Liam Day thinks there are deeper issues to pay inequality than Gov. Scott Walker repealing Wisconsin’s Equal Pay Enforcement Act.
Apparently Gov. Scott Walker is at it again. The Wisconsin governor who created such a firestorm a year ago when he pushed through changes to the public employee benefit system in his state signed a law last week repealing Wisconsin’s three-year old Equal Pay Enforcement Act. Coming as it does on the heels of other high profile events—Rush Limbaugh calling Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke a slut, Congressional attempts to defund Planned Parenthood, and so-called personhood laws being pushed in states from Virginia to Oklahoma—some pundits are viewing this latest legislative act as yet another in a war on some women.
But is it? I think there are two things to consider: 1) is the repeal itself; and 2) is the rhetoric used by those who advocated repeal.
As for the repeal itself, I believe there are, just as there were a year ago for the public employee benefit changes Governor Walker proposed, reasonable arguments for repealing the law. Federal legislation already exists to help workers who believe they have been discriminated against sue for damages, up to the same amount set by Wisconsin’s now defunct pay equity law – $300,000. Advocates charge that recouping damages in federal court is considerably more arduous and time-consuming than pursuing the same damages in state court. That’s a fair point, but the recourse is there, nonetheless, even in the absence of state law.
There is also the matter of the 14th amendment, which was passed during Reconstruction to make discrimination based on the color of one’s skin illegal. Conceivably, it provides protection based on inclusion in other, what have been called, protected classes, including being a woman.
Perhaps most significantly, however, is the growing evidence that women, particularly women under the age of 30, are fast catching up to or have already caught the men in their age-bracket. Time Magazine just ran a cover story on “The Richer Sex: Women are Overtaking Men as America’s Breadwinners. . .” According to the feature, women under the age of 30 who are unmarried and have no kids outearn their male peers in a majority of cities. According to the Huffington Post, Business Week corroborated the data earlier this year.
Perhaps, then, women don’t require as much pay protection as they used to. But there’s the question of the rhetoric that was peddled in support of repeal. The money quote comes from Wisconsin Republican state senator Glenn Grothman, who was one of the most outspoken advocates of repeal: “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.”
I’m not sure which is the more grossly stupid – the blatant sexism of Senator Grothman’s comment or the idea that he honestly believes that the average family can any longer subsist on a single income in today’s America.
There is a serious conversation to be had about pay equity in this country. It is not simply a matter of comparing paychecks, but involves maternity (and paternity) leave, child care support for working mothers, and all of the other structural barriers that too often force women to choose between pursuing a career and raising a family. And it is here, I suspect, where we find evidence of a war on women. For my suspicion is that conservative supporters of repealing pay equity laws, such as Senator Grothman, don’t want to have that conversation, because they don’t believe a woman should be able to both pursue a career and raise a family. By keeping advocates’ attention on the paychecks, they don’t have to consider the policies that truly prevent pay equity. Pay equity advocates shouldn’t fall for the bait.
About Liam Day
“.. the blatant sexism ..”
1) “.. child care support for working mothers ..”
2) “.. structural barriers that too often force women to choose ..”
3) “.. don’t believe a woman should be able to both pursue a career and raise a family ..”
If fathers could choose the second option in (3), mothers would not need (1) and (2).
Exactly they work hand in hand.
If people would quit acting like dads are only as valuable as the money they brings in then people would quit acting like a woman is only as valuable as the home they keep and children they raise we would all be better off (and you can flip this around and it would be just as true).
“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.”
Ozy’s Law! (this would be Ozy from “No Seriously, What About Teh Menz?”)
This senator’s argument is based on the doubly sexist thought that men are supposed to be the breadwinners and women should be the homemakers (and child care givers if any are born). The reason men are considered to be “a little more money-concious” is because they are being raised to believe that their role in the family is that of the breadwinner and nothing else. At the same time women are considered (I guess) “not so money-concious” is because they are being raised to believe their role in the family is that of the homemaker/child care giver and nothing else.
Those days are dying fast. As you say Liam the old roles are changing. Women being a breadwinner, sometimes THE breadwinner. Men being the homermaker/child care giver. Single parent situations where that one parent has to do both. While the current situation may benefit men who are single parents in terms of money when you look at the stigma attached to single dads not by just society at large but by support systems I don’t think that extra money is the jackpot its made out to be. (He might make more money but what good is that if that extra is still not enough but still has a hard time finding assistance in a society where many assistance programs are made specifically for women. Quick question does WIC offer assitance to dads?)
Its not right that this “pay by gender role” mess was started in the first place but I think time has long since passed for it to be done away with.
Yup. I think it can be boiled down with your final bit:
“Its not right that this “pay by gender role” mess was started in the first place but I think time has long since passed for it to be done away with.”
This +10
“Quick question does WIC offer assitance to dads?”
Yes and no. For a woman to qualify for WIC she must either be pregnant or breastfeeding.
For a *child* to qualify for WIC they must be eligible by age and parents income. Gender of the parent, or even marital status, is not a part of the qualifications for children. So.. a man cannot get on WIC… but his children can.
I know this because I’ve known some men whose children have qualified for WIC.
Oh I was fully aware that it helps mothers and children up to a certain age. I just wanted to know specifically about dads. It hit me as odd a few months ago that in all my years (even the short time I worked in a grocery store) that I’ve never seen a dad using a WIC voucher.
So the answer is clear. No WIC does not offer assitance to dads.
Well, if it only supporting pregnant or breastfeeding women, technically it does not support women either. It supports food and other necessities for the care of the child. In the case of a pregnant or breastfeeding woman, they ARE the means to feed the child. In the case of a father providing for a child, they offer diaper and formula coupons, etc. that will feed the child. Essentially it all goes towards feeding the child.
By the way, in case it was not obvious, you recognize “blatant sexism” because a lawmaker implies that:
.. women do not want SUCCESS as much as men do ..
Then you list all the ways that government can help mothers, but leave fathers completely out. How do your actions not mirror those of Walker? It seems that you are implying that:
.. men do not want FAMILIES as much as women do ..
There may be some valid criticisms of that particular law, but it sounds like Walker just wants to get rid of it just to get rid of it.
I suspect that the law like a lot of laws is clunky, hard to enforce, has too many loopholes and not a clear enough way to assess its effects. I’m sure someone could make a better law that guaranteed non-discrimination on the basis of sex that would avoid some of the pitfalls of the current law, but that’s not what Walker is doing. He’s just ending it.
Theoretically, if the law seems no longer necessary because the pay scales are equal, then what’s the big deal in leaving it on the books? If you end it and do nothing to replace it, then it’s like sex discrimination is acceptable.
Finally, if “men care about money more,” that’s actually BAD news for the working man. The flip side of this coin is that men are more expensive than women, and more trouble than women as employees. If that’s true, then as someone on a hiring committee I would much rather hire a woman, because she will work for less money and be less likely to ask for a raise. Once again what seems like a misogynistic comment comes with misandrist interpretations. Walker’s giving a reason to fire even more men.
If men want to make money more than women do, then those men should just work more hours.
I’m a little tired of this idea that there is a “War on Women.”
The individual policies usually have rationale that has nothing to do with one’s sex (the author of this piece goes so far to acknowledge that there are valid arguments for the repeal of this law, and good on him for it).
I like to believe that the people so desperately throwing around the “war” label are intelligent, reasoning individuals, so they cannot possibly be blind to the reasonable, rational arguments out there for most of the legislation that they so desperately seek to label.
So why use the label?
Because it’s a convenient way of dismissing an argument without actually addressing it.
The straw-man is perhaps the oldest logical fallacy in the book. First, find someone who holds an extreme, and obviously wrong view (in this piece, Senator Grothman is used). Next, make pretend that this person is somehow representative of a wide range of arguments, many of which are quite a bit more reasonable that the extreme view offered as an “example.” Finally, come up with an easy-to-remember stereotype to tie the whole group up with, and make pretend that you have actually addressed their reasoned and rational opinions, this is where the label “War on Women” comes into play.
Conservative commentators have been doing this for years (Remember the “War on Christmas”?), but I have always wanted to believe that progressive commentators could be better.
Perhaps the fault is mine for hoping that progressive commentators would manage to rise above.
We need to create pay equity and support systems for *parents.* It’s true that women are catching up in pay…until they become mothers. Then studies show they bring on what’s called the “motherhood penalty.” I’m truly not sure what the data says on working fathers, although I’d like to see if there’s a comparative “fatherhood penalty.”
When it comes down to it, we need to work towards a society in which both working parents and stay-at-home parents are supported in their choices, regardless of their gender, and make sure the path they “choose” really was a choice.
From what I see here in Australia most fathers work fulltime or longer hours, mothers part time and mixing it up with looking after the kiddywinks. There is also quite a lot of familes both working fulltime now with kids in childcare (cost of living is becoming stupid). I have a feeling women are afforded more flexibility in their workplace so they can pickup kids etc but on the other hand I also feel it’s starting to change with less of a gender divide in working and caring for kids, so both mums n dads can put more equal time into each role.
It seems people need to work more n more to afford a standard of living, housing prices here have skyrocketed (2-500,000 depending on where you live), electricity has gone up quite heavily in the last few years as well as the price of food, transportation, insurance rose heavily after a massive flood, a few category 5 cyclones, and other natural disasters which cost a lot! This I feel is driving both parents into working fulltime even with children quite young, I feel it’d be better where parents could work part-time in more flexible roles where they can still spend time with kids, or even telecommuted jobs where they can work from home and hopefully be able to watch over the kids to save cash.
It’s especially bad for single parents as well, why do we need people to work work work so much just to afford basic housing for instance? It’s all getting insane, a recent report in Aus said owning your own home is out of reach for most under 35′s now and I think that is pitiful. Why is it we have so much new technology yet we can’t have a basic dwelling built for 50grand?
And it’s worse in the states I imagine. I’d love to work part time or have my husband work part time…No way that could work these days.
” There is also the matter of the 14th amendment, which was passed during Reconstruction to make discrimination based on the color of one’s skin illegal. Conceivably, it provides protection based on inclusion in other, what have been called, protected classes, including being a woman.”
I believe you’re thinking of the civil rights act of 1964.
” Perhaps most significantly, however, is the growing evidence that women, particularly women under the age of 30, are fast catching up to or have already caught the men in their age-bracket”
It’s a sexist notion that if women are making more money then we don’t need protections mandating equal pay.
“Perhaps, then, women don’t require as much pay protection as they used to.”
So if women don’t need it, we don’t worry about the men?
“child care support for working mothers, and all of the other structural barriers that too often force women to choose between pursuing a career and raising a family.”
So men not being able to choose is not a problem?
Did you really want to post this on GMP? It might have been better on feministing.
“Is Money More Important For Men? Gov. Walker Repeals Equal Pay Act”
Could we please stop with the assumption that just because a male politician enacts or repeals a policy that supports women that all men condone it? In this case, assuming every man thinks money is more important because a male politician repeals the equal pay act.
Edit: Enacts a policy that goes against women or repeals a policty that supports women.
He’s actually right when he says that money generated by employment is more important to men, women have multiple secondary income sources that aren’t employers and women aren’t put in jail for not being able to make payments, and women already control more than half of the wealth in the US according to the Fed.
Take the fact that married couples sharing their family wage erases any gender wage gap in taxable earning. Add all alimony, CS and other male to female cash and transfers and to the female total and subtract if from the male total. Take into account the disproportionate gov and taxpayer funding of women, that men pay disproportionately for.
You can see there is a there gap that’s favoring women, so employment generated money is more needed for men.
Also, these equality programs are expensive and a waste of money, because the wage gap isn’t caused by discrimination.
EDIT – Add all alimony, CS and other male to female cash transfers and ADD THAT to the female total and subtract if from the male total.
Really? Alimony & child support are counted as female income gains? And, yes, in cases where women do not have custody or are not making child support payments when mandated, they do go to jail.
So, as a woman, I deserve to be paid less in the workplace because there are other women that may also receive child support or alimony payments? Even though I am either a. single or b. providing for my family either jointly or on my own without support from anyone?
Unfortunately, we live in a society where people get divorced and parents don’t want to pay for their children on their own. Therefore it is necessary to mandate a child support payment to the individual with custody of the children. The person without custody does not “deserve” more pay simply because they have to make payments to someone. No more than someone with extreme debt problems “deserves” more pay.
So, what exactly causes the wage gap if not discrimination?
What if there is two women married to each other, compared to two men married? Would that also remove any inequality between genders?
Actually there is a lot of discrimination against women, but a lot of it is unconscious and we need to learn about it. http://cogsi.blogspot.se/2012/04/women-should-speak-out-for-equal.html