You've been reading (perhaps) and hearing gents such as Mitt Romney and other GOP-reactionaries defend their position that the only reason women don't earn as much as men in the cliche'd "workplace" is Obama's fault because the economy isn't as strong as every single one of the people in the 99% income bracket of non-millionaire/billionaire status would like it to be. Read This If You Haven't Been Paying Attention
Say what?
Beyond the income inequality that has been going on forever (as a DJ, for example, I was paid almost 50% less than my male counterparts despite high ratings for my radio programs. And that was in the 70's). Now, in a new millennium, only a few extremely high-profile women in CEO or other "powerful" positions in industry, politics, entertainment and so on, are paid on an equal level with the men who once held those cushy $$$ positions.
Adding the usual insult-injury, the battle to bar a woman's choice to decide whether or not she can seek Contraceptives for not only birth control but for other health issues is the target of the Extreme Right Wing Platform. Why in the world can these men claim that they are not trying to control Women's Choices?
What year and planet do they live in/on? Obviously, one in which they may use a little blue pill to assist their Arrested-Not-Developed-Anymore-Erectile functions, whereas another series of pills to help women ward off the Staff-Of-Baby-Making-Fluid is a threat to not only their manhood (for some odd reason as so many father's bail on child support), but an excuse to run to the religion of their choice to place women in the typical subservient position of yielding to their Master's Omnipotent Declarations of old-fashioned "ownership" of their wives, not unlike Slaves who toiled for nothing more than a pittance of food and shelter once "bought" by the well-heeled landowners of yore.
Okay, guys, it's time to set aside your flats and put on a pair of high-heels for a day or two and spend at least 8 hours of the day working in a woman's shoes, then receiving a check that is insultingly paltry considering how hard you worked as well as the probability that somewhere along the week a man made a remark about your physical appearance - pro or con - while noticing that the men who work the same job as you flounce-off with their higher-than-yours check to get ready for a night on the town, a gambling casino, pay-off the mortgage.....
After doing (or imagining) such a premise, I wonder if any of you will finally understand what it feels like to be deemed a "second-class citizen" subjected to the irrational verbal assaults by many politicians and employers that there is NO WAR ON WOMEN.
Believe me, if women rose up and stood in front of a podium and denounced your use of Viagra and promised to do whatever they could to make it illegal, you would cry foul and declare that there is a WAR ON MEN's BFF. And when you see your paycheck as a slap in the face, I wonder what you would do about it? But then, you'd stomp into your boss's office and demand a pay raise that you would probably receive. IF the person sitting behind the desk is also a man.
That's it for now, but the debate will continue.....
Image via: http://www.squidoo.com
Speaking of a War on Women, look who pays his male employees 18 percent more than what he pays his female staffers: President Barack Obama!
ReplyDeleteYes, the Great Equalizer of Women and Men, the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. of Feminism, turns out to compensate men at the White House almost one-fifth more money than women who work at the Executive Mansion, according to a report by Andrew Stiles in the Washington Free Beacon. Stiles’s article on Wednesday, in turn, was based on an analysis of the “2011 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff.” This document provides the names, titles, and salaries of 454 of Obama’s workers. While women at the Obama White House earned median annual salaries of $60,000 last year, the equivalent remuneration for their male colleagues was some $71,000 — roughly 18 percent higher.
This gender inequality is slightly worse than the sex-based income gap at Obama’s former Senate outposts on Capitol Hill and in Illinois. Disclosure filings show that men who worked for Obama’s legislative offices earned 17 percent more than women on his staff. If anything, the pay disparity between men and women on Team Obama has widened marginally as his power has grown, along with his pay.
Why so many women left behind?
One explanation for Obama’s pay inequity is that he apparently is just not that into women in high places. Since his Senate days, top salaries have tended to benefit predominantly male senior staffers, while the lower-paid junior ranks have been the likelier places to find women.
Obama and his Democrat comrades have concocted a fake Republican “War on Women.” Its Pearl Harbor presumably was the GOP’s reluctance to force employers with conscientious objections to contraception to include such drugs and services in their employees’ medical coverage. The Republicans’ Bataan Death March supposedly was its opposition to mandating that health insurers give away free contraceptives to any and all women, even those who easily could afford to buy it themselves. The GOP’s hostility to yet another Washington-based, universal (or at least all-female) entitlement via Obamacare must have been this war’s Iwo Jima.
Obama continues to fantasize about fighting on the beaches and fighting in the hills to defend women against battalions of Republicans. Nonetheless, any woman in America who wants birth-control pills remains perfectly free to purchase them with her own money for about $1.66 per day. (Planned Parenthood provides them even more cheaply to poor women.) Meanwhile, Scarlett Johansson, Kim Kardashian, and other female 1 percenters do not need Obama’s help to purchase contraceptives.
(The health insurance industry’s silent acceptance of Obama’s lawless edicts in this matter is the War on Women’s French-style hasty surrender.)
Obama should stop his grating hypocrisy and pursue fairness and social justice by ending his very own War on Women. Obama should start by paying his female staffers median salaries of $71,000, just like all the president’s men. (Alternatively, Obama could achieve fairness by cutting male pay to female levels.) The much-empowered women of the White House then would be free to choose whether to spend their 18 percent higher incomes on birth control — or whatever else helps them pursue happiness.
By the way: One 100mg Viagra costs me $20.00. There's no break in the price. Even though I have wonderful prescription discounts through my Tri-Care program. I'm not standing on a corner bitching and moaning about the price. It all comes down to my desire to get laid. I want to, so I pay the price. But I'm not asking ANYBODY to foot the bill to, nor am I claiming it's a violation of my rights to do so. John
Democrats claim to be pro-choice but they support government mandates that eliminate freedom of choice. Big government progressives are conducting a war on freedom and that is directed at both men and women. When if comes to a war on women just ask Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Ann Romney, or any conservative woman how they have been treated by the media. The Republican "war on women" is a politically motivated fabrication with no basis in fact but that does not stop the media from spewing this propaganda in support of their man Obama
ReplyDeleteJust because a couple republican candidates say they don't agree with the mandate for religious organizations to provide health insurance it doesn't mean they are trying to role back women's rights. Give me a break, only feminists and democrats trying desperately to hold on to something they don't want to lose would think that was the message. I am an independent party member, a woman and a catholic who believes that abortion should remain legal solely because I know that legal or illegal it will happen anyways and at least the life of the mother would be protected in a legal abortion. I don't think that it is right to force people to do something that is against their moral beliefs either and that is all Santorum and Romney were saying as well. Anyone who feels it is right for someone to be forced to do something that they don't agree with needs to take a serious look at their own morals and examine them closely. Charlotte L.
ReplyDeleteWar on Women? I guess when you can't campaign on your accomplishments, better attack the other side. Just like Obama's stoooooopid comments about Republicans want dirty air and dirty water - I guess Republicans don't breath or drink. If there is a war on anything, it's the liberal war on stay at home mothers AND Obama and his administrations war on non-blacks. I notice he commented on the Martin shooting, BUT not a word about the Phoenix shooting where a black male shot a hispanic male walking his dog. He criticized hateful rhetoric (implying the GOP) after the Giffords shooting, BUT not a word about the New Black Panther Party putting a dead or alive bounty of Zimmerman. To Obama and his minions, it's all about color
ReplyDeleteDemocrats 'war on white people freely voting without intimidation from the black panthers with night sticks'. Democrats 'war on stay at home moms', Democrats 'war to keep gas and food prices high', Democrats 'war on Arizona, South Carolina, and Texas', Democrats 'war on legal immigration, preferring amnesty and free guns for Mexican drug dealers', Democrats 'war on our health choices', Democrats 'war on the private sector economy', Democrats 'war on successful people', blah, blah, blah... See, we can play this stupid game too. From one pissed off Independent.
ReplyDeleteWow, the Republicans are waging a war on women? Look at HISTORY -- Republicans were the FIRST to give women the vote, they were the FIRST to give blacks and Asians (Chinese railroad workers) the vote. Republicans fought to end slavery (the South was comprised of Democrats). No doubt this is a red herring to confuse and side-track voters as a campaign tactic.
ReplyDeleteWell hello there! Thanks for everyone's feedback. (Is that you, Charlene, along w/ John? Hahahaha? If so, you write quite well.)
ReplyDeleteI will take into consideration some of what has been written, but it is far more than just "a few" GOP'er's attempting to reduce women's choices.
With regard to equal pay in the WH, please attach a link. Not that I don't believe the claim, but the source might shed light for everyone.
As always, the time all of you (or some) have taken to express your POV and feelings is appreciated.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteHere's the story you asked for Shauna. And no, that wasn't Charlene Howard. John
War on women: Obama White House paid women less than men in 2011, report says
Joe Newby's photo
Joe Newby
Spokane Conservative Examiner
As Democrats attempt to paint the GOP as engaging in a "war on women," a recent report shows the Obama White House paid female employees an average of 18 percent less than male employees in 2011, the Washington Free Beacon reported Wednesday.
"According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000)," Andrew Stiles wrote.
Stiles went on to say that some assumptions were made in the calculations that were based on employee names.
"When unclear," he wrote, "every effort was taken to determine the appropriate gender."
Noting that the President has "frequently criticized the gender pay gap" like the one that apparently exists at the White Hose, Stiles added:
The Obama campaign on Wednesday lashed out at presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney for his failure to immediately endorse the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, a controversial law enacted in 2009 that made it easier to file discrimination lawsuits.
"Paycheck discrimination hurts families who lose out on badly needed income,” Obama said in 2010.
"My Administration has already begun to address this problem," the President said. "In my first week in office, I signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which helps women who face wage discrimination recover their lost wages, and in my State of the Union Address, I promised to crack down on violations of equal pay laws."
But it seems that women who work at the White House aren't given the same consideration, based on the report.
"As Vice President Biden and the Middle Class Task Force will discuss today, this is not just a question of fairness for hard-working women," the President said in his statement.
Shouldn't that "fairness" extend to the White House?
"It is not known whether any female employees at the White House have filed lawsuits under the Ledbetter Act," Stiles wrote.
He also noted that Obama was criticized in 2008 for paying female campaign staffers less than male staffers, "and far less than GOP opponent John McCain paid his female staffers."
A 2008 ABC News report noted the disparities between the two campaigns.
Julia Hoppock wrote:
Using the public information compiled on the Web site of the non-partisan group Legistorm, [Conservative columnist Deroy] Murdock concludes that, on average, women in McCain’s office are paid more than the men in McCain’s office — $1.04 for every dollar a man makes. Men in Obama’s office make more than women do; female employees make 83 cents for every dollar made by male employees.
Hoppock added that "[o]nly one of Obama’s five best-paid Senate staffers is a woman. Of McCain’s five best-paid Senate staffers, three are women."
Newsbusters' Matthew Sheffield asked: "Do you think the Obama White House will change anything now that this has been revealed, or do you think they won't do anything and continue spewing the same stale talking points?"
We'll let readers decide that for themselves, but it seems President Obama has a bit of explaining to do.
April 13, 2012 1:48 PM
Post a Comment
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteHere's the story you asked for Shauna. And no, that wasn't Charlene Howard. John
War on women: Obama White House paid women less than men in 2011, report says
Joe Newby's photo
Joe Newby
Spokane Conservative Examiner
As Democrats attempt to paint the GOP as engaging in a "war on women," a recent report shows the Obama White House paid female employees an average of 18 percent less than male employees in 2011, the Washington Free Beacon reported Wednesday.
"According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000)," Andrew Stiles wrote.
Stiles went on to say that some assumptions were made in the calculations that were based on employee names.
"When unclear," he wrote, "every effort was taken to determine the appropriate gender."
Noting that the President has "frequently criticized the gender pay gap" like the one that apparently exists at the White Hose, Stiles added:
The Obama campaign on Wednesday lashed out at presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney for his failure to immediately endorse the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, a controversial law enacted in 2009 that made it easier to file discrimination lawsuits.
"Paycheck discrimination hurts families who lose out on badly needed income,” Obama said in 2010.
"My Administration has already begun to address this problem," the President said. "In my first week in office, I signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which helps women who face wage discrimination recover their lost wages, and in my State of the Union Address, I promised to crack down on violations of equal pay laws."
But it seems that women who work at the White House aren't given the same consideration, based on the report.
"As Vice President Biden and the Middle Class Task Force will discuss today, this is not just a question of fairness for hard-working women," the President said in his statement.
Shouldn't that "fairness" extend to the White House?
"It is not known whether any female employees at the White House have filed lawsuits under the Ledbetter Act," Stiles wrote.
He also noted that Obama was criticized in 2008 for paying female campaign staffers less than male staffers, "and far less than GOP opponent John McCain paid his female staffers."
A 2008 ABC News report noted the disparities between the two campaigns.
Julia Hoppock wrote:
Using the public information compiled on the Web site of the non-partisan group Legistorm, [Conservative columnist Deroy] Murdock concludes that, on average, women in McCain’s office are paid more than the men in McCain’s office — $1.04 for every dollar a man makes. Men in Obama’s office make more than women do; female employees make 83 cents for every dollar made by male employees.
Hoppock added that "[o]nly one of Obama’s five best-paid Senate staffers is a woman. Of McCain’s five best-paid Senate staffers, three are women."
Newsbusters' Matthew Sheffield asked: "Do you think the Obama White House will change anything now that this has been revealed, or do you think they won't do anything and continue spewing the same stale talking points?"
We'll let readers decide that for themselves, but it seems President Obama has a bit of explaining to do.
April 13, 2012 1:48 PM
Post a Comment
Thanks, John. I've been checking into the 2011 info all of this is based on. There are a few questionable accounting practices on both ends, but, if this info is completely accurate, then I'll take Obama to task on it.
ReplyDelete