figure is an 'overall' figure that includes stay at home moms. Men do riskier work and end up generally getting paid more in the long run. Its more due to career decisions and aspirations than 'inequality'.
The company I work for has a female CEO and half of the VPs are female, in a pretty conservative city. Don't believe the BS.
Either way, it's been illegal since the 60s to discriminate that way; if there was a leg to stand on a lawsuit win would be easy.
why does she keep interrupting him?
Angry feminists who have a never-ending axe to grind are hugely insecure about their ideology and beliefs. They know in the back of their heads that what they are spewing is re-hashed bullshit, but they've been on the feminist propaganda treadmill for so long that they can't conceive of the thought of saying, "I'm wrong!" They will NEVER let an educated, well respected, educated and experienced white male with factual information and data get a word in. That is why they attack emotionally, instead of with facts. They are always standing there with a gun and no ammunition...and they always know it!
ThePennyPincher actually not a bad point.
That's the only way people listen to her.
Well, that is because she was on live TV and about to be proven a fraud....again..
ThePennyPincher NICE!! Couldn't have been said any better. Good day sir!
Those tv programs where no one can finish their sentences.
Maddow: The 'I reject your reality and substitute my own' pundit.
Rachel Maddow.....I hate that guy
Isn't he on the Daily Show? Oh well you see one Jewish lesbian, you seen 'em all.
And they never cook; the only thing Jewish women make for dinner is reservations, and lesbians eat out.
WOW! the woman down at the Dollar Store is being paid less than the man doing brain surgery cross the street at the hospital!!!
HOW UNFAIR !!!!!!
But in the mind of '28 Days Later' feminists, that IS unfair!
Read an actual article from your trusted source once and you will see for yourself.
WTF. At first I thought it was her show then at the end I just realized it was Meet the Press.
If "kills" means patronizes, I agree.
Good job proving the stereo type women can't do math. If she just didn't say, "Do the math." Because the math is the very thing that proves her wrong.
The wage gap between men and women is a MISLEADING statistic.
1) Women work less hours than Men, on average in a week
2) Men tend to make up most of the highest paying occupations
3) Women take time off work with Maternity leave.
4) Single Women actually make MORE money than single men.
5) Women make up most of the arts and humanities programs in University, which lead to less paying jobs.
Some of these points can be argued that there is systemic gender issues that contribute to these differences in pay. Sure, we can have a conversation over that, like how there is less women in the sciences than men. However, to suggest an argument that Men make more than women, because of some intentional system to discriminate against women is BS!
Men also tend to work riskier jobs which pay better. Polls also show that women are much more likely to neglect work in order to take care of their family, whereas men tend to neglect the family in order to work.
Matt Van Helden Ya absolutely. Men do tend to work more dangerous jobs. However, I wouldn't exactly say "neglect" but instead say "sacrifice."
Women on average, will "sacrifice" work time, to better serve the social needs of the family.
Men on average, will "sacrifice" family time, to better serve the financial needs of the family.
It explains why there is a weekly hour difference between men and women, and it also explains why single women tend to make more money than single men. The genders just have different perceptions on what they deem to be valuable when they have children. Neither is bad or not important. Its just how it works out.
aldf fdaf - - it isn't a matter that women are choosing jobs that pay less on average . . . as you imply in item number 1 of your list . . .
The matter discussed by Rachel Maddow is that for COMPARABLE job positions . . . assistant D.A. to assistant D.A. if a man was hired as assistant D.A. in a municipality the records show that he will get paid MORE than a woman hired as assistant D.A. in that same municipality . . . It's not about hours worked because most of the disparity is in jobs that are salaried . . . it's not about being in a higher paying position and women not attempting to be in the same positions . . . It's not about maternity leave because men take off for maternity lave as well . . . it is about a comparison of two genders doing the same job . . . if you put a man and a woman side by side doing the same job . . . women will get paid less . . . that is the record and that is the facts . . . the zoo keeper feeding the animals . . . women get less pay doing the same exact job as men . . . THAT is what you need to compare . . .NOT the other items on your list that have nothing to do with the matter at hand
Ed Boncich I'm discussing Madison generalize statistical claim that women make $.75 per 1.00 men make. This statistic is a constructed average of all wages between men and women in America.
1) Your D.A. example is of a specific occupation and not comparable to statistic that assess a generalized statistic of ALL occupations in america.
2) Hours do make a huge different when men work about 7 hours more a week, on average than women. This creates a statistical disparity in wages.
3) Not being in the same positions makes an obvious difference in the wages.
4) Maternity leave makes a huge difference when the use of maternity is GROSSLY used by 1 women, and men, more times that not, will pick up extra hours to compensate financial losses in the family.
Here is the thing. If women were REALLY getting paid less than men, for doing the same job, employers would hire only women. Employers could pay them less, than they could men. The fact is, the law limits employers from doing what your are suggesting. It clearly cannot happen, or there would be lawsuits everywhere.
aldf fdaf
Yes sacrifice is a better word.
God forbid you should say there any actual differences between men and women, though. That's why they think women aren't treated equally, because they could never conceive the notion that men and women are different, which has nothing to do with equality.
Rachel is citing research from the 1970's, and keeps saying, "...right now." She is not well-informed.
Even the 1970's research showed that MOTHERS made 77 cents, but *SINGLE WOMEN* made 98 cents on a man's dollar (in the '70s).
And this is why Rachel Maddow never has anyone on her program who disagrees with her.
And once he started getting the core of the issue notice how they try shutting him up and changing the subject.. If you were right you wouldn't shy away from an honest discussion about your position.
Absolutely, sir.
It's like chasing a wild goose, i.e. they just avoid the issue, run the clock down and get saved by the bell.... then declare victory on their own shows
It's not a difference in the factual understanding of the world. The $.77 on the dollar statistic comes from the 2009 BLS study which also explained the differentials. Maddow is, literally, ignoring most of the study she's using her stat from.
what are the differentials being left out?
The details Castellanos was going into. He and Maddow were in fact talking about the very same report. Look it up, it's the 2009 BLS report.
I know, I've read the report. We went over it in great detail in class. I'm curious as to what you think he left out that validates your statement.
Well if you did go over it in detail, you're well aware of one prominent conclusion: the differential regarding sexism and possible discrimination was
yes, that sounds about right. That means 17.5 million women are being treated unfairly.......that's a problem. And policy should be enforced that fixes that discrimination.
As rachel was trying to get to, but was interrupted right away and never got to talk about
How much do you make, Rachel? I'm not asking how much you deserve to be paid...
If you argue with your boss like that they dig their heels in but if you ask “what can do to make our company better and make more money for everyone”.