Shared publicly  - 
Susan Gardner's profile photoSimon Gornick's profile photoKen Barber's profile photoMelody Polson's profile photo
Maddow has simply been on fire on this. She's a marvel.
The "War on Women" is a fabrication. The problems women face are not. This whole mess arose because of the insane rants of Ricky Sanatarium. The Press played it up, Hilary Rosen didn't help and here we are. It's an invention. And the sad truth is, it will be a net winner for the GOP. The independent women they'll lose will be more than made up for by the Independent women they'll win. This election is going to be real tight. The President's even going after the pet-lovers. We should drop this now, and focus on net winners like the Economy.
+Susan Gardner She's great, and passionate and all, but she could also digging a hole for the Democrats especially in the heartland swing states.
Which goes back to the point that some folk don't believe in facts at all.
It is not an invention... I will venture, Simon-- you are male and have never experienced it. I was called upon to train a new kid- he was being paid 50% more than I, yet I had to train him. "Oh, well, he has other expertise." I always heard. Really? Why am I training him, then?
+Melody Polson Facts and politics don't really mix too well. I know better than most men the predicament of most women. I've been a stay-home dad for seven years.
+Simon Gornick Then, I'm confused... why do you think the revelation of the pay disparity damages women in the 'heartland'? 

My grandmother was a single parent, back before it was the 'norm'... yet there was an entire community of these women. Yes, they lived in a city, but women everywhere are single parents for any number of reasons-- death of a spouse, abandonment, irresponsible behavior, imprisonment... all of these factors can leave a woman alone with children to rear. It was the reason we developed 'welfare' in the first place. Historically, a woman might appeal to her spiritual community for assistance, but the sensibilities of the 'church ladies' is notoriously  un-even. If the church ladies saw a woman as worthy, she got help. If they didn't, those women would watch kids starve in the street and turn their nose in the air.

Certain 'skill sets'  are paid equally. The rest are not. Why ticks me off. With child rearing as an excuse to pay women less... which makes no sense. The value of one's labor-- their skills, their dependability... those are the things that one might measure the value of input... or output (however one might measure these things in a particular venue) and base compensation upon what a person does bring to the employer.
Teachers used to be different... a scale for men, and a scale for women. We got that changed when we organized. 
The tragic thing, I see, is that the disregard for the presence of the feminine and perception of women as 'less than professional' from a masculine perspective still colors the compensation for all teachers. This is not the case for lawyers that are women. Why is one professional, and the other not??
Add a comment...