There have been plenty of peer-reviewed articles where identical fake resumes were made using black-sounding names and white-sounding names, and the white names got called in for interviews at a much higher clip. A bit outdated, but 2009 nber study
And, umm, this has to do with women in the military, how?
If you are referring to my jab at BBS, you needn't concern yourself, I am just playing with him. Fraudulent resumes get a person no job, as soon as the fraudulent resume is discovered.
One job I had a long time ago, a fellow had gotten hired and he was working out just fine. Come in one day he's gone. "What'd he do?" I asked, he lied on his application and when discovered, even though he'd been hired, they fired him.
Oh, and you been listening to Rush lately? When was it, Thursday I think it was, when that very study you have linked to was brought up.
I'll bet ya that any of those who got offered interviews didn't show up for the interview. LOL. Since those people didn't actually exist. I point out this just because exposing wrongdoing through fraudulent means is just funny. It is what it is, but I don't think it has much to do with anything when it comes to female combat troops getting paid the same as male combat troops. Pay in the military is pretty much "Your rank fall here in the table of pay".
spurgistan wrote:It doesn't matter if "women in general" don't want to serve on the front lines - men "in general" don't want to serve on the front lines, or we'd be able to fight way more wars. But a few are ok with being puppets of international finance and dying for oil companies, so, we let them.
That's kind of out of nowhere. Ok then, sure I guess. And this has to do with women serving in combat roles how? That's just a completely different topic all together.
Are you for or against women on the front lines? I'm all for it, so long as they can pass the exact same PT that males can pass. And the PT isn't all that heavy, really. Hell, in Turkey during the First Gulf war, I seen guys who got their service rifle jammed, couldn't clear the jam and just throw their weapon down on the ground and all pissed off. Sad but true.
spurgistan wrote:Proscribed means the exact opposite of how you used it there. Minor quibble.
My apologies. I hit the wrong letter. Thank you sir. But you got my meaning, all the pay is specifically laid out by the military and there are no charts that have "Male earns X" and "Female earn X-Y".
That's why I think it silly to be worrying about the pay, women will get the same terrible pay as the men.
This all seems more like a PR campaign than anything. You are right, anyone in their right mind won't want to get anywhere near a battlefield. Seems like an issue for feminists and such, which makes me <yawn>. I'd think most women would be of the mind "screw that" (and rightly so) when it comes to- "How would you like to serve your country by killing the bad guys on the front lines?"
Lord knows, we'll have plenty of more wars. Never a shortage of them. Someone has to fight in the wars, I guess. Seems wasteful to me, but the politicians know best.......
Anyway, have a good day!