STUMP » Articles » Labor Day Edition: War Against Women! » 1 September 2014, 10:30

Where Stu & MP spout off about everything.

Labor Day Edition: War Against Women!  


1 September 2014, 10:30

Thought I’d do a pensions piece, didn’t you? Don’t worry, I’ll be back to that soon enough.

Soon after my item on rhetorical failure, I found something more akin to rhetorical success… or possible rhetorical success if anybody paid attention to it.

To wit, all those ‘War on Women’ pols seem to pay women less than men

The White House continues to push their debunked narrative about the nation’s “earnings gap” between men and women:

The White House was again reminded that if they want to find a pay gap somewhere, they should do a little self-analysis and stop projecting:

For reference

A group of Democratic female senators on Wednesday declared war on the so-called “gender pay gap,” urging their colleagues to pass the aptly named Paycheck Fairness Act when Congress returns from recess next month. However, a substantial gender pay gap exists in their own offices, a Washington Free Beacon analysis of Senate salary data reveals.

Of the five senators who participated in Wednesday’s press conference—Barbara Mikulski (D., Md.), Patty Murray (D., Wash.), Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.)—three pay their female staff members significantly less than male staffers.

Murray, who has repeatedly accused Republicans of waging a “war a women,” is one of the worst offenders. Female members of Murray’s staff made about $21,000 less per year than male staffers in 2011, a difference of 35.2 percent.

That is well above the 23 percent gap that Democrats claim exists between male and female workers nationwide. The figure is based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, and is technically accurate. However, as CNN’s Lisa Sylvester has reported, when factors such as area of employment, hours of work, and time in the workplace are taken into account, the gap shrinks to about 5 percent.

And this is the issue: if you make these people respond to their own disparate stats, you generally back them up as to why the wage gap exists — women pick less lucrative fields (like teaching little kids), are more likely to work part-time (because it’s convenient for their lifestyles), and have less years of experience than men at the same age (because they’ve taken time off for kids).

These are just broad tendencies — after all, I’m paid a lot more than most men (as I work in a lucrative field), I work a full-time job plus a part-time job, and have taken off less than 6 months total for the births of my three children. But most women aren’t me.

Some of the Democratic wage gap are being pointed out in campaign ads

Analysis of Senate Staff payroll found that in 2012 Durbin “paid men $13,063 more, a difference of 23 percent,” or about 77 cents for every dollar earned by his male staffers.

In 2014, a follow-up report by the Free Beacon found that Durbin was still paying his female staff less than his male staff. “The average female salary is $11,505 lower than the average male salary in Durbin’s office,” the paper reported.

President Obama’s White House has a wage gap problem as well. “The hypocrisy is stunning,” says Donelson.

Now, I was assuming there was no actual hypocrisy – just that women staffers of Dems had similar issues (working fewer hours, having less years experience, etc.) and that Donelson was trying to force Durbin and the like to respond with that info.

Because such info would apply to the broader population as well.

But you know what? I’m starting to wonder if they really are paying women less for similar work.

Because they don’t seem all that enlightened in how to treat women in a professional setting.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) revealed in a new book excerpt Wednesday that some male colleagues had called her “porky,” “chubby” and “fat.” Naturally, a shocked and offended public is demanding her harassers be brought to justice. Get the pitchforks! And the regular forks!

I’m not quoting the rest of the idiotic piece, as it seems to think Gillibrand has leverage against said unnamed sexist colleague. Why? I bet this guy behaves like this all the time (think: Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodd, Bill Clinton) and has never been taken to task. That’s why he keeps doing it. Because he can and he knows nobody will do crap about it.

If Gillibrand didn’t have the presence of mind or intestinal fortitude to tell the guy to knock it off at the time, why would she think it would help her now? Or if the guy would feel at all threatened by her knowledge?

But that does tell me that female staffers of Dems may just be underpaid in relation to their male counterparts.

Related Posts
Teachers at it again: New Jersey Teachers Union Antagonizing Parents....Why?
Divestment Follies: Going After Facebook.... Again
SCOTUS Doings: Public Employee Union Dues and Justice Kennedy Retiring