Sometimes men say or do something that makes me wonder if their wives now have them sleeping in the garage. I mean, how could you let the sexist pig sleep in the same room with you? According to Wisconsin Senator Glenn Grothman, it’s a woman’s fault that she doesn’t earn the same salary a man earns because her priorities just aren’t in the right place. And besides, money isn’t as important to women as it is to men.
Whatever gaps exist, he insists, stem from women’s decision to prioritize childrearing over their careers. “Take a hypothetical husband and wife who are both lawyers,” he says. “But the husband is working 50 or 60 hours a week, going all out, making 200 grand a year. The woman takes time off, raises kids, is not go go go. Now they’re 50 years old. The husband is making 200 grand a year, the woman is making 40 grand a year. It wasn’t discrimination. There was a different sense of urgency in each person.”
“The idea that pay discrimination is a myth is a myth in and of itself,” says Fatima Goss Graves, vice president for education and employment at the National Women’s Law Center. “Study after study has shown the exact opposite.”
Grothman doesn’t accept these studies. When I ran the numbers by him, he replied, “The American Association of University Women is a pretty liberal group.” Nor, he argued, does its conclusion take into account other factors, like “goals in life.” You could argue that money is more important for men. I think a guy in their first job, maybe because they expect to be a breadwinner someday, may be a little more money-conscious. To attribute everything to a so-called bias in the workplace is just not true.”
The 2007 AAUW study indicates that college educated women only earn 80% of their male counterparts earnings. Yes, it is a fact that women are in the minority in STEM related fields and these tend to be higher paying positions. And while women do tend to be the primary care givers for their children, that scene is shifting with the down economy and more women than ever before are the primary breadwinner with the man staying home with the children.
Wisconsin’s war on women grew this past week when Governor Scott Walker signed a bill that repealed the Equal Pay Enforcement Act. When that bill was signed in 2009, Wisconsin ranked 36th in the country in terms of workplace gender parity. In 2010, the state had moved up to 24th – obviously the threat of lawsuit for pay discrimination was spurring businesses to treat women more fairly. The Act also provided protection from pay discrimination based on age, race, disability, sexual orientation and religion.
Have legislators become so oblivious and out of touch with reality that they don’t understand there are companies and people out there who will intentionally take advantage of workers? If in the process of protecting the business environment from “baseless discrimination claims” you endanger the worker and the working class, what good does that do for the economy?
Illinois has a lot of issues to fix before we become a more business friendly state, like Workman’s Comp and unemployment insurance, but at least our employees are protected from pay discrimination. To say that money isn’t as important to the women heading up 21% of Winnebago County households as it is to men, is ridiculous.
While I do believe there is a slight gender bias int he workplace, having experienced it myself as a young woman, I take issue with you calling Sen. Grothman a ‘sexist pig’ based on the quote you used. What he said absolutely makes sense. When my husband and I chose to start a family, we decided that I would work part time, which I wanted to do. Because of this decision, I naturally make less. If I had decided to keep the same hours as him, we would make about the same
Now, as far as the ‘money is more imporatnt to men’ thing…that I have to disagree with.
In a strictly merit-based compensation system, female professionals should average a bit more than men…at least in my limited experience.
Spent 40 years fighting the gender gap — for myself and for the women with whom I worked. What too many fail to grasp is that even allowing for experience levels and types of professions, women’s pay lags men’s. The gender bias is as significant today as when I was the only woman in the building four decades ago. At least back then, it was an unapologetic, in-my-face discrimination. That was easier to fight than today’s insidious “what are you talking about; it’s not that bad, you crazy feminist” drivel.
What are your thoughts on this sexist comment?
Hilary Rosen commented on CNN that Gov. Romney’s wife doesn’t understand economic pressures on women, because she “has actually never worked a day in her life.”
Strangely, there isn’t NEARLY the media uproar, as there would have been with a similar attack against a Liberal woman.
Snuss – I saw that earlier today. I stayed home with each of my children for the first two years of their lives – believe me, I know how hard a stay at home mom works! I think she was way off base in what she said and she probably regrets saying it the way she did. She’s not the first to assume or make comments about stay at home moms not working or contributing to the workforce. It especially irritates me when it’s a woman who is a mother herself, disparaging other mothers.
Unfortunately, my real life job interferred and I haven’t had time to blog on her comments today.
Re: “she probably regrets saying it the way she did”.
IMHO, she only regrets the backlash, not the meaning of what she said.
After being pushed and pushed, Rosen apologized to Ann Romney for her ‘poorly chosen words’. But, before that she threw in, ‘Let’s put the faux ‘war against stay-at-home moms’ to rest once and for all.’ She just doesn’t get it. In interviews, she kept blaming Mitt Romney, ‘If I had the do-over, what I would be saying is that Mitt Romney should not be on the campaign trail saying to women, my wife tells me how it is for mom—for women out there. Because people of wealth sometimes take for granted some of the niceties that they have in life. And the Romneys are people of wealth. She doesn’t just—she’s not just a one-mom -’ Just not a what, Hilary? Too rich to understand? So, maybe it’s not really a war on stay-at-home moms…just wealthy stay-at-home moms.
Source: http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981260058
“…Have legislators become so oblivious and out of touch with reality that they don’t understand there are companies and people out there who will intentionally take advantage of workers? …”
So you believe it is commonplace for company’s to take advantage of people?
Don’t you realize for everyone of these “company’s” you refer to to take advantage of workers requires multiple Managers at same company to “facilitate such taking of advantage”?
Sorry but your suggestions of wanton, wholesale abuse of workers is more “urban legend” than anything REAL.
Please tell me what on earth does a company have to gain by taking advantage of workers? And to the Managers who have to conspire together to do so… Do you really believe there are that many devilish people out there…
FYI Forget turning my words into “I’m denying serious abuse in the workplace… I’m just calling you on your suggestion it’s so commonplace that it warrant more laws… beyond the basic EEOC laws.
I just object strongly to your blarney suggesting this to be true ” …If in the process of protecting the business environment from “baseless discrimination claims” you endanger the worker and the working class, what good does that do for the economy? …”
“endanger the worker and working class”… Says who? Just because you make this claim doesn’t make it true as served up little rationale beyond fear mongering to support your claimes…
I’m not naive to suggest there aren’t abuses in the workplace but the simple commonsense of “MOST MANAGERS WON’T WILLINGLY CONSPIRE AS YOU SUGGEST”… nor is it in the best interest of ANY COMPANY to take advantage of workers as such workers will simply leave and go to work for someone else (or their peers will see such abuse and also look to leave)…
The Handwringing you suggest with your Urban Legend stories are exactly why we need less regulation of the workplace not MORE…. As just as you can fabricate the gross generality of “companies taking advantage of workers”… It is most certainly a greater problem that Companies suffer from actual baseless employment discrimination claims (or the huge risks of same) and please tell me “…what good does that do for the economy?….”
Linda… Come on you know this is nonsense “…The gender bias is as significant today as when I was the only woman in the building four decades ago. …” I’ve only got a 31 year working career and I can most certainly say “Women” are treated a whole lot fairer today than 30+ years ago… Is it perfect… Hell no.
Come on Linda… Even in 40 years the good old “white-boys” barriers can’t be expected to dissappear… But it’s better.
Thos White guys who controlled the Power have now in the majority of cases been replaced with people of many different colors and to a whole lot of women in top Mgt…
Seriously “…The gender bias is as significant today as when I was the only woman…” IS AS SIGNIFICANT TODAY?
I expect more honesty out of you than to lash out with such a claim you know isn’t true…
Hell yes there may be serious gender bias… but suggesting it’s unchanged in 40 years…
Out-n-out nonsense!
As far as “…I stayed home with each of my children for the first two years of their lives – …”
Just for conversation sake… (Kris I commend you for staying home with your kids… That’s not the point of my following comments)… Comparing similar people Age\education\experience\occupation…
(Forget sex) One takes off work 2-3 times (2 years each time) after the birth of their child…
Now comparing such person to others (yet the others would be 6 years younger to = same yrs of experience)
Are we saying the career breaks have no effect on work skills or career advancement?
So the person early in their career, taking two years off 3 separate times wouldn’t have adversely affected their career or opportunities to be promoted? (I say most certainly should have)
So now these 30 or 40 somethings we are comparing… Should anyone be surprised if the one who didn’t take time off has advanced further in their career?
Remember the above logic could be applied to those “stay-at-home-dads” not just women….
Now even though it is unfair or at least beyond a women’s ability to control… Having Kids does screw up a work career… It may be against the law but yea a woman taking time off to have 3 kids (3-9 months each) will cause difficulties with their employer and yea it will affect their “promotability” early in their career (i.e. Child-bearing ages)… Yet please don’t ignore the serious implications to a company to have a key employee take several months off… let alone do it several times…. Yea that will affect promotion decisions regardless if its unfair.
So to head off those who want to be too quick to damn me or damn what I said… I admire Kris and any woman (or too their husband who choses to be a stay-at-home-Dad) who choses to make career sacrificies and take a big hit on earnings to do the right thing and stay at home with their kids… MY POINT IS to counter some of the yammering and self-rightous damnation thrown around… all too often ignoring simple commonsense…. Even if such commonsense seems unfair…
“….but at least our employees are protected from pay discrimination….”
Seriously… You think just because we have a law on the books it prevents “pay discimination.”
Applying your logic on “pay discrimination” means I guess we don’t have any illegal guns in the hands of criminals or Governor’s who don’t take bribes…
“…The gender bias is as significant today as when I was the only woman in the building four decades ago. …”
Really ….40+ later and no improvement?
“…Have legislators become so oblivious and out of touch with reality that they don’t understand there are companies and people out there who will intentionally take advantage of workers? …”
So you believe it is commonplace for company’s to take advantage of people?
Don’t you realize for everyone of these “company’s” you refer to to take advantage of workers requires multiple Managers at same company to “facilitate such taking of advantage”?
Please tell me what on earth does a company have to gain by taking advantage of workers? And to the Managers who have to conspire together to do so… Do you really believe there are that many devilish people out there…
Do you really believe “taking advantage of people” is beneficial to the long term prospects of the company? Wouldn’t people leave such a company? (To include the Managers who would have to facilitate such taking advantage of employees?
Hey maybe Linda and Kris are just busy and haven’t had time to reply to a couple commonsense rebuttals to the logic they suggest in their comments…