Intent on shattering the 'imaginary' Glass Ceiling

Wal-Mart sex-bias case could have wide impact

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in a gender discrimination case against retailing behemoth Wal-Mart over pay and promotions for some 1.5 million female employees, current and former, dating to 1998. At issue is whether this large group of women should be allowed to proceed with a suit en masse.

Betty Dukes, the main plaintiff in the case, has worked for Wal-Mart since 1994 and believes that she was paid less than men with less seniority and that she was passed over for managerial positions. Dukes is one of eight named women in the suit who hope to stand for hundreds of thousands of others who might have been similarly affected.

The claims of bias are pretty egregious. The suit contends the retailer’s corporate culture is “rife with gender stereotypes demeaning to female employees.”

Wal-Mart executives allegedly referred to women employees as “Janie Qs” and business meetings were held at Hooters restaurants, according to a Supreme Court filing. The lawsuit contends that “while women comprise over 80 percent of hourly supervisors, they hold only one-third of store management jobs, and their ranks steadily diminish at each successive step in the management hierarchy.”

A record number of organizations have lined up on both sides of the case. Among companies supporting Wal-Mart’s move to stop the class-action suit are corporate giants including Costco, Microsoft, Bank of America and General Electric. Lining up on the plaintiffs side are groups including the National Women’s Law Center, the National Partnership for Women and Families, the NAACP, the AFL-CIO and the ACLU.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42250811/ns/business-careers/

HA, like School Teachers and other Public School employees, .......... private sector female employees want ....... seniority ...... to be declared a Managerial Expertise ........ thus automatically making them "qualified" to manage all or part of any business venture, big or small.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say Sam. Can you clarify whether or not you are trying to say that women cannot manage?

I don't have a bit of difficulty understand what Sam is saying. He is not saying women can't manage.

It probably helps that you have your head so far up his so since he can't explain it and your his designated public defender why don't you give it a whirl.

Aaron wrote:I'm not sure what you're trying to say Sam. Can you clarify whether or not you are trying to say that women cannot manage?

Why ask me, Aaron, ....... "DUH", you and TerryRC seem to be the self-appointed Forum Experts on that subject?

Aaron wrote:It probably helps that you have your head so far up his so since he can't explain it and your his designated public defender why don't you give it a whirl.

Sam would rip my face off if I said or did anything that might give anyone the impression I felt he needed defending. Old Sam Cogar does pretty darn well defending himself and everyone knows it. It is neither his fault, nor mine, your grasp of the English language is so tenuous that his use of literary devices confounds you.

.


.




.

Stephanie wrote:

Aaron wrote:It probably helps that you have your head so far up his so since he can't explain it and your his designated public defender why don't you give it a whirl.

Sam would rip my face off if I said or did anything that might give anyone the impression I felt he needed defending. Old Sam Cogar does pretty darn well defending himself and everyone knows it. It is neither his fault, nor mine, your grasp of the English language is so tenuous that his use of literary devices confounds you.

Yeah, right.

Except we both know different. If Cato tried to spread half the bullshit Sam does, you'd be the one ripping new ones. Hell, if Cato went on about the goverment being entitled to some other countries resources and not only had the right to those resources but the right to manipulate events to send our military to secure those resources and then lie to the American public, he'd likely find himself in the same company as Linda Redtail.

You can excuse Sam and his bullshit all you want Stephanie but don't try to piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. You're better then that.

And I'm still waiting on Sam, not his public defender, to clarify his remarks.

Aaron wrote:I'm not sure what you're trying to say Sam. Can you clarify whether or not you are trying to say that women cannot manage?

And I'm still waiting on Sam, not his public defender, to clarify his remarks.

Aaron, just because I think that you are incapable of ....... "managing your way out of a big paper bag" .... doesn't mean I think all females have the same limitations as you.

An extremely large percentage of females are incapable of being a good manager.

And there are many females that are "business specific" excellent managers.

And then there are a few females that would be excellent managers no matter what the business venture was.

The primary personality trait that precludes most females and girly-men from ever becoming good or excellent business managers is that they are more prone to making ..... an emotional decision, ....... rather than a logical decision ...... whenever a "business decision" has to be made.

Now, in envisioning one of your forthcoming silly assed or asinine questions, Aaron, I will attempt to offer an example so that you might better understand the above.

Let's assume, Aaron, that you are the Manager of a work crew, ...... and the very bestest, greatest, most productive employee on that work crew, ...... gets in a really heated argument with you, ...... at lunch time, ..... about Sports or Politics, ..... and he really lays the facts n' figures on you, proving that you are full of crap, ......... then I envision you getting all pouty n' pissy faced at him, ..... and would probably make the emotional decision to fire him iffen you could, ....... or at the very least you would "ride his ass" so hard that he would quit his job.

Anyone who allows their "emotional feelings" to determine their decision making ...... should never be permitted to attain the position of manager in a business. It will have the same deterious effects as does the electing of a "bleedingheart" liberal Judge to the Bench of a Criminal Court.

So let me get this straight. If someone reacts emotionally they are a girlyman and if one reacts with logic and reason they are a manly man.

That' cool but just to be clear, these girly men in their emotional responses often get all hissyfaced and if they were typing answers would habitually change the font and colors as to draw attention to their tantrums, ain't that right Sammie Jo.

Aaron wrote: they ........ would habitually change the font and colors as to draw attention to their tantrums, ain't that right Sammie Jo.

OH, ....... WOWEEEEEEEE, .......Aaron, ........... you mean tantrums like this?




Or do you mean tantrums like this one?




OOPS, ...... forget those other two, ........ here's the kinda tantrums that draws your attention.

I could handle the girly-man part Sammie Jo but a One Citizen wannabe? I must say, while not overly suprised, I am a bit disappointed.

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:

Aaron wrote:It probably helps that you have your head so far up his so since he can't explain it and your his designated public defender why don't you give it a whirl.

Sam would rip my face off if I said or did anything that might give anyone the impression I felt he needed defending. Old Sam Cogar does pretty darn well defending himself and everyone knows it. It is neither his fault, nor mine, your grasp of the English language is so tenuous that his use of literary devices confounds you.

Yeah, right.

Except we both know different. If Cato tried to spread half the bullshit Sam does, you'd be the one ripping new ones. Hell, if Cato went on about the goverment being entitled to some other countries resources and not only had the right to those resources but the right to manipulate events to send our military to secure those resources and then lie to the American public, he'd likely find himself in the same company as Linda Redtail.

You can excuse Sam and his bullshit all you want Stephanie but don't try to piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. You're better then that.

Now you're dragging Cato into it? And I'm the one being unfair?

Stephanie wrote:

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:

Aaron wrote:It probably helps that you have your head so far up his so since he can't explain it and your his designated public defender why don't you give it a whirl.

Sam would rip my face off if I said or did anything that might give anyone the impression I felt he needed defending. Old Sam Cogar does pretty darn well defending himself and everyone knows it. It is neither his fault, nor mine, your grasp of the English language is so tenuous that his use of literary devices confounds you.

Yeah, right.

Except we both know different. If Cato tried to spread half the bullshit Sam does, you'd be the one ripping new ones. Hell, if Cato went on about the goverment being entitled to some other countries resources and not only had the right to those resources but the right to manipulate events to send our military to secure those resources and then lie to the American public, he'd likely find himself in the same company as Linda Redtail.

You can excuse Sam and his bullshit all you want Stephanie but don't try to piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. You're better then that.

Now you're dragging Cato into it? And I'm the one being unfair?

I never said anything about being fair or unfair, I simply stated a fact. But you're right on one point, I should not have used Cato as an example so I will rephase.

If Cato any poster other then Sam tried to spread half the bullshit Sam does, you'd be the one ripping new ones. Hell, if Cato any poster other then Sam went on about the goverment being entitled to some other countries resources and not only had the right to those resources but the right to manipulate events to send our military to secure those resources and then lie to the American public, he'd likely find himself in the same company as Linda Redtail receiving your wrath and anger pretty darn fast, quick and in a hurry.

You can excuse Sam and his bullshit all you want Stephanie but don't try to piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. You're better then that.

What do you want, Aaron? Do want a forum moderator who keeps a certain level of decorum between all participants or do you want a friend to discuss and debate issues here? You can't have it both ways, sorry.

What I want if for you not piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. Sam's a big boy and doesn't need your defending him everytime he makes an ass of himself or is proven wrong. If he did, you would have to put Loyd in public school as that would be a full time job.

I'm not defending Sam. He is a big boy. He does a fine job all by himself. What I am doing is agreeing with him. You really don't take to well to being told you're wrong, Aaron. Sam's got that right. You seem insistant on believing that if someone debates your view of something they're your enemy. I don't view things that way at all.

Some of my best friends in the world disagree with me on issues near and very dear to my heart. I don't want only to associate with people who think exactly as I do. I'd never learn anything new that way now would I?

I don't think anyone likes to be told they're wrong but I can deal with it. If I disagree with you (or Sam or anyone else) I'll simply dismiss it. I don't get my panties all in a wad and start acting like One Citizen or shit like that.

What rubs me the wrong way is when you (or anyone else) says I'm wrong and I offer support of my postion while you (or anyone else) continue spouting the same tired tripe with nothing backing you up. That is what Sam did regarding Sarah Palin and it's also what you did regarding Michelle Bachman.

You're both wrong but you're both so arrogant that you think that's not possible simply becasue you don't think so and then after I post material that supports my argument, you both get your panties in a wad.

You say I am wrong and that you agree with Sam. Fine. Prove it. Don't tell me I'm wrong, SHOW me I'm wrong, if you can.

And I don't believe anyone is my enemy. I simply refuse to back down when I'm right, for anyone. If you have somthing that disputes my point of view I'll take a look at it and either agree or disagree but I won't back down because someone disagrees with me. I'll continue to state my case up to and including support of my viewpoint.

The only thing I can't stand is a liar and even he's not my enemy, he's simply a weaslewording liar who wouldn't know the truth if it hit him (it's not Sam) in the face.

I like Sam, I'm just imune to his bullshit and refuse to swallow it hook, line and sinker.

Aaron, what can I do to show you I'm correct?

You don't understand what Sam posts. I do. I "get" what he's saying. I don't share your inability to understand Sam's meaning, unless he's talking about something scientific or technological or mechanical that's way over my head. That stuff goes by me whether it's Sam or my husband or my science geek daughter.

Prove you wrong about what? About Bachmann & Palin and their chances of winning the GOP nomination? For crying out loud, Aaron, neither of these women have announced plans on running. I have told you why I won't vote for Bachmann. I haven't seen the field yet, I don't know who I'm going to vote for. All I can do is tell you why I don't think either of them is capable of winning the nomination and why I won't vote for them, unless my options are only Bachmann & Palin in which case Palin gets my vote.

That sums up the disagreement you and I have been having for days now. It's stupid and I'm not responding to it any more, unless you have some clear and compelling evidence to prove to me that one of these women is a far better or worse candidate than I currently perceive them to be.

I can't find the post right now but you stated Sam was right, I was wrong and questioned my reading comprehension. That's not "getting" Sam (I get him by the way. He's an arrogant ass who hates being told he's wrong and when it's proven, he really gets his panties in a wad), that's saying he's right and I'm wrong. Fine, your entitled to your opinion but at the end of the day all you have is the same thing he does, a definitive statement that is countered by polls and articles that clearly dispute your argument.

As for Bachman, you said you weren't buying my post. I ask you to clarify what you weren't buying and when you did, I showed you why you are incorrect. You don't have to buy her being the nominee but voters in Iowa do, as do those who have publically supported her in various polls. When your opinion is countered by concrete evidence to the contrary, there is no way you can show you are correct. To me or anyone else.

Voters in Iowa bought into Huckabee in 2008. How did that work out?
Iowa is ONE state. You're not suggesting voters in other states should have no say in who the nominee will ultimately be, are you?

Aaron wrote: but you stated Sam was right, I was wrong and questioned my reading comprehension. That's not "getting" Sam (I get him by the way. He's an arrogant ass who hates being told he's wrong and when it's proven, he really gets his panties in a wad), that's saying he's right and I'm wrong. Fine, your entitled to your opinion but at the end of the day all you have is the same thing he does, a definitive statement that is countered by polls and articles that clearly dispute your argument.

Let’ see, key wording in the above is:
1. questioning reading comprehension
2. a definitive statement countered by polls and articles
3. article that clearly dispute the argument
4. polls that clearly dispute the argument

Is this the mentioned article that clearly disputes the argument?

Re: Elites Way Off on Palin Electability by Aaron on Fri Mar 25, 2011 9:28 am

Aaron wrote:

Sarah Palin's support among likely Republican primary voters is fading according to a newly-released Gallup poll, the second national survey this week to indicate the Alaska Republican is headed in the wrong direction as the 2012 primary race gears up.

Accord to the Gallup survey, which was released Friday, Palin draws 12 percent of support from Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, a 4 percent decline from a similar Gallup survey conducted one month ago.

She's dropping faster then your lucidity Sammy ole boy when you miss a dose of your meds.

Does “support fading” and “headed in the wrong direction” ……. clearly state anything? Not really, at least not clear enough to make any sense out of.

But now “draws 12 percent of support” clearly states a percentage, ….. but a percentage of how many Republicans? 12% of 40 Republicans, 12% of 400, 12% of 40,000 or 12% of 4,000,000?

The article doesn’t clearly say how many Republicans were polled, …… and if it doesn’t clearly say anything except a percentage # ……… then it clearly isn’t stating anything.


Is this the mentioned poll that clearly disputes the argument?

Re: Elites Way Off on Palin Electability by Aaron Yesterday (3-29-11) at 12:53 pm

Aaron wrote:

Survey Methods
Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted March 18-22, 2011, on the Gallup Daily tracking survey, with a random sample of 1,082 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, selected using random-digit-dial sampling.

.

So, out of the MILLIONS of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, ….. 1,082 of them ……. disputed the argument,……. HUH?

And 130 of those 1,082 is all that supported Palin, huh? A decrease of 43 people from the last time.

Stephanie wrote:Voters in Iowa bought into Huckabee in 2008. How did that work out?
Iowa is ONE state. You're not suggesting voters in other states should have no say in who the nominee will ultimately be, are you?

No, I'm saying she is in the conversation whether you like it or not. As for how it worked out for Huckabee, I'd say it worked better for him then it did Ron Paul.

Like it or not Sam, polling is scientifically proven and accurate. As I stated previously, she's dropping faster then your lucidity when you forget your meds.