Yes Ma’am!

leon-panettaYou’ve probably already heard the news that US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta lifted the military’s ban on women serving in combat. This lift comes with the blessing of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

This means that some 230,000 jobs will be open to women—high paying jobs and that matter if the career ladder matters. Being excluded from combat has been the main barrier to having women qualified to assume command roles (which they call the brass ceiling).

Last year, the Pentagon opened up 14,500 jobs to women. There will still be jobs closed to women and the Pentagon has until 2016 to identify these.combatwomen

As far as I can tell, the majority of the people complaining about this move are civilians and old veterans. Fact is, women have been serving on front line jobs as medics, military police and intelligence officers. They were and are in just as much danger as men. But since they’re not formally serving in combat, they lose out on pay and advancement opportunities.

To this day, the Navy was the best job I ever had on the equality front. Promotions are determined by the “needs of the Navy” and those best qualified to meet them. Every year, the Navy determines how many postions they have available at each rank and rate (your job). Each sailor (what we’re all called whether or not we’d ever been on a ship) is measured on these four criteria:

  • their score on the test based on theor job at their level (rank and rate)
  • their score on the test based on their rank (military leadership)
  • their time in service
  • their annual review

All of these metrics get consolidated into a number and all of the people in a given rank and rate are ordered by number. If the Navy has 100 open positions for an E5 sonar tech, for example, then the top scoring 100 E4 sonar techs get promoted to E5. What could be more fair?

There seems to be some chatter about the women not being qualified…Obviously, I feel that women who are suited to this should do it and no exceptions should be made for women who cannot. I feel the same way about men. I think that people are either suited to a job or not—that they have the physical ability, technical aptitude, and emotional desire to do a job. If they have these, they should not be denied. And if they don’t, they should try something else.

I also believe it’s wise to use the strengths each person has to offer to meet the needs of a given project or mission. Sometimes, brawn isn’t what you need. Sometimes, people are exceptionally good at using their brains to make up for brawn. Many positions in today’s military require a both.

I personally would not want to be in the infantry. I would have loved to have served on a submarine. (Sub service was opened to women a couple of years ago on a limited basis.) I served at Subase Pearl Harbor and was completely fascinated with subs. All subs are considered a combat duty station no matter what the boat is doing at any given time. And you get pro-pay (more money) for being sub-qualified, whether or not your current duty station is a sub. And sub sailors get pampered (they’re the “elite of the fleet”). And the chow is good.


Komenizing – long overdue – but why NOW?

The original catalyst for Komenizing™ (Uppity Woman)

The second catalyst for Komenizing:

I’m so glad that women (and men) Komenized first Komen, and now Rush Limbaugh’s sponsors.  It does make me wonder, though – why NOW?

As you recall, this all started when Susan G. Komen for the Cure (for breast cancer), which organizes the yearly Race for the Cure, decided it was going to stop funding Planned Parenthood.  Komen’s donations to Planned Parenthood were for preventive screening and contraceptive services, but some people couldn’t handle that Planned Parenthood also provides abortions in some facilities.  Komen had even knowingly earlier hired a vice president who had a history of vocally calling for Planned Parenthood to be defunded.  Women and men all across the country pushed back, and Komen had to “cry uncle”.  (But dont forget, Avon also has a pink race for breast cancer – although it’s a walk – if you still want to participate in a breast cancer cure event.)

Then Rush Limbaugh called a “slut”, a woman (Sandra Fluke) who stood up to advocate for the need for contraception availability and coverage for women, since only MEN were allowed to testify to congress about WOMEN’S birth control needs.  As UW pointed out, Rush apparently knows ZERO about how birth control works for women, since he thinks the more sexually active they are, the more birth control they need.  Therefore, needing birth control = being a slut (but bringing back a big bottle of Viagra from the Dominican Republic doesn’t make one a slut).  Well, women and men again rose up, getting Rush’s sponsors to drop him for being such a misogynist.

And remember this?

Perhaps this event, which chronologically fell between the two previous examples, might even be considered Komenizing.  Remember when the women and men of Virginia marched on the state capitol to protest the legislation to require women to have an invasive vaginal ultrasound (state mandated rape) before they could have an abortion?  Laws prevented their making any sound or holding any signs, so over a thousand women and men joined hands along the path that legislators had to walk to get into the capitol.  Their unity and number prevented that legislation from becoming law – now women seeking an abortion will just need to have the usual abdominal ultrasound to make sure the age of the fetus isn’t over what is allowed.

Komenizing Komen had to do with birth control and abortion, and komenizing Rush Limbaugh’s sponsors had to do with birth control. Komenizing the Virginia legislators had to do with requiring invasive procedures before allowing an abortion. Are women finally rising up because most women use or have used birth control, so it’s very clear how the issue affects them?  That when Fluke is called a slut for using birth control, it became personal to these women, because they also use birth control, and were by extension also being called “sluts”?  That women understand that the ability to control their own body affects their entire lives?  That they understand that the limited steps we have taken towards equality are directly a result of not being tied to the home because of uncontrolled pregnancies?

Have some men become involved because some of them finally actually realize that they have something to do with women becoming pregnant?

As welcome as some changes can be, whenever I observe a change, I always wonder, “why now?”  This recent spate of Komenizing all has to do with women’s ability to control if and when they have babies.  Is that a coincidence?  Or will women and men start to stand up now for other women’s rights, other than the need for parity in medical issues?  (Of course, one of the reasons the media is playing this all up is because it’s election time, and both the parties have to energize their respective base.)

This Komenizing phenomenon seems to have somewhat crossed gender lines, and somewhat crossed partisan lines.  Perhaps it has also somewhat crossed feminist “wave” lines…?  But my gut feeling is that this uprising, while overdue and welcome, will be limited to abortion/woman’s control of her own body.  I’m afraid we’re not going to see huge numbers turn out to demand that the ERA finally be passed, or that the stronger companion bill to Lily Ledbetter be passed so that women are guaranteed equal pay for equal work.  I don’t anticipate that they will be out in force demanding that no one be given free rein to call women “c*unt”, or accuse an accomplished woman as only having a “history of having tea parties with foreign leaders’ wives”, or playing “99 problems but a b*tch ain’t one” at a campaign event – and these are just some things that were done by the LEFT, the “party of women”, in the last presidential election.

(After all, the “party of women” had two years of a democratic president and democratic majorities in both the house and senate, and they did bupkis for us.  So, sadly, I don’t soon envision a change in the unwritten law that you can demean female candidates as long as they’re not the person you want to win.  If the “party of women” has such a long way to go, how can we expect across-party lines support for women?).

So IF these 3 events were Komenized because people understood how women’s freedom to control their own bodies affected them personally, what will it take before they realize that other discrimination against women is ALSO personal?  That women making the same pay as men for the same job raises the income in ALL families?  That standing up against demoralizing verbal slings against women, whether or not you support them politically, increases the humanity in ALL of us, women AND men?

I’m energized by these Komenizing events, very energized- and yet – I fear it’s not a coincidence that they all had to do with contraception and abortion.  I fear this is simply the “wedge issue dance” we see every four years when there is a president to be elected.

And there’s another noteworthy observation – WE HAVE ALREADY WON THESE RIGHTS!!!

Yes, we’re re-fighting previously won battles and treading water, not moving ahead.  What has to happen for us to win NEW battles, not just hold our ground on the rights we already have?  I suspect the answer is for 3rd wave to open their eyes, get off their butts, and start identifying meaningful goals, involving rights we do not yet have, and start working for them.  THAT is where the fights should be!  THEN we will begin moving forward.  This is 2012!  We should not have to be defending what we already have!  The haters took this opportunity to attempt to take away our established rights, because we weren’t keeping them busy with fights for NEW rights!

So, what is it going to take?  Any other ideas?

What is it going to take?


EDIT:  some information on Avon Breast cancer walk’s financials – money coming in, money going out

5 Facts You Should Know

  1. Since it was founded in 1955, the Avon Foundation for Women has been committed to the mission to improve the lives of women and their families. Now past the half century milestone, the Avon Foundation for Women brings this mission to life through two key areas of focus: breast cancer and domestic violence
  2. The Avon Foundation for Women has grown into the largest corporate-affiliated foundation focused on causes that most impact women, and, through 2011, Avon global philanthropy has raised and donated more than $860 million dollars.
  3. The Avon Breast Cancer Crusade launched in 1992 in the UK and now includes breast cancer programs in more than 50 countries focused on advancing access to care and finding a cure. Through 2011 the Avon Breast Cancer Crusade had raised and awarded more than $740 million worldwide to make a significant and lasting difference.
  4. The Speak Out Against Domestic Violence program launched in 2004 to help end the cycle of domestic violence, and through 2011, in the US alone,we have provided more than $28 million for the domestic and gender violence cause, including support for awareness, education, direct services and prevention programs.
  5. Since 2001 The Avon Foundation for Women and Avon Products, Inc. together have responded quickly to national and international emergencies, and nearly $23 million has been awarded for women and their families affected by natural disaster or crises.

To get stuck in intersections or to move forward and effect real change?

I’ve often heard that politicians will throw crumbs to the masses.  The masses then fight each other for the crumbs and have no time to see or fight what the politicians are doing.  Additionally, the various groups are so busy fighting each other for what they perceive to be their share of the crumbs, that it never occurs to them to band together to fight the politicians for MORE than crumbs.

In my opinion, this is what some recent start-up groups are trying to fight when they urge women to put party affiliation aside in order to fight together against the sexism and misoygny in our culture.  In other words, stop standing with the boys on your side of the aisle to fight for your particular political party (which doesn’t have your interests at heart in the first place), and instead become more woman-identified, stand with women regardless of party affiliation, and fight for your own rights – for women’s rights.  Joined together, we’re 52% of the population.  Separated by ideology, and in political parties run by men, we simply have to wait for men to decide to take up our cause.  Well, it’s been a loooooong wait.  The best we get are promises that don’t come to fruition.

Now, I realize that some ideas on the left and on the right aren’t shared by all.  But I’m certain there are enough shared beliefs to make coming together a worthwhile endeavor.  I haven’t done any research on the numbers, but I’m sure substantial numbers of women, across the aisle, believe in equal pay for equal work.  I also think that substantial numbers of women, across the aisle, believe in putting an end to misogynistic marketing, particularly advertisements which feature seductively dressed 5 year old girls.  In addition, I also imagine that most women support serious punishment for rapists.

Continuing with this topic of groups fighting amongst each other, rather than working together to effect real change, we come to 3rd wave feminism.  Now, many (not nice) things can be said about 3rd wave feminism – but I’d like to limit my focus to one:  intersectionality.

Many moons ago I was a women studies minor at a large, liberal university.  Sitting in classes of diverse women, we were united in our womanhood.  We learned about the rights women had fought for, and the rights still ahead to be claimed.  We learned different approaches to peacefully fight for our rights, to work towards the passage of laws.  Flash forward many years, five years ago from now, and I’m feeling nostalgic for the feminist movement of my youth, the sisterly solidarity, the feeling of working together to move us forward.  To get another taste of it, I took another women’s studies class. 

Or so I thought.

The “women’s studies” class was about everything BUT.  Yes, you guessed it.  It was all about intersectionality.  For those who may not yet be familiar with this third wave contribution, intersectionality focuses attention on all of the subgroups of women (race, class, religion, sexuality, culture, etc, etc, etc).  What’s more, it even included environmentalism and animal rights.  Because, you know, women must solve EVERY PROBLEM on earth for everyone else.  The h*ll with our own issues.  

It never occurs to them that the groups working on racism aren’t worried about women’s rights, that the groups working on the environment aren’t fighting for women’s rights, gay male groups aren’t fighting for women’s rights – hey, they’re all staying focused on their OWN issues.  So those groups are working on their own singularly-defined issues, and women’s groups are ALSO working on those other people’s issues (and as icing on the cake, many women’s studies programs are now turning into GENDER STUDIES programs).  Oy!  Who is focused on fighting for women in general? 

Now someone might say, but women are involved in those other categories!  Yes, that’s true.  But the splintering effect is in full force.  The advancement of women as its own category has been going nowhere, and to me, this is a big reason why.  These third wavers will fight for (or anyway, TALK about) racism or environmental rights or this or that, but when it comes to the subect of “women in general”, they just sit around and talk about their different experiences, and play “I can top your oppression”.   (Uh – hello?  Sitting around doing “consciousness raising” was supposed to be the FIRST step, not the GOAL, of activism!!!!)  Matter of fact, I wandered into a website I had never heard of before, and it was all about intersectionality.  Anyone who wanted to focus on women as a whole were racist oppressors, and weren’t admitting to their white privilege (even though some of them weren’t even white).  Well, IMO, they were all having a pity party, going in circles, and not advancing the cause of women at ALL.

To me, (one of the ways that) women will advance is when we work together to enact LAWS.  And guess what – this IS 2011 (although most of the women on that website were stuck in their ancestors’ time, perseverating about slavery or reservation life none of them have experienced themselves) and any laws we make for women will affect ALL women.  It’s NOT like they’re going to pass a law which says ONLY affluent white women are entitled to equal pay!  If we band together based on our SIMILARITIES, we will have power to effect change, to pass laws.  And those laws will affect ALL of us.  ALL women will rise.  And isn’t that what we WANT? 

So, to me, all this talk about intersectionality just amounts to a bunch of women sitting around trying to sound oh-so-academic, and getting nowhere.  Maybe they should go to the other groups they want to help.  Try going to a black power group and see how much they want to work for women’s rights.  Try going to a environmental group and see how much they want to work for women’s rights.  Try going to a gay male group, and see how much they want to work for women’s rights.  Try going to an animal rights group and see how much they want to work for women’s rights.  Try going to a la raza meeting and see how much they want to work for women’s rights. 

All of these groups undoubtedly have environmentalists in them, they have people of different classes in them, they have people of different races in them, etc., etc.  In other words, they are also diverse groups, but they focus on their shared cause, and work to get things done!

So, to me I see these three options: 

  1. Get mired in intersectionality, have fun trying to one-up each other’s oppression, tak about fighting against racism, classism, etc., and get nothing done for women
  2. Go to the singularly-focused groups which are accomplishing things, and beat your head against the wall getting them to adopt the cause of women, as well
  3. Join together with other women, focus on your similarities instead of being distracted by more superficial differences, and use your combined power to effect real change for ALL women by passing laws which affect ALL women

I’d wager a bet that a huge percentage of these intersectionality third wave women voted for Barack “This is what a feminist looks like” Obama.  Seriously.  Because IMO their priority is not actually women.  We all have different parts of our identities.  Woman.  Older/younger.  White/black/ asian.  Rich/poor.  Gay/straight.  More education/less education.  Able-bodied/handicapped.  Environmentally friendly/unfriendly.  Animal rights/animal welfare/animal killer/animal eater.  Religion 1 or 2 or 3 or……    But if you’re ostensibly fighting for women’s rights, which part of your identity should take precedence in that fight?

Of course, everyone has different opinions.  As for me, I’d like to see CHANGE.  I want to see MOVEMENT.  I don’t want to sit around getting nothing done.  I want to see all women band together, to pass laws that benefit ALL women.  It’s so simple.  If other diverse groups can focus on their shared primary concern and make progress, why aren’t WE allowed to?  Why must our younger generation sit around, muddying the waters, and move us BACKWARDS?  Our rights as women are slipping away, and these intersectionalists want to put their identity as women as their lowest priority and get nothing done for women.

I think the women driving in circles around the “intersection”, getting nowhere, fighting for crumbs, talking just to themselves (and sounding oh-so-good as they do it ha!), accomplishing nothing, are in dire need of a map (and perhaps a suggestion to “get over yourself!”). 

I, myself, don’t want to be stuck driving in circles around the intersection.  I want to drive THROUGH the intersection, drive straight through, and move forward with ALL women to the goal!  THAT is progress!

(To our newby third wave intersectionalists:  do you have any idea how many gains we’ve lost since you’ve hatched?  Oh, and the right to be proud to be a pole dancer?  We could have done without that one.  Do you have ANY idea how far backwards you’ve taken us?  We worked SO hard to minimize how much women were objectified.  And the advertising ads out these days?  Pure objectification.  Don’t blame US when Obama and the other republicans take away your ability to do family planning. 

Maybe it’s time to stop the endless consciousness-raising and navel gazing and start taking action.  Think legislation.  Stop whining – we’re ALL oppressed.  Get over yourselves.  Start getting empowered by joining TOGETHER (you’re obviously doing this consciousness raising stuff WRONG!)  Stop yakking.  Start doing.  But…. you might want to get off that pole first.)

Some news about women’s “progress” here and around the world

I looked around the WWW, and pulled out some articles of interest  – some bad, some good – about the progress of women.  Just some stuff to chew on for an open thread!  :) 

Anger as male MPs avoid feminist anthem appeal

Conservatives members of the federal parliament in Vienna (MPs) have been accused of acting “childish” after blocking a bid to change the lyrics of the national anthem.

Rauch-Kallat planned to launch a fresh attempt to adapt one line of the Austrian anthem from “Heimat bist du großer Söhne” (Home you are to great sons) to “Heimat großer Töchter, Söhne” (Home of great daughters, sons). Rauch-Kallat already failed to enforce such a reform in 2005 when she was the federal minister for women. The Alliance for the Future of Austria (BZÖ) – which formed a coalition with her party at that time – vetoed her bid back then.
—- snip —–

Women earn almost 32 per cent (2004: 37.5 per cent) less than men in Austria. This fact puts Austria in 25th among the European Union’s (EU) 27 member states. The gap is even larger in Estonia and the Czech Republic. The salary gap between women and men in Austria has been in decline over the years but at slow pace compared to other industrial states. Studies have also shown that women are offered 18 per cent less than men on average when they apply for a job in Austria. Experts have pointed out the high risk of unmarried women raising children on their own to become poor.

I wish the photo below had turned out more clearly.  This ad just blows me away;  they don’t even HIDE their sexism anymore!

 PMS, The California Milk Board, and Commercial Sexism

Is the man in your life suffering from PMS?

If so, milk can help.

This according to the latest ads from the California Milk Processor Board, which rely on studies that show diets high in calcium can reduce symptoms of PMS in women.

The $1.2 million campaign, which includes print ads featuring distressed, guilty-looking men with taglines such as “I’m sorry I listened to what you said, not what you meant,” social media and a website, plays it up to the poor men who are burdened each month by nagging, irrational and, god-forbid, bloated premenstrual women.


And in doing so reveals himself to be just as sexist as his creatives. This isn’t the first time the agency has exploited women to sell milk, he told Elliott. In 2005 the agency created a television commercial called “Milk to the Rescue,” depicting men buying up all the milk they could find in stores to calm their raging hormonal wives.

 If I read the following article right, these French soccer players were trying to make the point that they are athletes, not eye candy.  Good for them!

Isn’t there a better way to generate interest in women’s soccer?

If you’re following the Women’s World Cup, you may know that three members (L-R Elodie Thomas, Gaetane Thiney, and Corine Franco) of the French  team posed for some for the German tabloid Bild under the heading, “Is this how we should show up before you come to our games?”

I wish that women’s athletic performances, not images of nude bodies, drew viewers.   (snip)   The same three players are shown in soccer action  below.  These are the images that I hope inspire my soccer-loving daughter. (not shown here)

Now here is some remarkable news!!!  Keep it up, Tina Brown!

Tina Brown’s Newsweek covers have featured women 6 of 14 weeks

Of the 14 issues of Newsweek she’s edited since taking over the magazine, Tina Brown has featured women as solo cover images in nearly half of them (see cover images below). In the 14 issues prior to Brown’s tenure, only one cover featured a woman, Michelle Rhee.

Ever feel like you’re taking one step forward, three steps back?  Scotland – buy a vowel!

 Scotland’s City Councils are clearly in a competition for “feminist fail”

Last week, it was Edinburgh; this week Glasgow’s city council is behaving as if they had never met a feminist, let alone employed one! In a letter to the parents of children at a local secondary school, GCC stated that children’s shouldn’t wear short skirts or tight trousers as it might attract paedophiles. Yes, you read that correctly – it’s children’s clothing that makes the vulnerable to paedophiles. Does this sound familiar?

Well, fortunately, the Chief Exec at the Scottish Parent Teacher Council had the sense to point out that this was very unhelpful advice as it blamed children for the activities of paedophiles. And, even more interestingly, directly compared this to discussions of adult women’s dress and their ‘responsibility’ for rape.

Time for the local councils to send their peeps on some rape awareness/ gender sensitivity training, me thinks.

This last article is by the inimitable Ani!!!  Click on over to the article; lots more over there!

 Wacky, know-nothing women need not apply!!  Why do we still resist women in leadership?

I pondered what made a good leader. I liked Hillary Clinton’s method at State. Start by getting the lay of the land, keep your head down and master your brief before retooling the place. Sometimes good leadership is about anticipating opposition or problems before they take hold. More often, it is about giving others a respectful hearing – the fifth of Stephen Covey’s Seven Habits of Highly Successful People: Seek First to Understand, Then to Be Understood. Lastly, it involves taking a fiduciary and cautious approach to spending other people’s money.

Elizabeth Warren is basically credited with designing and staffing the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, yet President Obama has chosen a man to chair it. The brilliant Sheila Bair who just ended her tenure at FDIC has been credited by the Wall St. Journal and the New York Times as turning that organization into one with teeth, yet when it counted, she was passed over for Treasury Secretary in favor of Timmy “turbo-tax” Geithner.

Bair offered fabulous ideas for getting the housing and financial sector in line – why were they not implemented? Why was her “leadership” not tapped? I have been told I give the impression I could command an army – so do many women, without being emasculating by the way – so why the perception that we “don’t know how to do anything” or that “you would never want to work for a woman.” Are these just rallying cries that protect against disrupting the status quo? Fear of altering that standard can come from women as well as men, even today.

Happy Saturday, everyone!

Don’t forget to eat shoots and leaves! 

(h/t Andy!)

Lilly Ledbetter and the matter of Do As I Say Not As I Do

obamaapplaudeshimselfToday Barack Obama is applauding himself with great vigor. He did a good thing and he knows it. 

He gets one point.

Or I should say, he gets one point and loses one point for not Leading By Example.

Today Barack Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which overturns the Supreme Court decision that rained down upon Lilly Ledbetter.

Lilly found out that her company was paying her less than they paid the boys–for the same work.   For decades. Any of us who has ever worked in Corporate America knows a story like hers, if not plenty of stories like hers.

Lilly got ticked off and she sued the Goodyear Corporation. The courts threw her case out because, even though she had plenty of proof that she had been financially discriminated against for no other reason than she didn’t own a penis, she filed her law suit past the 180 period which started with her last paycheck before retiring and discovering she had been pwned.

She took the case to the Supreme Court, which upheld the appellate court’s view in a 5 to 4 opinion written by its newest member, Justice Samuel A. Alito, a Bush appointee. At the time, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave a rare oral dissent, saying she hoped Congress would reverse what the court had done.

And so Lilly got screwed  twice and, I hate to carry tales, gentlemen, but this one thing pissed off plenty of women. They were doubly pissed off when Republicans blew their horns about it, calling it a big  Giveaway for trial lawyers. Well, you know what guys? It SHOULD be a big Giveaway for lawyers AND the women this has been done to since Time began.  This is downright  wrong and,  if most men  in power didn’t pull that shit so often for so long,  trial lawyers wouldn’t be gearing up for that Giveaway. What part of  This Is Wrong do members of the House and Senate not understand? Just wondering.

Republicans, I hope you don’t mind if I am candid today. Your history of  legally holding women down in the workplace is legendary.  I always got the feeling that if you were given the choice, plenty of your plastic representatives on Capitol Hill would reverse women’s right to vote.  Lilly Ledbetter’s law suit was a glaring example of this. Your pants were down that day your congressional members opposed Lilly Ledbetter the first time, and some of your Representatives and Senators are still blowing that opposition horn today. When will they ever learn? And exactly where is their sense of decency?

Congress passed the measure yesterday with a lopsided House vote,

Can any Republican reading this piece really sit there and tell me that it is perfectly fair  for a woman with the same education, experience, performance and position to be paid less than the man sitting next to her? Because that is the message your elected officials who are  still complaining are still sending to us today. I suggest you stuff a rag in your elected officials’ mouths if you ever hope to keep more women in your camp next time around.

obama_brushoff1You see, it was the  cheating, sexism, misogyny and deliberately horrible treatment of Hillary Clinton and  the women who supported her that drove many of us to the Republican camp during the last election. 

We recognized Obama from our Corporate jobs and bailed out.  As a matter of fact, if the Republicans’ own right wing religious social zealots didn’t sell the Centrist down the river out of spite, John McCain may have won.  During that time, Republicans embraced us disenfranchised women and talked at length with us about Fairness and how horrible all of that sexism and misogyny was towards us, Hillary, and then Sarah. But I can tell you that before The Obama Pig Machine sprung into action, the same things KEPT plenty of women from the Republican camp. Just so you know if you ever hope to recover some power.

During yesterday’s House debate, Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (Calif.), the ranking Republican on the Education and Labor Committee, predicted that the change would produce an outpouring of baseless litigation against employers, including complaints “decades after the alleged initial act occurred,” and that “trial lawyers, you can be sure, are salivating at this very prospect.”

Really “Buck”. You ignoramus. STFU you 19th Century throwback.  You are embarrassing yourself. Guys like you are the reason trial lawyers are gearing up.

To complain today about Lilly Ledbetter is to look like a hypocrite after embracing so many women who felt discrimination at its worst during the last Presidential campaign. I suggest that my Republican friends let your representatives know that women do read and have IQs and they do watch, and that they should stop behaving like hypocrites on this Good day for women, mmmmmmmkay? Just food for thought. Nothing more.

So, as you can see, I am jubilant over this Law. Except for one problem.

Barack Obama didn’t practice what he is preaching today with his own campaign employees.  So, really, the women who worked for him should start suing him right now. Let’s take a little trip down recent-memory lane to June, 2008.

Obama’s for Equal Pay,
Yet Pays Female Staffers Less Than Males
data calculated from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007. Of the five people in Obama’s Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one — Obama’s administrative manager — was a woman.

By Fred Lucas Staff WriterJune 30, 2008

( – While Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has vowed to make pay equity for women a top priority if elected president, an analysis of his Senate staff shows that women are outnumbered and out-paid by men.

That is in contrast to Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s Senate office, where women, for the most part, out-rank and are paid more than men.

Obama spoke in Albuquerque, N.M. last week about his commitment to the issue and his support of a Senate bill to make it easier to sue an employer for pay discrimination.

“Mr. McCain is an honorable man, we respect his service. But when you look at our records and our plans on issues that matter to working women, the choice could not be clearer,” Obama told the audience in New Mexico, a voter-swing state.

“It starts with equal pay. Sixty-two percent of working women in America earn half or more than of their family’s income. But women still earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men in 2008. You’d think that Washington would be united it its determination to fight for equal pay.”

He continued, saying that he is proud to have supported the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, which would extend the limit on how long an employee can wait before suing an employer for pay discrimination.

The legislation was named after Lilly Ledbetter, who was a supervisor at Goodyear Tire & Rubber’s plant in Gadsden, Ala. She sued for pay discrimination before retiring after 19 years because she had made $6,500 less per year than the lowest paid male supervisor.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out her case, saying she waited too long to file a complaint. The court said that under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, an employee must sue within 180 days of a decision regarding pay if alleged discrimination is involved. The bill sought to change the law, but Democrats could not muster the needed 60 votes to override a Republican filibuster.

Obama voted for the equal pay litigation bill in April. McCain was campaigning that day and did not vote. But he has expressed opposition to the legislation, fearing it would open the door to too much litigation.

On average, women working in Obama’s Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator. That’s according to

The average pay for the 33 men on Obama’s staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama’s staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91. (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama’s staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729.The report indicated that Obama had only one paid intern during the period, who was a male.)

McCain, an Arizona senator, employed a total of 69 people during the reporting period ending in the fall of 2007, but 23 of them were interns. Of his non-intern employees, 30 were women and 16 were men. After excluding interns, the average pay for the 30 women on McCain’s staff was $59,104.51. The 16 non-intern males in McCain’s office, by comparison, were paid an average of $56,628.83.

The Obama campaign did not respond to written questions submitted on the matter Thursday by Cybercast News Service .

During his Albuquerque speech, Obama criticized McCain for supporting the Supreme Court ruling on the pay-equity issue.

“Sen. McCain thinks the Supreme Court got it right,” Obama said. “He opposed the Fair Pay Restoration Act. He suggested that the reason women don’t have equal pay isn’t discrimination on the job – it’s because they need more education and training. That’s just totally wrong.”

Obama continued, “Lilly Ledbetter’s problem was not that she was somehow unqualified or unprepared for higher-paying positions. She most certainly was and by all reports was an excellent employee. Her problem was that her employer paid her less than men doing the exact same work.”

If this isn’t a clear cut case of Do As I Say Not As I Do,  then I don’t know what is.

And this is just one  of several serious reasons I do not believe in Barack Obama’s sincerity-quotient when it comes to women.

“Fairness for thee, not for me”. 

Raise your hand if you have ever worked for a man who Talked the Talk but was full of shit when it came to Walking the Walk himself. There is a lot more he is going to have to prove to me about his attitude toward women than this. And he can start with the pig who writes his speeches. I’m still waiting for  President Barack Obama to even make a remark about that behavior. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. This equates to either a stamp of approval or a President who doesn’t see this kind of behavior as any bid deal. You pick.

Secondly, Barack Obama’s cabinet is reminiscent of the Good Ole Boys management organizational chart of the 1970s.  And some of those Good Ole boys are exceedingly  offensive to women–as in Larry Summers.

President Obama, you will get your point back from me when you start to practice what you preach–because the attitude of the President of the United States rolls downhill into the workplace,  Sweetie.

I’ll believe you are not full of misogyny crap  and have reformed on the day you start pushing the ERA. Vigorously. And successfully. Then you, your filthy sycophants and the MSM can be  rightfully cited for Hate Speech the next time you enable the crap you pulled during your campaign.

Copyright © 2009 Uppity Woman. All Rights Reserved.