7 Ridiculous Laws Against Women

-

On November 17th, the Paycheck Fairness Act went to the Senate for vote. The bill would have provided “improvement and modifications” to the Equal Pay Act of 1963. President Obama called it a common sense bill. Nonetheless, it failed to pass due to an overwhelming surge of Republican opposition. Democrats voted 56:1 in favor, while Republicans went 1:40 against it.

So what have women lost as a result of this vote? As Jezebel reports, the Act would have “required employers to provide a business justification for paying men and women differently for the same work and make it easier for employees to obtain salary data and ask about salaries without retaliation.” A lack of transparency is a key reason why many women remain underpaid. Currently, a woman makes 77 cents to each dollar a man earns.

What do Senate Republicans and one Democrat have against a woman knowing what her co-worker earns? Some argued that the Act would kill jobs, and that a woman’s lower pay is a result of her choices in balancing family life with work.

Others argued that it would have opened up the work place for unnecessary lawsuits. But as the Washington Post points out, the Act would have simply “clarified vague language in the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and applied well-established legal standards that are in place for other types of pay discrimination.”

To mourn the death of the Paycheck Fairness Act, check out our homage to some of the more ridiculous laws regarding women on the books. Hopefully, some will soon be repealed. Let’s just not send them to Congress to do so.

1. In Maryland, a woman cannot go through her husband’s pockets while he is sleeping. Not even if she really wants a piece of gum.

2. In Vermont, a woman must obtain written permission from her husband if she wishes to wear false teeth. Because women really lead with their teeth in wanton, uncontrolled sexuality.

3. In Tucson, Arizona, women are not allowed to wear pants. No word on the stance on booty shorts or thongs.

4. In Carrizozo, New Mexico, it is illegal for a woman to appear unshaven in public. Rejoice, razor industry, rejoice!

5. In Dyersburg, Tennessee, it is illegal for a woman to call a man on a date. I don’t want to live in a world where equal-opportunity drunk dialing isn’t free to all.

6. In Carmel, New York, women may not wear high heels within the city limits. They are obviously just protecting their citizens, as this move effectively disqualifies the city from ever letting a “Sex and the City” sequel to be shot in their town. Good move, Carmel!

7. In Michigan, a woman isn’t allowed to cut her hair without her husband’s permission. But what if her husband cuts it for her?

Image: ralpe

Sponsored Content:

DISCUSSION

162 thoughts on “7 Ridiculous Laws Against Women

  1. Pingback: 158/365 – ”கொலைவெறி” சட்டங்கள்.. « Quotes 365

  2. bullshit i dont believe that any of these laws exist 

  3. No all of these sound about right. I say if anyone disagrees they should be given the chair.

  4. That law would b awesome :p a bunch of chicks walking around half naked lol every guys dream, the chicks have to b hot tho O.O

  5. Seen the statute books, have you? Just because it’s not enforced doesn’t mean it’s not on them. Plenty of old laws become anachronistic but are not repealed. Doesn’t mean they aren’t still laws.

  6. Because laws are never enforced does not mean they aren’t on the books. There are plenty of countries that have very strange laws, by today’s standards, that once served a purpose but were never repealed and now look weird.
    Perhaps you SHOULD do some research too.

  7. in Guam. a women cant marry when she is a virgin. so there are men who get paid for helping the woman loose her virginity.

  8. Number 3 is not true. I live there and there is no law saying we cant wear pants. I see women wearing pants and no policemen comes or someone dials for the police. I think u shood have researched before u made this.

  9. That whole arguement ya’ll were having a lot of you are right and a lot of you are wrong
    1:the law SHOULD have been passed why?: Because if a woman is just as capable as a man and does the same job gets the same results and does it just as well as he does she should get paid just as much as he does not a cent less or more just cause she has a vag. If she does it better,gets more clients,gets projects and presentations done before the deadline she gets a pay raise, many man run companies do not consider this.

    Also a study conducted by the university of Florida found that thinner women get paid more than average weight women and fatter men get paid more than thinner men, the law would have also protected these people.

    If the people had a problem with the way their employer paid them be prepared to show your work achievements and I’m sure your boss would be happy to throw together the projects and presentations you have done to push the company forward, that is if he is confident in how he treats you in the work place.

  10. Not exactly these rules and regulations are often forgotten until they can play a role in the oppositions favor then everyone remembers them and the silliness starts over again..

  11. How silly can the lawmakers be?

  12. The 77 cents is in fact *not* easily proven, but is a statistically skewed and inaccurate value that is the result of unfair comparison. In fact, among 27- to 33-year-old American people who have never had a child, women’s earnings are close to 98% of men’s! The “77 cents” figure is the result of comparing *all* women to *all* men, but such a comparison is far too simplistic. Denise Venable wrote an incisive article on this as far back as 2002, which you should check out: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba392/

  13. what if your not married? cant you wear false teeth or even have a haircut?

  14. Only in USA!!!!!! :))))))))))))))))))

  15. you really do deserve to die in a hole for that it proves you are in fact a sexist dirty disgusting pig. What type of person goes around saying you deserve 77 cents to every dollar, people who rot in hell that’s who

  16. Some people need to fucking grow up. It’s a down right disgrace and absolutely disgusting. Open your minds you pathetic sexist fucks! Equal rights FTW!

  17. good should be more laws lets make some up on the man show

  18. Please, that’s ridiculous. My mother always worked while my father stayed home to watch me and my siblings. And they were both raised in the 50′s. And Mormon. Don’t give me that enslaved crap, I know plenty of families where the dad stays at home.

  19. Please, that’s ridiculous. My mother always worked while my father stayed home to watch me and my siblings. And they were both raised in the 50′s. And Mormon. Don’t give me that enslaved crap, I know plenty of families where the dad stays at home.

  20. Please, that’s ridiculous. My mother always worked while my father stayed home to watch me and my siblings. And they were both raised in the 50′s. And Mormon. Don’t give me that enslaved crap, I know plenty of families where the dad stays at home.

  21. Please, that’s ridiculous. My mother always worked while my father stayed home to watch me and my siblings. And they were both raised in the 50′s. And Mormon. Don’t give me that enslaved crap, I know plenty of families where the dad stays at home.

  22. Please, that’s ridiculous. My mother always worked while my father stayed home to watch me and my siblings. And they were both raised in the 50′s. And Mormon. Don’t give me that enslaved crap, I know plenty of families where the dad stays at home.

  23. Damn stupid…wonder if there’s something wrong with the people who come up with all these laws…

  24. Damn stupid…wonder if there’s something wrong with the people who come up with all these laws…

  25. Damn stupid…wonder if there’s something wrong with the people who come up with all these laws…

  26. Damn stupid…wonder if there’s something wrong with the people who come up with all these laws…

  27. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  28. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  29. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  30. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  31. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  32. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  33. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  34. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  35. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  36. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  37. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  38. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  39. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  40. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  41. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  42. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  43. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  44. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  45. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  46. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  47. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  48. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  49. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  50. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  51. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  52. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  53. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  54. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  55. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  56. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  57. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  58. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  59. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  60. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  61. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  62. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  63. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  64. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  65. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  66. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  67. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  68. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  69. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  70. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  71. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  72. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  73. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  74. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  75. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  76. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  77. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  78. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  79. Instead of calling the Constitution authors outdated sexist pigs, consider WHY there can be no law affecting the enforcement of the employment agreement. What you WANT is your decisions dictated to you. This requires a dictator. The government you want is not a lawful government in a free country, which protects the people from invasion and crime and doesn’t invent crimes.

  80. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  81. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  82. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  83. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  84. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  85. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  86. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  87. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  88. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  89. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  90. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  91. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  92. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  93. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  94. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  95. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  96. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  97. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  98. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  99. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  100. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  101. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  102. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  103. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  104. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  105. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  106. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  107. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  108. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  109. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  110. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  111. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  112. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  113. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  114. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  115. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  116. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  117. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  118. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  119. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  120. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  121. “Excuse me, Ma’am, but I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the pants.”

  122. “The fact is that most men would not be able to be employed fulltime if nit weren’t for the female doing all the child care-taking responsibilities”nnWomen marry men who will work to support their freedom and children.u00a0 Woe to the man who wants to be a house husband.u00a0 He’s given no choice, work, and work more.nnMen have no choice.u00a0 nnAlso, for a little gender equity here, list the laws against men.u00a0 Like conscription.nnAnother trite article promoting misandery.

  123. this is wrong i could never do any of these things without my husbands permission

  124. “americans”………..nonNorth american’snpleasenthe other XDDD

  125. Okay, um, number 3 is not true at all. That’s just a lie. I have been to Tucson and there is no law saying women can’t wear pants.

  126. Some argued that the Act would kill jobs, and that a womanu2019s lower pay is a result of her choices in balancing family life with work.nnThe fact is that most men would not be able to be employed fulltime if it weren’t for the female doing all the child caretaking responsibilitie. Women work the noted duble shift (the fulltime job that pays for bills and daycare costs) and the 2nd job when she gets home, that is not paid. Men have it made when they get married. Women are enslaved.

  127. The question which begs answering is not whether a law remains on the books but rather when the law was last enforced.n n(I doubt that a pants-wearing woman was arrested in Tucson for this offense in the last few decades)nnIf a law is not acted upon, isn’t it immaterial as to its existence? nnMany of our state laws reflect the time and mindset they came from. These have long been forgotten until someone dusts them off and has a good laugh.

  128. In Utah, a divorced woman may not return to her maiden name without written permission of her former husband.n

  129. Yeah, maybe in your imaginary world. Maternity leave is only available for union workers or some high paid workers in very large organizations. The majority of American women do not receive these benefits. And yes, even without taking time off to raise children or care for elderly parents…we do earn less!

  130. Pingback: Do numbers matter? | Ralpe's Blog

  131. you are flawed in your thinking to believe the market isnt rational….GREED regulates the market…therefore it IS rational….and YOU deserve 77 cents to my dollar and THATS why!!

  132. dude you know that these laws are old and are not even inforced anymore because they are so ridiclious

  133. Wrong. You are assuming the market is rational, but it is not. Humans bring hidden bias, emotions and irrational factors into their decision-making process. The 77 cents is in fact, easily proven, and has been, time and again.

  134. The ’77 cents to a dollar’ is a myth. In a ‘dog eat dog’ environment it is impossible to underpay women systematically, because everyone would hire women and save 25% on salary costs…

  135. Understand that if men helped equally with taken care of their own offspring women wouldn’t have as much pressure to be Superwoman. That’s really all I have to say on the matter. For me the rest of it was TL;DR

  136. Ugh… you Americans have such stupid laws down there. Seriously, what the hell? Those are really disgusting laws and I know that a lot of you are ashamed of them, and for the rest of you, you should be ashamed. You can’t advance as a society or a civilization without change. Living in archaic and stone-age mentalities will only lead you to shrivel up and die. That goes for anything and anyone. I’m ashamed my country is slipping on women’s rights. You guys are ahead of us on that for the first time ever. Bravo to you guys but that’s bad news for the gals up here. : (
    Ah well, let’s all try hard to make our countries progress into happiness. : D

  137. hahahahha america is the funniest country in the world! we tell everybody to have have freedom of expression, but… you catch hell if you express yourself! and heavens forbid if you dare to speak the TRUTH

    OOOPPSS! Did I just say the “T” word? we are forbidden to say words, we have to refer them by the initial letter… the N word, the F word… the C word… and the worst part is that people goes along with it! they are not people but SHEEPLE! Baaaahhhh Baaaaahhhh

    Morons….

  138. these laws, if true are ridiculous. A country which prides itself for having freedom for its people should abolish such laws. Calling out to all women in America, please break these “laws” to show that you don’t stand for misogynism

  139. This is true. In fact, my wife and I are about to have a baby and I just talked to my boss about the time I get off. Two weeks paid, just to hang out with my daughter after she’s born.

    Obviously, benefits for men are not nearly as good as the maternity benefits for women, but we still get something..

  140. WRONG! Men are elligible for maternity leave and have been for awhile now.

  141. Really? At least use correct grammar and calling us names. And besides, not all Americans are dumb, thats just sterotyping.

  142. I have worked all my life for equal treatment for women. HOWEVER–Since I know the Tucson silly law is not true (or if it is an ancient law that somehow never got cleaned off the books, it is certainly not enforced!) the whole article becomes questionable. 40 years ago women made 34 cents to men’s dollar. The gap is closing as more women work full time and in higher-paying jobs. There is definitely lots of room for improvement but I can’t really see how imposing more paper work on companies that hire women does anything but discourage the hiring of women. Watch out for unintended consequences.

  143. Advocacy for a law that makes compensation, negotiated between an employee and an employer, public information to anyone that “feels” discriminated against — yea, thats a super idea.

    Better yet, lets set up one of those “commissions” to go around to each business and closely examine everyone’s pay. When there is even a slight disparity between a male and female’s paycheck, put the employer through several costly hearings to sort out why…nevermind that one employee may be a better worker than the other.

    Try to think past your own anger for a bit. The Paycheck Fairness Act should not have been passed.

    Let me guess, Im a sexist, racist, homophobe…did I miss one?

  144. A law doesn’t make you ‘equal’. If someone does not treat you as an equal, no amount of legislation is going to change their mind. ‘Equality’ is personal and you cannot legislate people’s feelings.

  145. Crazy! But I know ya can’t walk in high heels in Mobile downtown (AL), prohibited by ancient city law!

  146. One very good reason for the pay discrepancy: women get paid maternity leave, men do not.

  147. Pingback: nice « dreysay

  148. i live in tucson and that law is so not true

  149. I have repeatedly seen these sorts of articles citing absurd laws. Never to they contain a citation so that someone with legal training could track down the law. (E.g, a Federal law would be Title (1-50) U.S. Code, Section (normally 1 to 4 [and sometimes 5] numbers). Example: Title 18, U.S. Code Section 1001. [Don't lie to Uncle Sam or you may go to the slammer for up to five years]. The U.S. states also have codified bodies of law, for example, Minnesota, which as Chapter and sections. (Chapter 609 is crimes, and Section 609.18 is 1st degree murder). The cities have municipal ordinances–Minneapolis, MN, as a Code of Ordinances with Titles, chapters and sections. Title 14–Liquor and Beer, Chapter 370–Regulations involving minors, and Section 370.10–Sale to Minors.

    None of these “laws” have any citations or references to where the law is. I suggest that the vast majority of these are bogus internet legends, thought up by people with too much time on their hands to see how gullible people are.

  150. The following report prepared by CONSAD Research Corporation presents the results of a detailed statistical analysis of the attributes that contribute to the wage gap and a synopsis of the economic research that has been conducted on the issue. The major findings are:
    There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent. These variables include:

    A greater percentage of women than men tend to work part-time. Part-time work tends to pay less than full-time work.

    A greater percentage of women than men tend to leave the labor force for child birth, child care and elder care. Some of the wage gap is explained by the percentage of women who were not in the labor force during previous years, the age of women, and the number of children in the home.

    Women, especially working mothers, tend to value “family friendly” workplace policies more than men. Some of the wage gap is explained by industry and occupation, particularly, the percentage of women who work in the industry and occupation.

    Research also suggests that differences not incorporated into the model due to data limitations may account for part of the remaining gap. Specifically, CONSAD’s model and much of the literature, including the Bureau of Labor Statistics Highlights of Women’s Earnings, focus on wages rather than total compensation. Research indicates that women may value non-wage benefits more than men do, and as a result prefer to take a greater portion of their compensation in the form of health insurance and other fringe benefits.

    In principle, more of the raw wage gap could be explained by including some additional variables within a single comprehensive analysis that considers all of the factors simultaneously; however, such an analysis is not feasible to conduct with available data bases. Factors, such as work experience and job tenure, require data that describe the behavior of individual workers over extended time periods. The longitudinal data bases that contain such information include too few workers, however, to support adequate analysis of factors like occupation and industry. Cross-sectional data bases that include enough workers to enable analysis of factors like occupation and industry do not collect data on individual workers over long enough periods to support adequate analysis of factors like work experience and job tenure.

  151. “arbitrary and ridiculous laws” I don’t care if you are a man, or a woman. Your inherent sexism disgusts me. Your first two sentences compare these sexist 7 laws to a law that protects women and state they are are equal. I’m a man, and love the women in my life, and there is nothing ridiculous about ensuring equal pay. The ‘free market’ is full of businesses run by men that have been brought up in a culture that undervalues women. It is people yourself that are the reason such a law should exist.

    Woman have been shit on for all of human existence. Religions across the planet still enforce brutal treatment of woman. And in North America we are STILL transitioning from this unjust history. “Find a company that does pay the wages you seek” yes a woman could do that, and for the same job, a man would be getting 20% more. The 7 stupid laws (probably from the past) are examples of the very sexism people like yourself perpetrate whether you know it or not.

    I don’t complain that the government is inept, the government is the government, it is run by humans and that creates problems. I want a government that protects its people, and sometimes that involves protecting them from their own human nature. Laws against racism and hate crimes, laws against sexism and sexual harassment. I WANT those things. I WANT that government interference, I WANT them to mentor those disgusting traits out of their citizens.

    The republicans (and one democrat) who voted against this are sexist pigs. Not much of a surprise.

  152. The 7 “Ridiculous” laws are perfect examples of why the Paycheck Fairness Act shouldn’t have been voted in. Its not governments place to enforce such arbitrary and ridiculous laws. If the government would have just butted out years ago and let the free market operate there would be no need for any fairness acts of any kind. If a company doesnt pay you what you believe to be a fair market value, then quit! Find a company that does pay you the wages you seek. This is obviously too fu*king simple for the federal government. Everyone complains about how inept the government is, but for some reason they still turn to legislature to fix the problems that the government often created to begin with.

 

Submit a comment:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>