posted January 31, 2009 09:59 AM              

quote:

---

Ha ha. Want to hear something funny? When I was offered this column last year, I honestly wondered if I could find something suitably interesting to write about every week.

I shouldn't have worried. Fortunately, we have our federal government as a constant source of hilarious entertainment.

The latest piece of mayhem, er, legislation to catch my attention is H.R.1388, the Paycheck Fairness Act, introduced (surprise surprise) by Hillary Rodham Clinton in July 2008. This Act takes "critical steps to help empower women to negotiate for equal pay." There's that word – empower – possibly the silliest term to enter our vocabulary in recent history (right along with "sustainable" and "self-esteem"). We're told women are so weak and helpless that we need empowerment from Hillary.

{{ Yeah the one who stands by a hubby who cheated when his loveless wife started using his clout for her own plans }}

"Every American deserves equal pay for equal work," Hillary sniffs in a link that was removed three days ago. "It is disgraceful that four decades after the Equal Pay Act was signed into law, women in this country still earn only 78 cents on the dollar. The Paycheck Fairness Act is an attempt to right this historic wrong and I am proud to reintroduce it today."

What's not said is why women earn only 78 cents for every dollar a man earns. Could it be women are doing other things besides advancing in their careers? Could it be that they're raising children and running households? These things quite rightfully distract a woman from her outside job. Men tend to pursue their careers with single-minded intent. Women have more important things to do.

Most women, that is. I guess Hillary is the exception. I seem to remember her huffy dismissal of the thought of baking cookies with Chelsea.

Charlie Jones and Jane Smith could have identical jobs – let's say, loan officers in a bank – but it's very likely Charlie has more experience because Jane keeps taking time off to have babies, shuffle her kids around day care, stay home with them when they're sick, and attend school meetings and activities. Charlie does none of that, and so he ends up with a better work record. Jane can only do 78/100ths of the job Charlie can do. See the logic here?

"The Paycheck Fairness Act would address this reality [pay discrepancy] through a number of needed reforms," notes Hillary. "The Act would create a training program to help women strengthen their negotiation skills; enforce equal pay laws for federal contractors; and require the Department of Labor to work with employers to eliminate pay disparities by enhancing outreach and training efforts."

Interesting how it's automatically assumed any pay discrepancies are due to evil men discriminating against women.

What does this mean in plain English? Well, according to Mike Eastman, executive director of Labor Law Policy with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, this legislation would:

Eliminate the caps on punitive and compensatory damages. [This means a woman can sue McDonald's for a kazillion dollars because 10 years ago when she was a teeny-bopper, she made less money flipping burgers than her boyfriend did.]

{{ More innovative sources for the freebie crowd - popping out orphans by the dozen gets old after a while }}

Make punitive and compensatory damages available for even unintentional pay disparities. [Unintentional. That means the boss didn't mean to do anything wrong. Who cares! Sue him!]

Eliminate employer defenses for pay disparities, such as paying people differently because they work in different parts of the country with different costs of living. [This means no excuse, no matter how legitimate, will cut the mustard. The employer is always wrong.]

Make it easier for trial lawyers to file large class actions. [Get lots of women together so they can whine in a big group.]

Impose comparable worth "guidelines," second guessing market forces about the relative worth of different types of jobs. [Oh, my gosh. This means you have to compare one job with a completely different job to make sure women are paid comparably. How does a secretary compare to, say, a plumber? How does a teacher compare to a construction worker? This will be a logistical nightmare.]

Re-impose debunked statistical analyses and auditing methods used by the Labor Department. [Bring back archaic comparison methods that didn't work to begin with. That's why they were debunked. Helloooo?]

[My comments in brackets.]

{{ mine are these }}

Is anyone familiar with the Law of Unintended Consequences? An unintended consequence is when an action results in an unexpected reaction. It often happens when a simple system (such as the government) tries to regulate a complex system (such as the American people). According to a landmark 1936 paper by sociologist Robert Merton, some causes of unanticipated consequences include ignorance, error, immediate interests and basic values.

In other words, when something is touted as "good" for a segment of the populace –children, minorities, women, environmentalists, whatever – it usually backfires because politicians cannot or will not visualize the logical and practical outcome.

What will be the unintended consequences for this legislation? Easy. Employers will be reluctant to hire women.

Oh, not in huge corporations in big cities, of course. Large businesses have Human Resource personnel to make sure they kowtow to the letter of the law. If they don't, Hillary will sniff them out. But in Real America where I live – in small towns and rural areas across the country – the quiet, unspoken ripple effect will be a greater wariness and less frequent hiring of women. Naturally, these small businesses can't admit it for legal reasons, but that's reality.

I've already been told by at least three small businesses that they won't hire a woman because it's too risky. I agree. Look at a woman wrong and you're accused of sexual harassment. Open a door for her and you'll get hassled into enrolling in a "sensitivity" course. Complain when she needs yet another day off to take care of her sick kid, and you're accused of gender discrimination. It sure is a whole lot easier to hire a man!

You see, in Real America the solution is quite simple: Don't hire a woman and all your problems will be solved.

Thanks, Hillary.

---

------------------
A powerful woman with Mars conjunct Pluto and i am ENTITLED to my right to be responsible for my own mess and i will be damned if i let any taxpayer pay for it.

I love my rights and i love my responsibilities and i will be damned if i let a FAILED ideology tell me i am so weak i need my the government to make everyone else except me be responsible for me.

If i kill someone , i will ask for the death penalty and i will be damned if i let anyone let me off on grounds of sadness.

I am a powerful woman with Mars conjunct Pluto and i will be damned if i let a FAILED ideology tell me i am a VICTIM and everyone needs to cut me some slack.

Dont tell me what my rights are tell me what i am responsible for and i will do the work of 10 entitled women with only rights but no sense of responsibility.

posted January 31, 2009 10:09 AM              

The ones who will lose their jobs to third world countries will be the single m&%%$$ who b1tch when they are supposed to be EQUAL to men - at work.

Forget being EQUALS to men - their productivity is actually negative - as well as that of the entire office is dragged by these Socialist good-for-nothing Blackholes of Entitlement.

The women at the very top - in finance,management and marketing who are responsible and waaayyyy worthy and productive are being retained .

What is sad is how these lazy @ass hags are taking down the men with them - who are doing their work with their mouths shut instead of b1tching about why men are losers who wont propose .

And i was rocked when the CEO who knows me since i was a toddler said he was shifting the whole unit - bar the the toppers to India

When i asked him why he said - dont YOU know
why companies are shifting production to India ??

His answer was covered in the Article above .

------------------
A powerful woman with Mars conjunct Pluto and i am ENTITLED to my right to be responsible for my own mess and i will be damned if i let any taxpayer pay for it.

I love my rights and i love my responsibilities and i will be damned if i let a FAILED ideology tell me i am so weak i need my the government to make everyone else except me be responsible for me.

If i kill someone , i will ask for the death penalty and i will be damned if i let anyone let me off on grounds of sadness.

I am a powerful woman with Mars conjunct Pluto and i will be damned if i let a FAILED ideology tell me i am a VICTIM and everyone needs to cut me some slack.

Dont tell me what my rights are tell me what i am responsible for and i will do the work of 10 entitled women with only rights but no sense of responsibility.

posted January 31, 2009 10:57 AM            

Additionally...
I can do the traditional girly things too.
And have!
I am a good cook, I can bake and can too.
I can sew, make clothes without using a pattern, quilt, knit, nurture, and so forth.

I doubt that you have ever worked as hard as I have. Nor have some men.

posted January 31, 2009 11:58 AM            

have you ever wondered why it is the WOMAN who stays home when the kids are sick? or is expected to put dinner on the table EVERY NIGHT? could it be because no matter how equal her work output is she will not get the same compensation per hour or unit as her husband?

children need a mother figure/anchor in the first few years. it actually does not have to be the mother, though because breastfeeding is better for the child it usually is (even when breastfeeding doesn't happen). father is equally important and equally capable of staying home SOME of the sick days. why not pay them equally and share the childrearing role? there are a lot of men who are happy doing this where i live...

i'll bet the woman who wrote the article, a partner in her firm, takes home an equal amount of the profits....

posted January 31, 2009 06:09 PM            

Public schooling is a HUGE waste of time. The primary functions of schooling are to act as a daycare center while parents are at work (this is the MOST important aspect), instill obedience and condition to a life of wage slavery (next most important), and learn just enough to be of value to the factories and military (hopefully achieved, as long as it doesn't compromise the first two objectives).

Back in the days that food was harder to come by, they also served to make sure kids got enough (and PE to make sure they got enough exercise, though that wasn't too much of a problem back then) so that there were enough boys to be worth drafting upon adulthood, and women healthy enough to produce more soldiers and baby making units. That's pretty anachronistic these days, though schools are still adapting from those times since it's contributing to obesity in this day & age.

Anyway, you don't have to sit your children down for hours on end, several days a week, to teach them at home. In fact, it's hard for me to think of ways to make learning even harder for kids than doing that. And some kids are very low maintenance when it comes to learning this stuff on their own (these are often the types that will be ruined in a public school because they don't fit in well with the lesson plans).

posted January 31, 2009 07:23 PM              

"Public schooling is a HUGE waste of time. The primary functions of schooling are to act as a daycare center while parents are at work (this is the MOST important aspect), instill obedience and condition to a life of wage slavery (next most important), and learn just enough to be of value to the factories and military (hopefully achieved, as long as it doesn't compromise the first two objectives)."

Yeah, exactly. that is the secret game plan according to which I teach pupils.
Psst, that is the true reason Caesar`s book is still being read in Latin class. So our pupils learn to obey orders without thinking.
But there must be a flaw somewhere in the plan, cause most of my pupils are still able to think, express their opinion, often even in a mature way, are usually pretty well informed and even support each other.
Well, we`re working on it.

VDI,

It`s not always the mother`s who take days of sickleave to stay with their children.
Many of my male colleagues do so, too.
And many of my female colleagues haven`t done that yet.
And there are good workers and bad workers in both gender-groups.
Do you REALLY think that this generalisation of "All women are unproductive" is true?

posted February 01, 2009 05:02 AM              

actually that "education in life" should have already started, BEFORE children come to school.

I also think, that the parents of course have the greatest influence on their children (and personally I feel that is the way it should be), but as soon as children come into contact with the "outer world", those contacts contribute to the "education in life" also, sometimes not for the best, I agree. School and teacher contribute their, as well as friends.

But I agree that it`s not possible to get a complete education in life just in school alone. That would be asking too much of what school actually realistically can do.

posted February 01, 2009 06:43 AM            

I think the author has a point because the work and personal life balance is much harder on women than it is on men. For whatever reason, most men aren't expected to be the ones to stay home with the kids or chauffer them around, etc. I think the idea that a woman can "have it all", ie, a perfect career and a perfect family and a perfect home is not only inaccurate but generally sets everyone up for failure. It's just not possible. Something's got to give. More often it's their own health that they neglect while they try to juggle too many balls before they fall on their arse. Women just happen to have too many balls. Don't forget that even for a large part of history, women (middle class and up) who stayed home with their kids also had some hired help and extended family nearby and often in the home. Now mom is expected to do it all alone (or with only dad's help ... who probably also works just as many hours as mom does outside the home) except for perhaps day care centers, schools and baby sitters. That's a logistical nightmare.

Also related to women in the work force:

I've actually read that the attitude among women of "I'll never work for a woman again" is more commonplace. If I recall correctly, the problem is referred to as The Pink Ceiling. For whatever reason, there is a problem between women who work and the women they work with or for ... a problem that is not the same, or at least not addressed the same way, among men even if those men work with or for women also.

One doesn't have to look too far to see part of the problem (and as it relates to what I've come across reading). Women in popular culture are more critical of each other and either focused on the superficial or take things to a level too personal. For example, notice the commentary that prevails about fashion and beauty, often insulting others, or the kinds of "gossip" or personal issues women tend to relate to each other, even in a work environment. Now, not all women do that but, again as far as I've read, men do much less of that sort of thing particularly in a work environment. Just look at the media even and compare how women are treated as opposed to men. Did Obama catch as much heat for his inaugural outfit as did his wife? It's absurd. And apparantly that cattiness translates to the work environment too often. Also, as I've read argued, women are more likely to "bond" through communication and their personal experiences and when those things bleed into the work place things can get ugly, particularly if your female boss expects you to be her sympathetic ear just because you're a woman.

Anyway, the top argument I've read is that women are still relatively new to the work force on such a grand scale and that both women and the work place are going to go through quite a metamorphasis before a happy medium is reached.

posted February 01, 2009 07:27 AM              

quote:

---

actually that "education in life" should have already started, BEFORE children come to school.

---

Well i'm surprised at this comment, seeing as you are in Germany

posted February 01, 2009 07:42 AM              

For me Nurturing is a part of education. Maybe we just have different definitions in mind.

BTW I am no big fan of the school system, as it is now, either. But I am also no fan of the thought of keeping children in a "bubble". I`m not saying you`re doing that. But I have come across parents who try to do that. In their wish to do the best for their children, they keep them away from any contact with children of the same age for example, so these kids never learn how to deal with differen people (which are not Mummy and Daddy or sisters and brothers).

I know, that this is not ALWAYS the case. But I have observed that in some cases.

posted February 01, 2009 08:56 AM              

Our opinions differ in this respect. I see the 1st 7 years of a child's life as the child becoming fully into his/her body and that has nothing to do with the outside world.

posted February 01, 2009 09:59 AM              

quote:

---

But I am also no fan of the thought of keeping children in a "bubble". I`m not saying you`re doing that. But I have come across parents who try to do that. In their wish to do the best for their children, they keep them away from any contact with children of the same age for example, so these kids never learn how to deal with differen people (which are not Mummy and Daddy or sisters and brothers).

---

yes, that is insane.. poor children. My kids mingle with everyone from the homeless guy to the Princes of England. I don't believe in snobbery nor in class in this respect. Kids should see and feel all emotions within their environments and age-appropriate.

posted February 01, 2009 03:58 PM            

i think schools are very valuable "lessons in life". you learn how society expects you to behave, how others behave, and how to deal with it...but i agree with DD that the home of origin is responsible for giving them the start and encouraging their learning abilities. people who expect the school to do it all are in for disappointment.

we tend to forget that it was we the people who wanted the RIGHT to free, public schooling. the fact that it has become mandatory is (i think) an effort to get everybody on the same page. the education is on a common denominator model, and it is only the best teachers who get a chance to really inspire kids in big classes, underfunded in many ways.

so it is still up to the parents to instill the love of learning and ability to do so, school or not...