Diary Of A Mad Voter: Jessica Peck Corry
Promoting Gender Gap Doesn’t Resonate With Young Female Voters
By Jessica Peck Corry, 8-02-07
 |
|
 | |
|
Maybe it’s my western heritage—my great-great-grandmother was born on the Oregon Trail and competed against men in Nevada saddle bronc competitions. Women in my family don’t turn to the government in the search for equality. We take such matters into our own hands.
It’s a freedom never realized by today’s liberal female leaders. According to Colorado Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald, one of six female senate presidents nationally, women are still oppressed. “There is still an old-boys network and it’s real,” she recently lamented to reporters.
Oh, really, Madam President, because last time I checked, a girl is running the show.
Activists lament that women account for only 35 percent of Colorado lawmakers—despite comprising 50 percent of the state’s population. But such statistics fail to tell the real story about equality in America.
Fitz-Gerald and her cohorts spread the myth that America is plagued with sexism when, in fact, it is not. A recent Newsweek survey bears out the effects of such a message. In a national poll of both men and women, 85 percent of all respondents said they would vote for a woman presidential candidate, while just 5 percent said they would not (the remaining 10 percent said they were unsure). Interestingly, just 58 percent of these same respondents said America would vote for a woman presidential candidate. The response was clear: We’re not sexist but we’ve been led to believe that others are.
The strong argument can also be made that current support for a female candidate is artificially suppressed by the strong negative identification many voters have with Democratic front runner and New York Senator Hillary Clinton. In other words, conservatives and many moderates want a woman president but they don’t want Hillary.
When women do run—they’ve got a terrific shot at winning. Study after study demonstrates that female candidates of either party have a better chance of winning than their male competitors. Surprising, as I’ve noted in previous columns, and much to the surprise of many liberals, female Republican candidates are more likely to be elected than Democrat women.
The two major parties encourage women to run—I can speak as a former candidate myself. While I came up short, my party couldn’t have been more supportive of my candidacy as a female. Top universities, including Yale, and top political consulting firms are today designing campaign plans specifically geared toward female candidates.
Despite these facts, Fitz-Gerald and her allies continue to preach to women that we need the government to enforce equality. Every spring, they stand atop the steps of the State Capitol calling on Congress to pass the misguided Equal Rights Amendment. Fitz-Gerald believes that discrimination runs rampant in the workplace and that we need the government to help us fight back. She wants voters to believe that women working in the same jobs as men earn just three-fourths of what their male peers bring home. It’s a scare tactic of a myth that just doesn’t bear out in reality.
In past columns, I’ve also written (vented) extensively about the so-called gender wage gap. The truth is that women make less than men because they work less hours, are more likely to take time out of the workforce to raise children, spend less time commuting, and choose less dangerous jobs. When women take on the same jobs and work the same hours as men, the statistics are clear that all but 3 or 4 percent of the wage gap disappears.
That is where being tough comes in. Women need to be aggressive in salary negotiations. We need to play hard ball. In other words, we need to act like my great-great-grandmother did nearly a century ago.
It’s not to say she had an easy time of it. After all, it was only during her lifetime that women gained the right to vote. Two generations later, my grandmother was tormented by her peers for working full time. During my mother’s young adult life, her peers were turned away from top colleges because of their gender.
Countless women who have gone before me worked endlessly so that I could realize an existence without discrimination. I’ll happily partake in the equality they fought hard to—and did—achieve. In my household, in my career, and my life, every aspect runneth over with equality. I know it hasn’t been by accident.
Liberal politicians need women to feel victimized because this is how they succeed. They convince women that they need the government to ensure success in a man’s world. While sending female voters a message of oppression may sound appealing, it’s one that will fail in the long run. Women today are happy—and grateful—to be thriving in a fair world our mothers and grandmothers (and fathers and grandfathers) created.
The oppression message is based not only on spreading the gender wage gap myth but also by perpetuating a belief in the existence of the so-called “women’s issue.” You’ve heard the term before—think abortion, childcare, breast cancer, etc. It’s as if men are unaffected or uninvolved in such social problems. I look at my own family, where my husband has probably changed more dirty diapers than I have, to realize what a foolish notion this is.
This November, or any November after that, I won’t vote for a candidate based on gender. I’m not a bigot after all. I will, however, vote for a candidate that understands that I don’t need to be spoon fed my public policy and handheld through the workforce.
Women are going to get their bumps and bruises. But it’s time we all get back up on that horse and stop being victims of problems that don’t exist. After all, we’ve come a far way baby.
Editor’s note: Jessica Peck Corry’s weekly blogs are part of a new feature on NewWest.Net/Politics called “Diary of a Mad Voter,” a group blog, published in partnership with the Denver Post’s Politics West intended give a glimpse into the hearts and minds of several independent-minded voters and thinkers in the Rocky Mountain West in the ‘08 election cycle. Check back this week at www.newwest.net/madvoter.
What a well-written and well-spoken piece about the "modern day woman". I've gotten so tired of hearing the liberals talk about how I'm held back by my gender and need some sort of crutch to be even with my male co-workers. I've earned my way to where I am (equal with my male co-workers) through my own hard work, determination and intelligence. Hillary, Joan Fitz-Gerald and the rest can keep their political spin out of my path to success! I'll gladly earn it based on my own merit!
Comment By Jay Kanta, 8-02-07I was just asking some female coworkers today how they liked earning less than I do. For some reason, though, they didn't think it was that funny, nor appropriate for the discussion, Joy.
What a crock of bull this article turned out to be. Pulling out the old canard about women earning less because they "work less hours", "might take time off in the future for family", etc etc is just the same crap regurgitated today now that Congress is looking to deal with recent Supreme Court decisions.
Women earn less no matter what, Jessica. Thats been proven over and over. A career minded woman who doesn't want children usually will earn less than her male counterpart.
As for women in politics? Thats a recent change and we've yet to really see if the trend will continue and end up with a 50-50 balance or at least somewhere close.
Merit has little to do with earning potential for ALL women and to pick and choose simply based upon a single experience is ridiculous and unfair to the rest of the women around the US.
As well, I notice little real data in this article, little research done into the actual earning potential of women across America. Would you like some? Here is some that almost supports your assumptions.
How about this quote?
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in 2005 female physicians and surgeons earned 60.9% of the median weekly wages of male physicians, and women in sales occupations earned just 63.4% of men's wages in equivalent positions.
Maybe this will persuade you?
Do you think that Ledbetter was given a fair shake by Goodyear?
Or will you just call me a feminist as if that answers everything? Comment By Craig Moore, 8-02-07
Jessica and Joy, you both sound like independent, intelligent, and fair minded people. Much like my mother and female ancestors of yore. I salute you. Your independence is threatening to those otherwise attached to the umbilical cord of party power and politics. You aren't a dependent constituency and that is terrifying to those that hold power and wield it. There are all sorts of reasons for pay diffrences. Unequal education, senority, uneven professional competence, uneven continuning education in professional craft, uneven performance reviews, and uneven output of effort expended. Those differences cut across gender, race, and age differences. Personal anecdotes and cherry picked examples by those that criticize your independence are meaningless without stating the underlying factors and context. Keep up your fight. I say this as a father of a daughter who I want to continue growing as a self-reliant and independent woman.
Comment By pete geddes, 8-02-07The Gender Pay Gap
http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol4/iss4/art5/
Summary
After decades of near constancy at 40 cents on the dollar, the gender pay gap has declined markedly. Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn document these developments and explore the reasons both for the remaining gender pay gap and changes in the gap over time.
During the 1970s, when the Equal Rights Amendment campaign
was at its peak, proponents lamented that women earned only
60 cents for every dollar that men earned, implying a “gender pay gap” of 40 cents (or 40 percent). Although the gender
pay gap had stood at roughly that level for decades, during the 1980s a striking thing happened: the “raw” pay gap shrunk rapidly, and it has continued to shrink to this day, although the
pace of change slowed in the 1990s.
Interestingly, however, whereas in 1979, a substantial portion of the gender pay gap could be accounted for by the combined effect of traditional measures of human capital—education
and labor market experience, particularly women’s lesser amount of labor market experience today almost none of it can.
This raises some important questions: What role does gender discrimination play in determining today’s wage gap? What other factors contribute to gender differences in wages?
As a young woman, I caution your readers to not to think Jessica's experiences are the same as other young women.
Take pay equity for example - Jessica, you insult me with your 'spin' reasons why I made less than my male counterparts. I have the same job, have no kids and take no time off for family. I have the same education and work harder and longer for less pay. But I found out that my coworkers play golf with the head honchos and made 20% more than I did. Believe me, I'm a tough negotiator - I just got screwed.
I admire Joan Fitzgerald for speaking up about my experience with unequal pay. Maybe Jessica has a daddy who covers her bills while she has time to blog. The rest of us though - its a constant battle to watch out for being screwed. I am not a victim and don't fall into victim mentality, but I'm not naive enough to think that there isn't a constant vigilance needed to keep my head above water economically.
Your facts smear back forth on the BS windsheild. In Colorado the GOP is ousting women faster than you can say lickitysplit. How many women republicans are in the Colorado Senate GOP?
Jessica since you brought your home into this story (while trashing another woman's) do tell us all about the eqaulity you share at home.
Shouldn't your husband be in jail for sexually assaulting a younger female friend of yours less than 2 years ago? Do you still want to discuss women being the victim in society, and your home?
You may be worse at distorting the truth, placating emotions, and pandering with one-liners than Coulter or Malkin. Is that why the Colorado Daily dumped your article?
As an educator, I'm always wondering what to do when my 20-something students come up with the "there's no such thing as sexism" line in classroom discussions.
Part of me wants to just shoo them on their way with optimism in tact, hoping that by sheer will of ignorance they can make it so. Perhaps if enough fresh-faced youngsters, armed with a couple of powerful stories of heroines-of-grit canvassed the country, a magically sort of 100-monkey theory would materialize.
But part of me recognizes these stories as the same kind of "I had an aunt who smoked 2-packs of cigarettes-a-day for 20 years and never got cancer" stories we heard in the lead up to the tobacco industry fall-out. Just because the individual stories are true, doesn't prove that smoking isn't related to cancer.
The individual examples are wonderful for role models; you’re right, equality shouldn't wait around for the gov't. But the larger picture and the statistics speak to inequality between the sexes as still true today. Better than 40 years ago, but still prevalent.
And the reason that as an educator, I don't let my students wander off with their optimism firmly in place--that I go through the grueling grind of showing statistics rather than doting a few glamorous stories--is because at the end, I hope they won't rest thinking the job was "done" in the 1970s.
So, Jessica, I'm glad that sexism hasn't scarred your life personally and I appreciate your stories of the women role models who have helped bolster a vision of the world that is more equitable than your grandmother's experience...but the fight for equality and human justice has not yet seen its final chapter. And we need you and your talents to be a part of it, not acting as a mouthpiece for the status quo.
Scratch those facts a little harder...you'll find your oppressed women in homeless shelters, in crappy jobs, in psych wards, in morgues. And you'll find them in every office in every city in the United States, making 20 - 30% less than their male counterparts. Not because they work less (were you kidding?), but because there is systemic sexism that puts on a happy face while doling out un-equal paychecks. And it's that invisible quality about it that makes it so successful and makes dreamy female optimists like yourself so dangerous. Please look again and look harder. Look again for all those women you admire and who made your rosy outlook possible.
Thanks for your article though...it gets people talking about their experiences.
lisa
"According to an article in today’s New York Times, (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/nyregion/03women.html) young women who live in New York and several of the nation’s other largest cities who work full time have forged ahead of men in wages.
The analysis was prepared by Andrew A. Beveridge, a demographer at Queens College, who first reported his findings in Gotham Gazette, published online by the Citizens Union Foundation. It shows that women of all educational levels from 21 to 30 living in New York City and working full time made 117 percent of men’s wages, and even more in Dallas, 120 percent. Nationwide, that group of women made much less: 89 percent of the average full-time pay for men."
What is your point, Pete?
This doesn't support either the author's original intent, but it does support the idea that progressives are much less sexist and that the wage gap in progressive cities is much lower, if not in reverse of the wage gap across America.
It is, however, a very interesting data point and it would be great if someone can follow up with other progressive cities and see if the same applies across those.
Let me see if I've got this right. Men running business seeking to maximize profits risk those by paying equally talented women less than men? Seems like an expensive way to indulge their sexist predilections. I find this hypothesis questionable.
My point, Jay, is to ask the question, "might there be another explanation(s) for gender wage gaps?"
Jay, I believe this is Jessica's point: "Women in my family don’t turn to the government in the search for equality. We take such matters into our own hands."
The NYT article that discusses the research and the data seems to show that women that attained a high level of education, took the direction of their lives into their own hands, made sacrifices (marriage and family), and moved to opportunity received pay greater than male counterparts. Seems squarely on point with Jessica's argument. None of those factors have anything to do with the "progressive" lable as you assert.
Pete,
I'm not quite sure where you come up with that hypothesis, as the number of businesses owned by men doesn't even come up in the data you've provided. It doesn't take into account that more women are running businesses than ever before, a trend that really picked up steam in the 70's and is continuing at a slower upward pace today.
But the facts around the wage gaps across the country are well documented. Equally skilled, equally educated men make more money than their female counterparts, so much so that it draws down the New York/Dallas/etc etc bonus when averaged out.
So, Pete, what kind of other explanations might be as responsible or more responsible than the sexism that started the equal rights movement in the 70's? Are you trying to claim that these other explanations are greater than the effects of sexism today?
And once again, Craig, you didn't read anything that was put forward that argued against Jessica's gender rant. Either by myself or by other commenters.
Individual success stories do NOT mean that we can ignore the success and continued need for equality movements. The gross wage-gap that still exists after close to 40 years are real and to ignore it based on a few success stories is a gross willful mistake. To try and claim that government intervention is no longer needed in wage-gap issues is to ignore the reality of the situation across America. To lecture women as Bill Cosby lectured African Americans will end up with the same result, nothing.
The data I've posted above shows that despite equal education, equal skills and equal abilities, women make less than men. The exceptions to that are a few of the more progressive locations across America, which comes from Pete's data (thanks, Pete). The exceptions are not the rule and don't make up enough to change the wage-gap across the rest of America and that will continue to be a problem until businesses are all held accountable for their sexist wages and glass ceilings.
From all accounts, Ledbetter was an aggressive woman, capable and educated and should have made an equivalent wage to her male counterparts. You're saying it's her fault - blaming the victim. Jessica and Joy are saying that as well. If they can be successful, then it's other womens' fault. Blaming the victim.
Am I wrong in that analysis of your posts?
Jay, you say sexism is the cause. I ask given the incentives businessmen face if this is logical argument. While I have no doubt some men are sexist, they indulge this at the expense of their pocket book.
As to alternative explanations there are many. Here are some from a paper I mentioned above, The Gender Pay Gap
http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol4/iss4/art5/ $required.
Do these results mean that discrimination against women currently accounts for a pay gap of nine to 17 cents on the dollar, or nine to 17 percent? One might be tempted to think so. After all, if white women with two years of college education who are in managerial jobs in the transportation equipment industry make nine to 17 cents less on the dollar than white men in the same position, then discrimination seems a likely answer.
Discrimination may not be the culprit, however. Perhaps omitted factors such as working conditions or motivation explain the remaining pay gap. Or, perhaps women work at lower levels of the managerial hierarchy and all employees, women or men, are paid less in these lower-level positions. In that case, the “unexplained” wage gap of 9–17 percent could overstate discrimination.
You might be onto something, Pete. The incentives, may not be strong enough to overcome the learned sexist behavior, though. I'm not sure how a social scientist could determine this, however.
Also, can you fix the link that you posted before? Try putting it in as an html link < a href=" PASTE LINK">hyperlink-word< /a>. That way extra spaces and special characters make it in more often. There are other sites, such as tinyurl.com that will allow you to make a very small link that won't have any of those problems and can be pasted directly.
For your second paragraph, you mention that working conditions or motivation explain the pay gap. Can you give some examples, because I'm not sure I understand how that would create such a large gap across a large subsection. On individual cases, yes, but those should quickly average out.
As well, you might consider the wage gap amongst minorities and how it seems to parallel the successes and failures of the gender equality movement.
The text is not mine. I was cutting and pasting from a PDF (the article mentioned above).
The same economic logic applies to race discrimination. While there are racist employers, to the extent they discriminate against talented people with different skin color, they suffer the competive consequences.
It's easy for people to see an outcome and assume an intention behind the result. But social phenomena are complex. We ought to be careful to investigate throughly before we claim to "know" outcomes are due to anything else that the myarid of variables affecting the human condition and social interactions.
P.S. By "gender equality movement" do you mean the effort to close the mortality gap between men and women...;-)
Comment By Craig Moore, 8-03-07Jay, you presume way tooooooo much. You are avoiding Jessica's point as I tried to clarify for you and link to the NYT article that you seem unable to grasp. Everyone can take their lives in their own two hands, and with sacrifice, dedication, and hard work make something out of it. The data from the metropolitan cities referenced in the article seems to show not only can women attain equality but exceed the pay of male counterparts on their own efforts in very competitive environments.
Comment By Jay Kanta, 8-03-07I'm afraid I'm going to have to refer back to Ledbetter vs. Goodyear, Pete. The reality of the Ledbetter situation is plainly sexism and unfortunately, due to legal loopholes, Goodyear got away with underpaying a woman that, according to all the files, was an exemplary employee and deserved equal treatment. And this isn't just an isolated incident that just so happens to have exact wage-gap differential equal to the national average.
You seem to be saying that Goodyear had all the incentives to pay Ledbetter a fair wage with an implication that somehow they were, when the reality of the situation is just the opposite. Or maybe you're trying to claim that the incentives to pay women equal wages to their male counterparts somehow means that the sexism angle can't possibly be the major component in the wage-gap. I disagree with that, but I think we both know that.
I guess what I end up arguing is that cases like Ledbetter need to be wakeup calls to the probabilty of sexist hiring and wage practices within modern day American businesses. I'm also saying that the Federal government is there to protect the rights of men and women and that unequal treatment is a Federal issue.
No Craig, you presume too much. You are blaming those that don't work harder than men to attain equality. You are blaming those that give equal work for unequal pay. You just aren't saying it so directly.
This is exactly like the rant that Bill Cosby went on for 2 years and the end result was absolutely nothing except a decline of Bill Cosby.
Do you believe that equal work should earn equal pay, Craig? Or do you think that only those women who work harder than their exact counterparts deserve equal pay?
Jay, you make presumtions and judgements about me that are laughable. Stop spinning so hard and fast or you will get a blister on you butt.
Comment By Jay Kanta, 8-03-07Answer the questions, Craig, or go away. You're a waste of time.
Comment By Craig Moore, 8-03-07Jay, you stated the NYT article, in your opinion, does not support Jessica's point. The question is How does the article support her position statement, "Women in my family don’t turn to the government in the search for equality. We take such matters into our own hands." That has been answered. You choose not to accept it. Now, any remaining questions you have about me that deflect from this column, the NYT article, and this discussion are irrelevant. A red herring on your part aside from the fact that they are very insulting.
Comment By Jay Kanta, 8-03-07No Craig, it's not a red herring, its the entire argument.
Do women who do equal work deserve equal pay?
Because all the data I've posted says that they don't make the same pay. Jessica claims it's because women expect a handout and should just work harder. This is called blaming the victim and should be recognized immediately as such.
Jay, you and I see things differently. I find your logic rather tortured. Take your bold type question: "Do women who do equal work deserve equal pay?" I see a much broader question that goes beyond the bounds of race, gender, or even age. I also, see very logical and defensible pay discriminators that recognize pay differences for equal work. For example, an accountant with an advance degree compared to stopping at a bachelor's. An employee of 10 years may have a larger pay than a 1st year simply because they have been accumulating raises and have proven themselves. There are pay enticements to take on out of region assignments that cause personal disruption to employees eventhough their work is no more equal than an employee that has the home base assigment. There are so many factors that enter into it that merely limiting the issue to "equal pay for equal work" just doesn't cut it. A far more important issue to me is equal opportunity where there is equal credentials.
Comment By Jay Kanta, 8-03-07There you go Craig. I simplified my question too far and you caught it. So equal pay/opportunity for equal credentials and equal work?
Because there is a wage gap with that exact scenario and it can't be explained by just saying "women should just work harder".
http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2007/08/double-standards.html
Commenting on the NYT's piece:
"Well, if you stop working or work only part time, of course you don't make as much money--duh. What I find amusing or ridiculous--take your pick--is that many women's groups think women should make as much as men even if they have a family, don't work or work part-time. This is nothing but a sense of entitlement. And if women are single and working full time in the cities, then decide to have a family and move to small towns and work part-time or not at all, of course their wages will go down. That is called a trade-off, not necessarily discrimination."
Well, Pete, you just lost a lot of respect if thats what you really believe.
I'm not talking about women that leave to have children. Much of the data above deals with that as well. I'm talking about women that are focused on a career and are the equivalent to a male counterpart but make less money.
You're expanding the issue, and I'm not quite sure why.
Yep, Ms. Jessica ~ we HAVE "... come a far way baby". "Baby"??? Oooooookay. If that ain't a non-sexist remark I've never seen one.
Those of you reading this who want to reeeeaaaallllly read "the facts of the matter" need to scroll back up through the comments above and re-read those written by Lisa.
Thank you, Lisa. Your comments are very well written and extremely accurate.
Yes, Jessica, many women for many generations before us have faced the world and their success stories are there to encourage every young woman who has either attempted and succeeded or who has failed to overcome the barriers. Flagrant violations of discrimination Law can be penalized when and if a person has the intestinal fortitude and the financial capacity to ride the rails of the so-called "justice system" ~ but none of us will live long enough to see discrimination of any kind erased from between the ears of any person by gov.org.
The parts of this discussion that seek to itemize the differences and/or the similarities between the sexes in a workplace have failed to tell us or even mention anything about a single man who has ever had to consider or who has been confronted by when, whether and/or for how long he might leave the workplace to get married or to have children (although many young men are now taking some sort of "maternity leave" to assist a spouse after her delivery of a baby). Yet many women still face those questions at the time they are interviewed for any job and during the course of their employment.
Nor is there any mention whatsoever about a man having to, or being asked to, make choices ~ or further define their intentions at time of job application ~ regarding having a family. When was the last time you noticed a man having to take a stand on that "family" balance scale? Yes, some young men today do elect to be a "house husband" to a working career-oriented wife. But that is not the norm in the workplace and even single mothers who MUST earn as much as possible in order to support their families alone are faced with those questions and confronting those assumptions in most places of employment because they ARE women.
From whatever source, when was the last time you heard " ... (men's) groups think (men) should make as much as (women) even if they have a family"??? Hate her if you will, but in the words of Gloria Steinem, "I have yet to hear a man ask for advice on how to combine marriage and a career." Have YOU???
On a lighter note, us girls should also remember a couple other significant quotes by the great ladies amongst us:
From Charlotte Whitton: "Whatever women must do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult "
And of equal importance, when you dress for the workplace remember the advice we were given by Sue Grafton: "If high heels were so wonderful, men would still be wearing them." So INSIST on wearin' your smooth-runnin' tennies so you can run faster and jump higher! ;-)
Live and learn to SURVIVE ~ as we must.
Just never forget to select who you trust!
Believe in The Best but prepare for The Worst.
Believe NOT a word if your labors are cursed!!!
We are what we think ~ and THAT we can individually control at least to some extent.
... or so it seems to me.
My, oh my...such bitterness and resentment. When optomism is considered "dangerous"-- how narrow and shallow the perspective. Let's not challenge the cash cow of victimhood...viva la ERA!
Comment By Rose Mary, 8-09-07YES!!! ~ "... viva la ERA!"
Since 1879, a total of twenty-one states have added equal rights amendments to their state constitutions and ~ unlike the Federal Government ~ states must comply with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. All of these state-level amendments, like the proposed Federal ERA, prohibit discrimination based on sex. Thirteen of the state-level amendments also prohibit discrimination based on race, national origin, or creed — and three of them even go so far as to prohibit discrimination on account of a physical handicap.
Those twenty-one states are: Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
Although the 1920 ratification of the 19th Amendment had guaranteed American women's right to vote, Alice Paul, a suffragist leader, argued that this right alone would not end remaining vestiges of legal discrimination based upon sex. The ERA went to Congress for the first time in 1923.
The proposal has been reintroduced in every Congress. Despite the ERA's failure at ratification, many of its goals have otherwise been achieved through judicial interpretations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
On March 27, 2007, new resolutions were introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate as H.J. Res. 40 and S.J. Res. 10, respectively. They contain the traditional ERA language.
So PERHAPS before they go to their graves our great-great-granddaughters will have BOTH the right to vote AND legal protection from discrimination based upon sex FROM COAST TO COAST???
Sounds like a definite "maybe" to me!
"... viva la ERA!"
Dear misguided optimist,
When I said "dangerous" I wasn't talking about the symbolic boogeyman who jumps out and goes "boo" at the unsuspecting. I was talking about the kind of danger that attends a civic neglect and downplaying of the concerns of social justice. If you try to be a little less simplistic in your interpretation--give people credit for complexity instead of attempting to play GOTCHA--it might bring up the level of this discussion. That is, if you actually care about dialogue in a democracy.
The sort of danger I alluded to is captured poignantly in the following poem translated here from German. It's the "there's-nothing-wrong-here" sunny disposition that erodes the infrastructure of justice...until, of course, there is none.
---------------------------------------------------
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
--------------------------------------------
Looking deeply at statistics for consistent patterns doesn't promote a society of victims. But refusing to recognize patterns--to cherrypick one's exemplars--does work against social justice and it also promotes a society of anti-intellectualism, shallow thinking, and black and white answers (where one can make straw-boogeymen out of those who resist blind optimism).
Surely you don't want your country run on policies of shallow, knee-jerk responses? You wouldn't want a national policy drawn up based on Jessica's 5 - 7 remarkable relatives, would you? That would be ignorant, not a sign of bitterness. I believe an honest sort of happiness/contented living is possible between the extremes of cynicism and delusion, but that state must include (or even encourage) complex thinking, solid research, and real dialogue. Got any of those to offer?
lisa
Of course not!!!
I came, I saw and I decided to order take out. Want fries with that?
I can only suggest that before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away, and you'll have their shoes. Of course, they may not fit. Sounds like you do have a problem with that.
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." [Oliver Wendell Holmes] ... and the tone of what lies within you today seems to be far from the expectation of "dialogue".
Have a nice day, Lisa.
Hmmm, I think maybe you're right...if only I could figure out what you're so cagily saying. I think I might indeed have a problem with stolen shoes not fitting miles away from...wha? and perhaps my tone lies today far from tiny matters of expected....wha? Is this dialogue?
Why is the dominant mode of discourse in blog comments hit and run? You'd never do this in actual conversation. Are you really scolding my "tone" when I'm responding to a cheap shot from someone who is clearly disguising their on-line identity so they are free from any responsibility in future threads?
Oh bother. I suppose I should join the banter: viva la cliché ; have a nice cliché ; walk a mile in my cliché, order fries with that cliché? How does talking like this enrich our understanding of anything? Or is the object to score giggles? Does commenting on political blogs aspire to the same heights as those achieved sitting in the back row of 7th grade sex-ed? Ahhh, that was some rich commentary as I recall--and the giggles scored were truly priceless--but I think as an adult you might aim a little higher in depth of engagement.
If you want to criticize my tone, just do it in your own voice. Then perhaps we could get to or stay on topic. I can/will defend my choice of tone when addressing "dangerous dreamy optomist". Can you defend speaking through evasive clouds of clichés?
lisa
Actually, if you're talking to me, Lisa, I can't "... defend speaking through evasive clouds of clichés"!!! ;-)
But I actually DO want you to "Have a nice day, Lisa." ~ and, as I said much earlier (see above), "Thank you, Lisa. Your comments are very well written and extremely accurate."
My "own voice" today just seemed to be telling me that any so-called dialogue with "dangerous dreamy optimist" was not about to make your day ~ OR mine ~ but your "tone" did hint at the possibility of a confrontation which seemed to me would not be worth the upset. Since the silence has been deafening guess that potential did not exist? But the night is young!!! ~ so who am I to say.
But if my flippant clichés sent
Were out of line they were not meant
To demean any words you say!
So don't let THEM now ruin your day!!!
For those of us who've walked the walk
Before so many learned to talk
This issue is of GREAT concern.
Trial with error makes us learn.
Perhaps I've learned the very best
By errors made when faced with test
That never seems to "go away" ...
Just questions posed another way.
All women CAN excel ~ for sure!
But those who think we don't endure
Those "circumstances" foreign to men
Are writing with an inkless pen.
Those answers are not black and white.
About that you're extremely right!
For those who "won" we seek to find;
They keep us sane within our mind.
But deep below the surface churns
An attitude that creates burns
Upon the hearts and souls told
They must "behave" and not be "bold".
Perhaps "bold" is a word not right
Though many who have come in sight
Are squashed and mangled 'cause they felt
The silent wrath of blows not dealt.
Your message, Lisa, that conveyed
Your hope that women won't be made
To think "our job" is done was good!
For it is NOT ~ although it should.
I hope to live to see the day
When we're ALL "people" who can say
Without concern, without forethought,
For style of shoes or boots we bought.
We'll never find a way to swim
To shore from the fix we're in
If we deny the Facts of Life,
Those with or without lots of strife.
For every one who rides the bronc
There is a soul who's horn won't honk;
For every sequined satin vest
There is a soul who can not rest.
We CAN not end the struggle yet!
For if we do we'll loose the bet
For those who have NO cards to play.
THEY'RE COUNTIN' ON US EVERY DAY!
... or so it seems to me ...