Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Women Catch Up With Men's 2006 Earnings Today

By Heather Boushey, AlterNet. Posted April 24, 2007.


Today is Equal Pay Day -- an anti-holiday that marks how far into 2007 a woman must work to earn as much as a man earned last year.
Advertisement

Equal Pay Day, on April 24, is not quite a national holiday. In fact, it's something of an anti-holiday, marking how far into 2007 a woman must work to earn as much as a man earned last year. Although women have made gains over the last century, by the most basic measure -- pay -- they continue to earn 77 cents on the male dollar, even if they have similar educational levels and work in similar kinds of jobs as their male counterparts.

The gender pay gap should be a concern to all Americans, not just women. The typical wife in the United States brings home about one-third of her family's income, and over the past generation, families with a working wife have been more likely to move up the income ladder. When women are short-changed, the whole family suffers.

This embarrassing fact -- hidden in plain view -- tends to trigger a barrage of objections from economic and cultural conservatives. Aren't women just making poor choices? they ask. Their argument is that even if most women probably don't "choose" to be paid less than their male colleagues, they do continue to choose to work in different jobs than men and take on the role of primary caregiver at home. Let's look at the reality. Women are disproportionately represented in lower-paid occupations like nursing, teaching, retail sales, and clerical work, and are more likely than men to work in the nonprofit sector. Women who attend college continue to choose majors that prepare for them for less-well-paid professions (but even within occupations, in the first year out of school, men earn more). And confronted with the reality of anti-family workplaces, women continue to not only do the most caretaking but also bear the economic brunt through lowered lifetime earnings.

So clearly, women, through their choice of occupation, college major and, ahem, "sensitivity" to the well-being of the young and defenseless, are making "bad" choices. If policymakers want to do something about this aspect of the inequality, they'll pretty much have to focus on getting high school guidance counselors to steer women into nontraditional, higher paid jobs.

So it's women's fault, right? Not quite. A sizeable chunk of the pay gap remains unexplained (41 percent, according to economists) by such basic life decisions. This means that if women worked in the same jobs as men and had the same educational and the same experience levels, they would still be making only 90 cents for every male dollar. How do we close this final gap?

First off, the remaining gap is not because women are choosing the jobs that allow them to balance work and family. Contrary to this myth, the reality is that mothers are actually less likely to be employed in jobs that provide greater flexibility (see PDF, here, for details). Only about a quarter of today's work force reports having any workplace flexibility, and it's the better educated, white and male workers who generally have more flexibility to run out of the office for a family emergency, take the afternoon off to take their child to the dentist, etc.

We need to encourage -- or even mandate -- that employers offer workplace flexibility (when possible), and paid parental leave and sick leave. Mothers and caretakers are discriminated against in the workplace -- they earn less than nonmothers even in the same jobs with the same experience and education. Men who take on care responsibilities are also often discriminated against, passed up for promotions or not seen as "dedicated" to the job.

Women -- and all workers -- need to be able to take some time off from work when they have to provide care. Yet, only about half of all U.S. workers have access to anticipated, unpaid leave (under the Family and Medical Leave Act), and even less have paid leave. And, of course, the less a woman earns, the less likely she is to have any leave, paid or unpaid. Highly educated women, who are more likely to have paid maternity leave than less educated women, have smoother transitions back to work after their child is born and are significantly more likely to return to their same employer. Unfortunately, this is the exception, not the rule.

Better leave policies can make workplaces more family -- and woman -- friendly. Nearly two-thirds of workers (both full-time and part-time) do not have access to paid sick leave to care for a sick child. The share of employees without paid sick leave for themselves or a child's illness rises to 84 percent in construction and nondurable manufacturing and 94 percent in accommodations and food services, an industry that disproportionately employs women.

We can close the gap in pay between men and women. But it will require that we expect employers to acknowledge that most workers are also caregivers and that this means that workers need some flexibility to be able to be both good workers and good parents. Size (of women's pay) does matter, and not just to women but to all of us.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: economics, gender pay-gap


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Here we go again
Posted by: Moonray on Apr 24, 2007 4:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been reading this story every year for at least 30 years. (In some of those years, when I was a journalist, I even helped write it.)

OK, we get it. Women are still being paid less ON AVERAGE. We all know the reasons why, including the blatant discrimination that still exists in some workplaces. What bugs me about these stories, though, is that they come across as vague whining, with few specific suggestions for correcting the situation.

If I didn't know better, I'd think the aggrieved female journalists who prepare these pieces are more interested in the whining than in solving the problem.

By the way, any real solution will require a new approach to ensuring employee rights and privileges for employees of all genders. Setting women against men -- as these articles invariably do -- merely serves to divide and weaken unions and other employee rights groups -- and that's just fine with the corporate establishment.

In Europe the 35-hour workweek is standard, and workers get four to six weeks of paid vacation and generous family leave benefits. Americans can have the same -- if they demand it. But this annual whine about unequal pay won't get the job done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Every year? Posted by: MartianBachelor
» This is a tired argument... Posted by: Scientz
» RE: Here we go again Posted by: yellow
Lower paying jobs..
Posted by: Conservasaurus on Apr 24, 2007 5:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wasnt aware that nursing is a lower paid job??... and I dont buy the fact that women in the same job get paid less in most cases.. two people hired for the same job and one is a women shes getting paid the same (exceptions do occur). Unless I missed this point, the issue may be more to the point that women aren't hired for as many top paying jobs as men are over time..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lower paying jobs.. Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Lower paying jobs.. Posted by: citizengreen
» RE: Lower paying jobs.. Posted by: jasonk
» RE: Lower paying jobs.. Posted by: citizengreen
» RE: Lower paying jobs.. Posted by: Conservasaurus
» This is a tired argument... Posted by: Scientz
Men are assholes with inferiority complexes.
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 24, 2007 6:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After raising three daughters who are in their 40s and have worked since college, I can tell you numerous second-hand stories about incompetent men who make more money than women in comparable jobs.

I witnessed the institutionalized bias as a pilot at Continental Airlines where many male cockpit crewmembers took the term literally -- that flying the “big iron” like 747s required a penis.

One of my joys at Continental was flying with the first lady pilot employed who was better qualified than some of the men in her new-hire class, simply because she had to meet applicant standards that were more stringent.

The same thing happened when Continental began hiring black pilots in the late 70s.

Because many managers in flight operations back then were bigots who believed white pilots to be inherently superior, they demanded that black applicants have impeccable credentials as an excuse not to hire them. After the first African-American crewmembers joined the seniority list, a joke began circulating that said while white pilots at CAL could get hired with Piper Cub time, black pilots needed two lunar landings in their log books.

In the mother of all ironies, because of their belief that black aviators were inferior, the racist flight managers inadvertenly defeated the argument by hiring black pilots who were superior to their CAL classmates. Now, 30 years later at Continental, the gender difference between cockpit crewmembers only matters on layovers. Hopefully someday, male bias against women in other U.S. industries will disappear as well.

Hugh E. Scott, editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption. AlterNet readers who object to my NON-PROFIT campaign to expose President Bush as a lying crook can email me through the website rather than comment here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» This is a tired argument... Posted by: Scientz
Read this...
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Apr 24, 2007 7:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Equal pay for women

According to these calculations, women are projected to start surpassing men as early as 2010. Which is no surprise, given that the boomers are starting to retire and that the colleges are graduating women in the majority these days.

As if owning the majority of society's wealth and controlling the majority of society's spending power isn't enough, you're well on your way to making the majority of income too.

I suspect "Equal Pay Day" will just quietly disappear rather than start supporting men, won't it?

I also suspect that women still won't be satisfied.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ead this... Posted by: fork
» RE: ead this... Posted by: bornxeyed
» This is a tired argument... Posted by: Scientz
Sexism, pure and simple
Posted by: frosty86 on Apr 24, 2007 8:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is peculiar that the average salary for nurses went up around the same time that men started entering the profession at a higher rate.

And the issue is a lot more complex than unequal pay for equal work. While this certainly does occur, the wage gap is largely a result of job-steering. Women are channeled into lower-paying jobs and service work (secretarial work rather than management, nursing rather than doctors, teaching rather than school administration, etc.). Consider what happened with nursing...the pay only went up significantly when men entered the profession at higher rates. So one might conclude that these jobs are low-prestige and lower-paying BECAUSE they are done primarily by women. Men get promoted ahead of women. Women face discrimination in hiring and promotion b/c it is assumed they will get pregnant and it is assumed they will be the ones to quit work to raise their children. So if you're pregnant, you face EVEN MORE discrimination in hiring.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I should also add... Posted by: frosty86
» RE: Sexism, pure and simple Posted by: jasonk
» RE: Sexism, pure and simple Posted by: frosty86
» This is a tired argument... Posted by: Scientz
Puleeese!
Posted by: CHend on Apr 24, 2007 8:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With women making up the majority of college students, doing better in school than their male counterparts, having self-esteem building programs lavished on them the past 25 years, getting their own wings of hospitals, having total power to choose to abort a man's child without his say if she doesn't want it - yet also having total power to force that same man to support a child if HE doesn't want it, getting so much preference in corporate layoffs that the image of the layed-off White male is now a cliche, and with lifespans 7 years longer than men, NO ONE IS BUYING THIS "POOR WOMEN" TRIPE ANY MORE!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

/// ~ /// - -
Posted by: flyingfish on Apr 24, 2007 9:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If one's objective is to make money, maybe relying on someone else to 'employ' them isn't the best idea. Sure, some may do it because it's easy or it's what their education taught them, copy and repeat.
Taking the potentially stressful action of utilizing your own skill and labor to directly benefit yourself and pocket will lead to significant reductions in your stress level,
I was happy to find out.

In our pseudo civilized society you'd think things like "encourage -- or even mandate -- that employers offer workplace flexibility"
would be feasible, and to some degree I guess they are, but when you're working for someone else, is anyone forcing you?
I'd hope not. So it kind of boils down to if your not happy, move on.

If someone needs someone time off and they are in the majority percentage of Americans with vacation time, they've apparently got some time available. = )

This line stuck out "and are significantly more likely to return to their same employer. " I guess if you had a particularly 'cushy' job that would be a concern but any reason that it's painted as a particularly good thing? As stats I've seen have said that people typically change career, profession, work focus, whatever you wanna call it something like 10 times or more throughout their lives. ( It's the spice of life!)
Not to mention if you were in need of some type of emergency leave why would you want to go back to work for someone who wouldn't let you take it and keep your job?
Solves that. ; )

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» This is a tired argument... Posted by: Scientz
For Christ's sake
Posted by: H_H on Apr 24, 2007 10:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is it they never EVER complain about the lack of female on-the-job deaths?

Seriously, why the hell do feminists never demand that women be 50% of those who get killed in their workplaces? WHY?

Why must that never, EVER be demanded? Isn't "equality" supposed to be what they're all about?

We all know very goddamned well that if women were 90% of all on-the-job fatalities, it would be considered a total outrage, but feminists are perfectly happy to let this inequity continue, because they are full of shit.

That's right. I said feminists are completely full of shit. If one feminist- ONE- were to demand that women make-up 50% of all on the job deaths, I swear to God I think her head would explode.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: For Christ's sake Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: For Christ's sake Posted by: JCR
» RE: For Christ's sake Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: For Christ's sake Posted by: MAD
» RE: For Christ's sake Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: For Christ's sake Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: For Christ's sake Posted by: MatthewSavage
» What a compelling argument! Posted by: fanny666
» RE: What a compelling argument! Posted by: bornxeyed
Red Brown and Blue Party comment
Posted by: redbrownandblueparty on Apr 24, 2007 10:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This discussion spins its wheels in sand because it has no solid foundation. It begs the question of the sick, patriarchic society men have created. The Red Brown and Blue Party cuts to the quick: the natural superiority of womem [spelling is intentional]. Womem ought to be rewarded monitarily for being what they are. It seems Europe is moving ever so slightly that way with 35 hours work weeks and 6-8 weeks of vacation. This puritan work ethic, capitalistic money machine is insane. There is salvation and a different way to be by listening to a womam's consciousness which is far deeper than physical gender or paychecks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» This is a tired argument... Posted by: Scientz
And we ALL have to work more to make what we earned in the 70s...
Posted by: fanny666 on Apr 24, 2007 11:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(adjusted for inflation) minimum wage back in the 70s was well below what it is now...

Of course, that probably seems like a pretty academic gripe to women in Saudi Arabia or women in Afghanistan, etc., etc., etc...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» This is a tired argument... Posted by: Scientz
My sociology textbook...
Posted by: Scientz on Apr 24, 2007 12:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...has detailed figures that say that unmarried females without children make 98% of what unmarried males without children make. In other words, corrected for a +-3% margin of error, these women make virtually the exact same as men in similar situations.

The statistic only gets skewed towards men when you factor in married women with children, who make considerably less than men in the same situation.

Simply taking a look at all men versus all women makes the problem appear much larger than it actually is.

The problem is very specific. Employers are biased against women with families, and this is largely because they typically place their children ahead of their career when making time-management decisions, whereas men typically do the reverse.

It would be nice if someone pointed this out from time to time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: My sociology textbook... Posted by: frosty86
» RE: My sociology textbook... Posted by: Scientz
» RE: My sociology textbook... Posted by: frosty86
» RE: My sociology textbook... Posted by: Scientz
» RE: My sociology textbook... Posted by: frosty86
» RE: My sociology textbook... Posted by: Scientz
» RE: My sociology textbook... Posted by: frosty86
» RE: My sociology textbook... Posted by: Scientz
» RE: My sociology textbook... Posted by: frosty86
» RE: My sociology textbook... Posted by: Scientz
» RE: My sociology textbook... Posted by: frosty86
Institute for Women's Policy Research
Posted by: frosty86 on Apr 24, 2007 2:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a very helpful website and has statistics and graphs documenting the existence of the gender wage gap:

http://www.iwpr.org/Publications/pdf.htm#ee

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ok, here's the solution
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Apr 24, 2007 3:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My suggestion is that we make it illegal for women to accept jobs at less than 100% of what men make. Furthermore, anyone who alleges that women are making less than men are hereafter required to name the women who are illegally accepting such jobs so that charges can be pressed and jail time meted out.

The reason for such a law? Unfair competition. How can we men expect to properly compete for the jobs we desire and negotiate for proper wages if women keep taking them at such low prices?

[Sorry, but I can't take claim for this excellent idea - saw it elsewhere and thought I'd pass it along for consideration.]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ok, here's the solution Posted by: fanny666
» SHAME on you, MB! Posted by: H_H
Why women should pay less taxes...
Posted by: frosty86 on Apr 24, 2007 3:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Normally, free-marketeers and those who are worried about the efficiency costs of taxation are in opposite camps from those social activists who believe you need extensive government intervention to achieve a range of social goals. Here is a policy proposal that should make the two camps agree: reduce income taxes on women and increase, by less, income taxes on men.

As surprising as it may look, this can be done while keeping total tax revenue constant and reducing average tax rates. Thus, this policy would at the same time reduce overall tax distortions and increase women’s participation in the labour force. It would achieve similar goals to affirmative action policies, quotas or subsidised childcare and could substitute for those policies. It would also make gender discrimination more costly for employers and would be fair because it would compensate women for bearing the brunt of maternity and for the fact that the possibility of having children can negatively affect their career prospects.


http://www2.dse.unibo.it/ichino/taxgen12.pdf

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Divide and conquer--- the game continues
Posted by: chief of okeefe on Apr 24, 2007 6:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ok kids here is what is going on. Just like Bush aims to subjugate Iraqis by dividing them against themselves, so the wealthy leisure-class will divide and conquer and (keep) subjugated the people who do the work.

All the statistics are bunk because they are averaging in one rich male CEO making 1000 times what all the workers make. He is a man so his numbers go in the "man" category. Boom, new issue created-- big consipiracy by male workers to keep down the poor female workers.

Get a clue! All our salaries have been stagnant for years, except the ultra-rich and their lawyers and accountants. That is why they saw that it is time to pit us against one another.

BTW, the money that this male makes is mostly spent by females (wife and 2 daughters). Where does that go in your survey??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

self-fulfilling prophecy
Posted by: frosty86 on Apr 24, 2007 7:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Paying women less or refusing to hire them because you assume they will be the one's who will quit work SHOULD they have children is almost self-fulfilling.

Pretend for a moment that we don't define childcare as a woman's job (and we do) and pretend that there aren't tremendous social mores and pressures on heterosexual women to quit and let men be the breadwinners (and there are).

Now, imagine that as a heterosexual woman you were turned down for several jobs b/c unbeknownst to you the corporations or business predicted you would quit once you got pregnant (notice the heterosexist AND sexist assumptions these businesses are making). You had to accept a job that paid less than you wanted but it was all you could get. Now, let's say you got pregnant and didn't have access to an abortion clinic since 87% of U.S. counties don't have one so you decided to carry the pregnancy to term. Your male partner makes more money than you do (b/c he doesn't face sex discrimination) and so you both decide that after childbirth is over, you will quit your job b/c your partner's salary can provide for you all. Not that there was much of a decision to make...money makes the difference.

And now add onto that the pressures from family, friends, popular culture and your own socialization the idea that women quit their jobs and raise children just cuz that's what women are supposed to do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Real Truth
Posted by: Trapper on Apr 25, 2007 8:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The real truth is that it is shorter people who are being discriminated against. It is a proven fact that on average taller people earn more money. Women are just going to have to either grow up or start wearing higher heels into the office.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» 6'4" white male.... Posted by: Phenix
Alternet just regurgitates the same articles over and over again
Posted by: ateo on Apr 25, 2007 11:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's getting boring.

Women earn less money because they do less work. Men work themselves to death, having heart attacks at 38 whereas women take as much "personal" or "family" time as they can without being fired. Even if they do the same amount of hours women do less work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A welcome article from a woman-wage earning household
Posted by: DaBear on Apr 26, 2007 1:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the Bear den, the Ms. Bear accounts for 99.2% of the income and Mr. Bear is pissed that Ms. Bear gets paid less than males at her job with half her experience. So all this is so familiar it hurts.

I agree that the solution is in browbeating or prosecuting "employers" to change their stripes and treat the people that do their work for them and bring in all their vast accumulated opulence as fellow human beings and allies rather than menial serfs regardless of gender (hah! Like that'll happen in this cult of a kuntry), but in the end I can forsee women still getting the short end of the paycheck, just because men will still run it all. The worst men are the conservative types who think there's something better about them because they have a third leg. That attitude reeks to high heaven, especially in some of the conservatroll commenters here.

Best companies I ever worked for were women-owned, women-run. They paid their damned bills, communicated effectively and clearly and were generally more educated than the male-owned competitors I had the nightmare of working for. I gave up trying to collect the massive debts male-owned enterprises owed my company before I had to fold.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Women Catch Up With Men's 2006 Earnings Today
Posted by: carboy on May 10, 2007 2:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
bikini dare - sucking cock hardcore action massive cocks cock sucking oral shemale - porn movies for example privacy policy porn videos cucks - big cock sex sucking cock privacy policy hardcore sex sexy teen - the internet hardcore porn lesbian sex teen galleries GEFFEDEVS766GERTT9009ED insertions - copyright object insertion lesbian dildo dildo insertion transexual help - verified photos verified photos transgendered people calgary escorts thigh boot fetish - stockings and high heel shoes platform shoes pantyhose fetish fetisch erotik - fetish fashion black latex latex clothing foot fetish hairless - sphynx breed other breeds hairless kittens guinea pigs chat video - stories free porn movies free porn video sex stories nell mcandrew - nude photos naked celebrities nude videos porn movies montreal escorts - escorts and gay personals escort agencies escort girls anal brutal gratis - brutal deluxe porn videos porn movies death metal mother & son incest - free incest pics family fucking and son incest fucks daughter sonic comics - united states triumph the insult the insult comic dog teen titans

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Women Catch Up With Men's 2006 Earnings Today
Posted by: afghanistan on May 12, 2007 7:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women Catch Up With Men's 2006 Earnings Todaytrue incest - free incest stories and son incest mother daughter incest fucking incest GEFFEDEVS766GERTT9009ED lesbiche - reply to this of lesvos island foto lesbica gratis foto shitting sex - the bathroom girls shitting shit eaters shitting girls teen voyeur pics - to personal video clips voyeur to personal links ebony legs - lesbian porn lesbian sex white chick black dick blacks on blondes bang gang com - gangbang pics lesbian sex gay gangbang free hardcore masterbation clips - for example masturbation is female ejaculation premature ejaculation sex animals - a bestiality bestiality dvd movie clips animals sex

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]