Is Religion Causing Unequal Pay Among Women?

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xgj6fo_homer-scooby-doo-can-doo-doo-but-jimmy-carter-is-smarter_shortfilms

(I watch the Simpsons too much)

Snerked so hard at this. But that's admittedly 30 years of cynicism as someone raised Catholic.


I'm actually not trying to imply inpropriety directly. I just feel like that, in the case of a church, it actually wouldn't be hard or even entirely inaccurate to report pretty much all income as charitable donations or otherwise related to their religious duties.


Yeah. Like I said, murky area. But I know that the land and churches themselves, in the vast majority of situations, are not taxed.

What about James K. Polk? ;;

I'll see your Polk and raise you Millard Fillmore.

Believe it or not, 501(c)(3) organizations are one of the most heavily audited group of organizations who file returns.

More "churches" lose their tax exempt status due to unrelated business income than not. It is very rare (like 1 CPA in a decade) where it was due to fraud and an actual CPA encouraged it.

It's a pretty big deal for us. Almost as bad in our eyes as a terrorist attack, at least to those of us who are very passionate in our profession.

I'll take your Fillmore and raise you a William Henry Harrison/Benjamin Harrison.

Where is the line drawn on what's taxed and not, then? Especially for the major players in Judeo-Christianity in the U.S.?

Want to stress here I'm actually just interested now beyond my own personal beliefs in wanting us as a race to ween off of religion. Wondering how far churches can reasonably stretch their tax exemptions and not be "shady" about it?

I see you both and raise you Merkin Muffley, the greatest Cold War president that never was.

Is this a question about women getting paid less than men on general or if religion is causing religious women to be paid differently than non religious ones?

Unrelated Business Income (and extension, Unrelated Business Taxable Income) is defined by the IRS as:

1. A trade or business
2. Regularly carried on and,
3. Not substantially related to the exempt organization.

Yeah, I know these are very broad definitions (welcome to tax accounting), but generally it means that a church can't go around selling cars or sell financial advice. They can sell crosses and posters of Jesus giving the thumbs up while winking and it not considered unrelated business income.

A church holding securities (such as stock or bonds) is taxed on the income of said securities. A church selling wedding services is not taxed on selling said services.

There are some grey areas there, such as selling securities donated to the church (or holding on to them to let the accrue in value), but in general, it depends on how the church runs these little side businesses.

Now, the Vatican isn't subject to US tax code. So tying Christianity to taxes will never happen. Reason being tax treaties with Italy.

Okay. So I was understanding it pretty well as intended. Still too much grey for me and I'd like to see them paying a lot more. This is obviously all opinion at this point, but anything that isn't being readily put into actual charity should be taxed. Or, rather, it should all be taxed and they can write off the actual charity.

Then again, I don't know how that would effect non-Religious charitable organizations and non-profits, so maybe it's just too slippery a slope.


Catholicism, at least. Bleh.

A little bit of both, I think. It seems to me to be a question of whether Religions' influence on society pushes -- intentionally or subconciously -- for a more submissive, lesser role by women, thereby influencing salaries directly.

I guess where I come down on it is that indirectly, sure, it's had an effect. But only in the same way religion has influenced everything else in society. Direct correlation between the two at this point is pretty well out the window.

It's a problem that needs addressed, but this is probably not the fashion to go about doing it.

But on the other side of things, this

Oh lord. Huffington Post again too. That's what makes me wonder why they do that if not to incite the conservatives.

Here is a thought, instead of blaming religion, let's blame the whole evolution of society and technology. Let's face it, women were places in a weaker role back when the first woman was physically weaker than a man and the only way to survive was through physical labor.

I am a member of a church that Mr. Carter is probably referring to. I wasn't born in it. In fact, I didn't join it till after I had graduated college, joined a work force, and developed my own thoughts on life. Women have never been demeaned in a talk. Just because we do not let women serve in a priesthood fashion does not mean we treat them as inferior. Religion teaches we are to "cleave to our wife" and be "one flesh." Priesthood service is a responsibility. The power is God's and is taken away through unrighteousness. Which demeaning a wife, or any woman is unrighteousness. Not even every man is given these priesthood positions.

One of my church leaders said "God has only had imperfect people to work with. That must be very frustrating for Him." ~Elder Jeffrey R. Holland

People seem to always feel oppressed or angry at conflicting views. Just because I don't drink anymore, does that mean I write off my friends that do or think the less? No, I still talk to. Care for, and accept them as much as anyone that stands beside me on Sunday.

Good man right there. Regardless of what you believe, is it your actions that define you.

In this case, the only incitement is coming from the actual conservative. They're just saying what that conservative said.

Women are consistently payed less than men.
Why hasn't the freemarket come into play and replaced all the working men with working women for greater profit?

In my experience, you are in the extreme minority. In many cases I've known people who kicked "vices" tend to look down upon those who haven't given them up entirely. Or at least distance themselves from them.


Untrue. Just because many - true, a majority even - of cultures went that route, some cultures, traditions or religions embrace women as lifegivers and/or equals simply capable of performing different, not inferior tasks.

Well technically in order to maximize profit, you have to pay your workers less. Hiring more female workers with less pay would do that, if you believe women make less.

I'm not sure while childcare has always been labeled as an "inferior task" as it is a pain in *** to watch little kids all the time. I used to watch a bunch of autistic kids and regular kids as well for summer jobs during college and I never want to do that again. I'd rather be doing electronic recycling. Too bad I only discovered that after I graduated.

According to Huff Post all men are evil. But they secretly want to get married.

I'm a right ***. I made peace with that by like 13. I knew it before puberty was even finished.

I do love all the men bashing articles. Followed immediately by how to meet the right man.

With all the bad advice given to women it's shocking they find any man. Not just the "right" one.

All men are created equal evil!

Yahoo does that all the time too. It's rather funny when you know what's going on.

There is an overall pay gap if you look at every man versus every woman. It is caused by parents that give their little daughters dolls and make them cute little homemakers from birth while they give their sons building sets and microscopes while teaching them to be aggressive. But job for job, it us illegal to pay a woman less than a man for the same job yet here come the liberals armed with pitchforks and torches pretending that this is not the case.

My pitchfork is covered in patriarchy ! That and old issues of Cosmo magazine.

I'm practically in tears reading this thread. Calm debate is so pleasant.

I'd argue that religion is the instrument of culture, not the sheet music directing it. Yes, religious leaders do their best to push their agendas, but so does anyone else with even a modicum (or illusion) of power. There are long-standing issues of misogyny and discrimination, but blaming that on religion just feels like a dodge. The Bible explicitly doesn't contain the Gospel of Thomas, after all.

Anyhow, if we want to discuss religions that systematically make life radically different for the two sexes, Islam is head-and-shoulders a bigger target than Christianity in the 21st century, but it also has limited to no influence on US culture.

If we want to actually target the real problem, we'd have to go after how we segregate kids by sex practically from the moment they're born. The weight of that tradition is so heavy that most people hardly even register that they're carrying it on. But Christianity has virtually no impact in buying blue blankets for boys and pink for girls, nor encouraging boys to run and girls to play house, and all the other sex-segregated roles we instill.

I occasionally wonder about that. Part of why women get paid less, though, is because they basically opt to be; a fact that is often ignored. Maternity is certainly at the top of the list, but women are both less likely to seek employment and more likely to be supported when doing so, two factors that stabilize one another.

And there's the fact that most women in America straight-up can't do a lot of work that's out there. While a woman can generally do any kind of blue collar work a man can, the majority of them are so physically weak because they've been culturally told never to use their muscles that it's just not even worth it. I dunno how many women apply to work on construction sites, but I do know how rare they are. Ditto for most warehouse jobs; when I see women working in a warehouse, it is almost always in a repack department (picking out one or two individual items from a stack and building a customer's order, e.g., making Amazon boxes).

Get into the white collar world, though, and are you sure women aren't being hired to save money? How often do you see male secretaries, even though they represented almost 100% of the population barely more than a century ago? Hell, every time I have to call into customer service, I'm slightly amazed to talk to a man, but it's easily been at least a 3:1 ratio in favor of women. I'm half-convinced that I'm at a disadvantage seeking administrative work because I have a distinctly male name at the top of my résumé. It seems to be the upper echelons of management where women don't reach: the glass ceiling.

You're welcome! >:D

Actually, can you cite the legislation on that? It hardly seems reasonable to pay a freshly-hired 22-year-old woman who just got her bachelor's degree the same as a 35-year-old man working the same position for the past 7 years and I suspect the law must permit for that kind of discretion.