Leftist commentary from a mouthy bitch
What the hell is up with these assholes who don’t seem to understand that women work for the same reasons men work: to make money to support themselves and their families.
So, Scott Walker repealed Wisconsin’s Equal Pay law this past week, and the incredibly charming Republican State Senator Glenn Grothman said, when interviewed by Michelle Goldberg at the Daily Beast, “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. To attribute everything to a so-called bias in the workplace is just not true.”
Money is “more important to men”? How? Do women not need to pay bills, rent, buy things? Or is there some special form of “vagina magic” I’m missing out on that’s supposed to take care of all these things without me having a job? The fact that I encounter ANYONE in this economy who thinks that women work merely as hobbies never ceases to amaze me. Or that their income for some bizarre doesn’t matter for why?
And how is women not getting paid the same amount of money for the same job NOT bias? Seriously, if you’re paying me less because of what’s swinging (or not) between my legs, how the fuck is that not gender bias? And before you start whinging on about “Well, women have babies and leave the work force and blah…” Two things, asshole. 1. They control for that in studies about the wage gap, google it. And 2. What about women who don’t? I don’t have kids. I know several women who don’t have kids, and given the pervasiveness of wage bias in society, odds are good several of them are still getting paid less. Not to mention what about women whose husbands are the ones who stay home? Those happen, more than you think.
Women are, far more frequently than this asshead and those like him think, the economic heads of their households. Whether it’s because they are single, unmarried, divorced, widowed, or their partner (of any gender) is the one who stays home, women’s jobs matter, and women need their money just as much as men do. To think otherwise is just retrograde wrongheadedness.
And let’s face it, as far as lower class women (of all ethnicities) are concerned, they have ALWAYS needed their jobs and their money. For the most part, women don’t work for shits and giggles. We work because we have to, because without our income we and our loved ones would be homeless and starving in the streets.
Not to mention, the law hadn’t cost the state any money. Essentially having the law on the books, and knowing they could get taken to court over wage discrepancies caused employers to self-regulate, which is what good laws should do. So it was working like it was supposed to.
Congratulations Senator Grothman, on making yourself an even bigger jackass than Governor Walker on this subject. Good job!
Not to mention the fact that a number of studies have shown it costs more just to be female. We may win on car insurance, but in most other areas (medical/life insurance, clothes & other retail goods, services like dry cleaning) if they have the opportunity to have even the illusion of different offerings for men & women, they’ll give them the same product/service and charge women more.
Totally true. Which is why I tend to buy men’s dress shirts (also, shoulders), I buy men’s jammie pants to work out in, I buy guy t-shirts mostly and men’s sweaters. Because usually men’s clothing is $5 to $10 cheaper.
Jezebel looked into the cost of owning a vagina the other day between birth control (which over 90% of women are on at some point in their lives regardless of sexual orientation, because they use it to regulate periods and treat other conditions, apart from preventing pregnancy), yeast infections which women get more frequently, bladder infections which women get more frequently, shaving because women’s razors are much more expensive and we shave much more of our bodies, etc…
You do touch on this with “families” but it can’t be pointed out ENOUGH, in my opinion, that when it comes to being a single parent, I feel pretty safe in saying women have the market almost cornered on that one. So we could theoretically argue women need *more* money in order to support those children.
Which leads me to my second point – isn’t this the same party usually behind removing women’s choices when it comes to abortion access and/or birth control? There’s no logic in demanding that women must give birth to these unwanted babies, and then robbing them of the ability to care for them if they can’t get the father (or any partner) to stick around to help out. But, then again, the Republicans also frown on public funding for social programs that help women and families with children; national health care with a public option to help poor people with children (or without, but that’s not my point here); and a multitude of things that just don’t seem to make sense in light of them wanting more and more humans on the planet.
They’re also the same party that doesn’t want those women with the unwanted children to leave abusive situations because despite ALL OF THE EVIDENCE to the contrary some white men decided it’s healthier for the kids to be raised in a two parent home NO MATTER WHAT.
Click to access sb507.pdf
Yeah, I don’t think anyone who feels it’s ok to tell a woman to stay and try harder when she’s getting beaten is in any sort of “moral” or ethical position to tell anyone else anything.
Ugh. That “for the children” BS is so destructive. I’ve seen enough of it that I would almost always advise the opposite just in reflex. The children do NOT appreciate it. Or benefit from it.