Asshole Of The Day
Clayton Morris, Asshole of the Day for May 5, 2014
by GirlGetALife (Follow @GirlGetALife)
There was a time when women were relegated to the side lines, they had no control over when or how they were educated, who they would marry or whether or not they could choose to have a child. That time is long gone. It’s 2014: women (in developed nations, at least) are no longer sitting idly by, letting others dictate their lives. They can go to school, any school they want, choose who and when they will marry, if at all, and, despite numerous attempts to stand in the way of reproductive rights, they have the right to decide if and when they want to be a parent.
With all the rights women have gained in the last several generations, it makes sense that they would also become more successful in their chosen careers, climbing the corporate ladder and - gasp! - sometimes even earning more money than men. This is a good thing…and we should all be evolved enough to realize it.
Fox News host Clayton Morris, sadly, still thinks it’s 1952 and stated on air that women “breadwinners” are emasculating men by violating their “innate” biology. While hosting a panel discussion, Morris asked if there was a “problem with men earning less than women in the household?” He also wanted to know if the panelists thought women ‘breadwinners’ “could actually cause marital problems?”
Now, implications aside, it seems like Morris was asking a pretty innocent question, playing devil’s advocate even. But he didn’t stop there. After the panelists outlined why it’s lame to delve into gender roles in this way, Morris said:

"I get the cultural argument, guys. I mean, I can see how — we can all weave our way through cultural issues. But isn’t there some sort of biological, innate need for men to be the caveman? Go out and bring home the dinner and actually go out — is it emasculating if we don’t do it?"

By blaming successful women for ‘emasculating’ men, and implying that women ‘breadwinners’ are bad for marriage, Morris takes us back to a time when women were little more than arm candy and silly little creatures who had nothing to contribute to society than recipes and great cocktail party chatter.
Morris’ question also implies that men are weak, and can only determine their worth based on the size of their paycheck. If that’s so…that guy has a problem. It’s not the woman’s issue.
Here’s the reality: there are more women enrolled in colleges and professional schools. Nearly one-third of women will have their college degree by age 27, compare to just 24-percent of men. If you look at these numbers, it’s safe to assume that more and more women will become “breadwinners”. And, as families assess the options in front of them, many will decide it makes sense for the “breadwinner” wife to continue her ascent up the corporate ladder, while the husband takes on the difficult task of managing the home front.
This is where we are as a society. Men who have a problem with it are going to have to deal. Clayton Morris is going to have to deal.
We don’t know if Clayton Morris will ever be able to get on board with women who earn more than their men. But we can name him Asshole of the Day.
It is Clayton Morris’ first time as Asshole of the Day.
Full story: Raw Story

Clayton Morris, Asshole of the Day for May 5, 2014

by GirlGetALife ()

There was a time when women were relegated to the side lines, they had no control over when or how they were educated, who they would marry or whether or not they could choose to have a child. That time is long gone. It’s 2014: women (in developed nations, at least) are no longer sitting idly by, letting others dictate their lives. They can go to school, any school they want, choose who and when they will marry, if at all, and, despite numerous attempts to stand in the way of reproductive rights, they have the right to decide if and when they want to be a parent.

With all the rights women have gained in the last several generations, it makes sense that they would also become more successful in their chosen careers, climbing the corporate ladder and - gasp! - sometimes even earning more money than men. This is a good thing…and we should all be evolved enough to realize it.

Fox News host Clayton Morris, sadly, still thinks it’s 1952 and stated on air that women “breadwinners” are emasculating men by violating their “innate” biology. While hosting a panel discussion, Morris asked if there was a “problem with men earning less than women in the household?” He also wanted to know if the panelists thought women ‘breadwinners’ “could actually cause marital problems?”

Now, implications aside, it seems like Morris was asking a pretty innocent question, playing devil’s advocate even. But he didn’t stop there. After the panelists outlined why it’s lame to delve into gender roles in this way, Morris said:

"I get the cultural argument, guys. I mean, I can see how — we can all weave our way through cultural issues. But isn’t there some sort of biological, innate need for men to be the caveman? Go out and bring home the dinner and actually go out — is it emasculating if we don’t do it?"

By blaming successful women for ‘emasculating’ men, and implying that women ‘breadwinners’ are bad for marriage, Morris takes us back to a time when women were little more than arm candy and silly little creatures who had nothing to contribute to society than recipes and great cocktail party chatter.

Morris’ question also implies that men are weak, and can only determine their worth based on the size of their paycheck. If that’s so…that guy has a problem. It’s not the woman’s issue.

Here’s the reality: there are more women enrolled in colleges and professional schools. Nearly one-third of women will have their college degree by age 27, compare to just 24-percent of men. If you look at these numbers, it’s safe to assume that more and more women will become “breadwinners”. And, as families assess the options in front of them, many will decide it makes sense for the “breadwinner” wife to continue her ascent up the corporate ladder, while the husband takes on the difficult task of managing the home front.

This is where we are as a society. Men who have a problem with it are going to have to deal. Clayton Morris is going to have to deal.

We don’t know if Clayton Morris will ever be able to get on board with women who earn more than their men. But we can name him Asshole of the Day.

It is Clayton Morris’ first time as Asshole of the Day.

Full story: Raw Story



Share on Tumblr   
Phyllis Schlafly, Asshole of the Day for April 16, 2014
by TeaPartyCat (Follow @TeaPartyCat)
In the last month or two equal pay laws and the gender pay gap have been in the news, and the excuses to do nothing about this have been all over the place. And not in a good way. So far we’ve seen:
Bill O’Reilly said there was no point in even discussing it, even if it’s a real problem
Rep. Andrea Kieffer said it made women look like whiners
Red State Women’s Cari Christman said women are “too busy” to need equal pay laws
Texas GOP Exec. Director Beth Cubriel says women just need to be better negotiators
Sen. Lamar Alexander worried that equal pay laws might make men get paid less than women
Neal Boortz says equal pay is just a scam pushed on “easily manipulated women” by Democrats
But of course all those people are rookies compared to Phyllis Schlafly, who won’t be left out of the conversation. She’s been pushing for women to be second class citizens for 40 years! Her argument against equal pay laws? Women won’t find husbands if they’re paid equal to men:

While women prefer to HAVE a higher-earning partner, men generally prefer to BE the higher-earning partner in a relationship. This simple but profound difference between the sexes has powerful consequences for the so-called pay gap.
Suppose the pay gap between men and women were magically eliminated. If that happened, simple arithmetic suggests that half of women would be unable to find what they regard as a suitable mate.
Obviously, I’m not saying women won’t date or marry a lower-earning men, only that they probably prefer not to. If a higher-earning man is not available, many women are more likely not to marry at all. […]
The best way to improve economic prospects for women is to improve job prospects for the men in their lives, even if that means increasing the so-called pay gap.

If you boil down her argument, it’s

Some women prefer a man who makes more money than them
AND most men prefer to make more money than their wife 
THEREFORE it’s good for women that men are paid more.

But does this even make sense? No. Since not every woman will eventually get married to a man— because some won’t get married, and because others will marry women— that prior to getting married, it would be better for women not to be paid less than men as a rule, because they won’t know whether they will fall into the married to men, married to women, or not married later in life category. The women who don’t end up married to a man will be sacrificing fair wages but not getting the “benefit” of better paid husbands.
And even among the women who do get married to men, there’s two other problems that Ms. Schlafly isn’t addressing— divorce and death. What happens when this better paid husband is gone? Should the woman forgo fair earnings then too? With half of all marriages ending in divorce, why should women ever accept unfair wages just to prop up the wages of husbands who may not be there when they need them?
And let’s go back to her original statement as well— Ms. Schlafly says that not all women prefer a man who makes more, nor do all men prefer to make more. But those people should just suffer along with the single women and gay women and the divorcees and widows so that some women can get better paid husbands.
And, yes, she’s old, so it may be understandable that she still thinks these things. But this isn’t a case of your 90-year-old grandma with outdated views lovingly giving advice to her granddaughter. She is still in the public sphere trying to influence policy. And she’s wrong. And if her policies are followed it will continue to impoverish millions of women and their children. And for what?
So, for saying women should accept lower wages to prop up their prospects for a husband, Phyllis Schlafly is the Asshole of the Day.
It is Phyllis Schlafly’s first time as Asshole of the Day.
Full story: Think Progress

Phyllis Schlafly, Asshole of the Day for April 16, 2014

by TeaPartyCat ()

In the last month or two equal pay laws and the gender pay gap have been in the news, and the excuses to do nothing about this have been all over the place. And not in a good way. So far we’ve seen:

But of course all those people are rookies compared to Phyllis Schlafly, who won’t be left out of the conversation. She’s been pushing for women to be second class citizens for 40 years! Her argument against equal pay laws? Women won’t find husbands if they’re paid equal to men:

While women prefer to HAVE a higher-earning partner, men generally prefer to BE the higher-earning partner in a relationship. This simple but profound difference between the sexes has powerful consequences for the so-called pay gap.

Suppose the pay gap between men and women were magically eliminated. If that happened, simple arithmetic suggests that half of women would be unable to find what they regard as a suitable mate.

Obviously, I’m not saying women won’t date or marry a lower-earning men, only that they probably prefer not to. If a higher-earning man is not available, many women are more likely not to marry at all. […]

The best way to improve economic prospects for women is to improve job prospects for the men in their lives, even if that means increasing the so-called pay gap.

If you boil down her argument, it’s

Some women prefer a man who makes more money than them

AND most men prefer to make more money than their wife

THEREFORE it’s good for women that men are paid more.

But does this even make sense? No. Since not every woman will eventually get married to a man— because some won’t get married, and because others will marry women— that prior to getting married, it would be better for women not to be paid less than men as a rule, because they won’t know whether they will fall into the married to men, married to women, or not married later in life category. The women who don’t end up married to a man will be sacrificing fair wages but not getting the “benefit” of better paid husbands.

And even among the women who do get married to men, there’s two other problems that Ms. Schlafly isn’t addressing— divorce and death. What happens when this better paid husband is gone? Should the woman forgo fair earnings then too? With half of all marriages ending in divorce, why should women ever accept unfair wages just to prop up the wages of husbands who may not be there when they need them?

And let’s go back to her original statement as well— Ms. Schlafly says that not all women prefer a man who makes more, nor do all men prefer to make more. But those people should just suffer along with the single women and gay women and the divorcees and widows so that some women can get better paid husbands.

And, yes, she’s old, so it may be understandable that she still thinks these things. But this isn’t a case of your 90-year-old grandma with outdated views lovingly giving advice to her granddaughter. She is still in the public sphere trying to influence policy. And she’s wrong. And if her policies are followed it will continue to impoverish millions of women and their children. And for what?

So, for saying women should accept lower wages to prop up their prospects for a husband, Phyllis Schlafly is the Asshole of the Day.

It is Phyllis Schlafly’s first time as Asshole of the Day.

Full story: Think Progress



Share on Tumblr   
Is Phyllis Schlafly Asshole of the Day?

image

Is Phyllis Schlafly asshole of the day for saying women won’t find husbands if they’re paid equal to men?

In an op-ed Phyllis Schlafly says 

While women prefer to HAVE a higher-earning partner, men generally prefer to BE the higher-earning partner in a relationship. This simple but profound difference between the sexes has powerful consequences for the so-called pay gap.

Suppose the pay gap between men and women were magically eliminated. If that happened, simple arithmetic suggests that half of women would be unable to find what they regard as a suitable mate.

Obviously, I’m not saying women won’t date or marry a lower-earning men, only that they probably prefer not to. If a higher-earning man is not available, many women are more likely not to marry at all. […]

The best way to improve economic prospects for women is to improve job prospects for the men in their lives, even if that means increasing the so-called pay gap.

More at Think Progress

This is some awesome sexist logic here. Let’s just pretend her facts are right and see if we can possibly agree with her conclusion—

Because some women prefer a man who makes more money than them

AND most men prefer to make more money than their wife

THEN it’s good for women that men are paid more.

That is her argument. But is that the only conclusion, even assuming her facts? 

It seems to me that since not every woman will eventually get married to a man— because some won’t get married, and because others will marry women— that prior to getting married, it would be better for women not to be paid less than men as a rule, because they won’t know whether they will fall into the married to men, married to women, or not married later in life.

Beyond that there’s thing called divorce. So women who make less and marry a man who makes more but get divorced will go back to making less on their own while the man makes more. I can’t think of any divorced women I’ve ever met who thought it would be great if her ex made more than her once he’s left her and won’t share it any more.

Also even Ms. Schlafly says that not all women prefer a man who makes more, nor do all men prefer to make more. But those people should just suffer I guess.

Basically what it comes down to is if you’re not a woman who wants a man who makes more or a man who wants to make more— and straight and married— it’s a pretty lousy system, but she doesn’t care. And divorcees and widows figure in not at all.

Photo source: http://www.phyllisschlafly.com/



Share on Tumblr   
Is Neal Boortz Asshole of the Day?

Is Neal Boortz asshole of the day for saying equal pay is a scam pushed on easily manipulated women voters?

Talking Points Memo points out these tweets from conservative radio host Neal Boortz on equal pay:

So he blames Democrats for pushing a “scam”, which amounts to banning discrimination in pay on the basis of gender.

And then he compounds it by insulting women as “easily fooled and manipulated”.

I think it’s fair to say that he doesn’t think women deserve equal pay since they’re such chumps.

Photo source: http://www.wsbradio.com/news/entertainment/personalities/neal-boortz-bio/nbdn/



Share on Tumblr   
Is Lamar Alexander Asshole of the Day?

Is Sen. Lamar Alexander asshole of the day for worrying that an equal pay law won’t protect men from being paid less than women?

Olson, who was testifying on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said that the bill provides the same protections to men as it does to women.

"An employer would have to show that the woman was being paid more because of a factor other than sex, such as a qualification, advanced degree, or more experience," she said.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/alexander-equal-pay-men

Oh, please. Women have been discriminated against in both pay rates and promotions as long as they’ve been in the workforce, so you’re going to try to derail an equal pay law while asking if it will protect men? 

You know what protects men? Sexism, that’s what.

Photo source: http://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/



Share on Tumblr   
Beth Cubriel, Asshole of the Day for March 20, 2014
by TeaPartyCat (Follow @TeaPartyCat)
Another day, another GOP female official is trotted out to give a lame excuse for not supporting equal pay laws. So far we’ve had Minnesota state Rep. Andrea Kieffer saying equal pay laws would be bad because it makes them seem like whiners and Cari Christman of Red State Women saying women are “too busy” to need equal pay laws. And now we have executive director of the Texas Republican Party, Beth Cubriel saying women just need to be better negotiators:

"Men are better negotiators," Beth Cubriel said on YNN’s "Capital Tonight." "I would encourage women, instead of pursuing the courts for action, to become better negotiators."
The Texas Republican party has come under fire for its stance on fair pay, and its gubernatorial candidate, Greg Abbott, has dodged the question of whether he would support equal pay legislation such as the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The bill allows women to sue their employers for paying their male colleagues more for the same work whenever the pay discrimination is discovered, rather than barring them from doing so after 180 days following the first discriminatory paycheck. The law was inspired by Lilly Ledbetter, a woman who had worked for Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. for almost 20 years when she received a note alerting her that she was being paid 40 percent less than her male colleagues of equal or lesser superiority.

She admits that men are paid more, but thinks it’s due to better negotiating.
But maybe she should consider that maybe men are “better negotiators” because the deck isn’t stacked against them. Or that men have an advantage over women because:
Laws favor men.
Sexism favors men.
And there are many sexist things which may all contribute to lower pay seeming justified, regardless of negotiation skill:
Sexists think women can’t do as good a job, regardless of experience or qualifications. So since they’re perceived to do an inferior job.
Sexists think that women may leave the workforce to have children, and are paid less because they aren’t perceived to have the same loyalty to the company.
Sexists think that women with children will be distracted by their children’s needs and schedules, and probably take more days off or leave early and generally be less committed and not work as hard.
All of those things would, in a sexist’s mind, justify lower pay.
Or you could just ignore all the evidence of lingering sexism and blame women for not being good negotiators. That’s victim blaming. Some women are being paid less because of sexism, but Beth Cubriel blames them for not being good negotiators. And for that, she is the Asshole of the Day.
It is Beth Cubriel’s first time as Asshole of the Day. She joins Minnesota state Rep. Andrea Kieffer who won yesterday for suggesting that women not have equal pay laws because it makes them seem like whiners.
Full story: HuffPo

Beth Cubriel, Asshole of the Day for March 20, 2014

by TeaPartyCat ()

Another day, another GOP female official is trotted out to give a lame excuse for not supporting equal pay laws. So far we’ve had Minnesota state Rep. Andrea Kieffer saying equal pay laws would be bad because it makes them seem like whiners and Cari Christman of Red State Women saying women are “too busy” to need equal pay laws. And now we have executive director of the Texas Republican Party, Beth Cubriel saying women just need to be better negotiators:

"Men are better negotiators," Beth Cubriel said on YNN’s "Capital Tonight." "I would encourage women, instead of pursuing the courts for action, to become better negotiators."

The Texas Republican party has come under fire for its stance on fair pay, and its gubernatorial candidate, Greg Abbott, has dodged the question of whether he would support equal pay legislation such as the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The bill allows women to sue their employers for paying their male colleagues more for the same work whenever the pay discrimination is discovered, rather than barring them from doing so after 180 days following the first discriminatory paycheck. The law was inspired by Lilly Ledbetter, a woman who had worked for Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. for almost 20 years when she received a note alerting her that she was being paid 40 percent less than her male colleagues of equal or lesser superiority.

She admits that men are paid more, but thinks it’s due to better negotiating.

But maybe she should consider that maybe men are “better negotiators” because the deck isn’t stacked against them. Or that men have an advantage over women because:

  • Laws favor men.
  • Sexism favors men.

And there are many sexist things which may all contribute to lower pay seeming justified, regardless of negotiation skill:

  1. Sexists think women can’t do as good a job, regardless of experience or qualifications. So since they’re perceived to do an inferior job.
  2. Sexists think that women may leave the workforce to have children, and are paid less because they aren’t perceived to have the same loyalty to the company.
  3. Sexists think that women with children will be distracted by their children’s needs and schedules, and probably take more days off or leave early and generally be less committed and not work as hard.

All of those things would, in a sexist’s mind, justify lower pay.

Or you could just ignore all the evidence of lingering sexism and blame women for not being good negotiators. That’s victim blaming. Some women are being paid less because of sexism, but Beth Cubriel blames them for not being good negotiators. And for that, she is the Asshole of the Day.

It is Beth Cubriel’s first time as Asshole of the Day. She joins Minnesota state Rep. Andrea Kieffer who won yesterday for suggesting that women not have equal pay laws because it makes them seem like whiners.

Full story: HuffPo



Share on Tumblr   
Is Beth Cubriel Asshole of the Day?

Is Beth Cubriel asshole of the day for saying instead of equal pay laws, women should become “better negotiators”?

the executive director of the Texas Republican Party stepped in to explain the GOP’s alternative to fair pay legislation.

"Men are better negotiators," Beth Cubriel said on YNN’s "Capital Tonight." "I would encourage women, instead of pursuing the courts for action, to become better negotiators."

The Texas Republican party has come under fire for its stance on fair pay, and its gubernatorial candidate, Greg Abbott, has dodged the question of whether he would support equal pay legislation such as the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The bill allows women to sue their employers for paying their male colleagues more for the same work whenever the pay discrimination is discovered, rather than barring them from doing so after 180 days following the first discriminatory paycheck. The law was inspired by Lilly Ledbetter, a woman who had worked for Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. for almost 20 years when she received a note alerting her that she was being paid 40 percent less than her male colleagues of equal or lesser superiority.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/18/texas-gop-equal-pay_n_4985231.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

By saying she encourages women to become better negotiators, Ms. Cubriel is admitting women are paid less. She just doesn’t think the lawy should do anything about it. Women should just be better negotiators.

Or maybe men are “better negotiators” because the deck isn’t stacked against them. Or that men have an advantage over women because—

  • Laws favor men.
  • Lingering sexism favors men.

And the sexism includes many things that contribute to lower pay seeming justified, regardless of negotiation skill:

  1. Prejudice against women being able to do the job, so they’re perceived to do worse at it and therefore should be paid less out of fairness.
  2. Perception that women may leave the workforce, and so they don’t need as much money because they won’t be loyal.
  3. Perception that women with children will be distracted by their children’s concerns, and probably take more days off or leave early and generally be less committed and not work as hard.

Or you could just ignore everything and blame women for not being good negotiators. While you’re at it though, Ms. Cubriel, why don’t you ask what she’s wearing too since this is really just more victim blaming.

Photo source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/18/texas-gop-equal-pay_n_4985231.html



Share on Tumblr   
Is Cari Christman Asshole of the Day?

Is Cari Christman asshole of the day for saying women are “too busy” to need equal pay laws?

The leader of a recently-launched politically action committee aimed at female voters in Texas said this week that equal pay lays were not “practical” because women were “extremely busy.”

“We believe that Texas women want and deserve equal pay,” Christman admitted. “But honestly, Jason, we don’t believe the Lilly Ledbetter Act is what’s going to solve that problem for women. We believe that women want real-world solutions to this problem, not more rhetoric.”

But after Whitely asked Christman to provide a better solution for equal pay, the PAC leader stumbled with some awkward rhetoric of her own.

“If you look at it, women are… extremely busy, we lead busy lives,” she explained. “And times are extremely busy. It’s just — it’s a busy cycle for women, and we’ve got a lot to juggle.”

“And so when we look at this issue, we think, what’s practical?” Christman continued. “And we want more access to jobs. And we want to be able to go to get a higher education degree at the same time we’re working or raising a family. That’s common sense. And we believe that real-world solution is a more practical way to approach the problem.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/17/awkward-gop-womens-pac-leader-says-women-too-busy-to-need-equal-pay-laws/

So to summarize her argument:

  1. “We believe that Texas women want and deserve equal pay”
  2. But we don’t believe that laws requiring equal pay will help
  3. Instead bland platitudes about a better economy will be better than equal pay

Except here’s the problem, Ms. Christman— even if the economy gets better, women might earn more, but they will still be earning less than men, and that’s not fairer. 

You’ve agreed that the current situation in which some women are paid less by sexist employers is unfair; you just don’t care.

You should talk to Rep. Andrea Keiffer, yesterday’s Asshole of the Day, who said equal pay laws make women seem like whiners, and which is somehow worse than being paid less.

Photo source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/17/head-of-gop-womens-pac-fl_n_4978650.html



Share on Tumblr   
Andrea Kieffer, Asshole of the Day for March 19, 2014
by TeaPartyCat (Follow @TeaPartyCat)
Democrats have prioritized women’s issues in the last few years, pointing out where they differ from Republicans, and highlighting what they refer to as the War On Women, which has become all too vivid with statements about rape from people like Todd Akin and Trent Franks, or with the whole Sandra Fluke smear campaign led by Rush Limbaugh.
One issue that is part of this is equal pay for women, which Republicans have voted against and blocked whenever it has come up. In the last week the GOP has trotted out women to try to justify the party’s opposition to these laws, which led to yesterday when Rep. Andrea Kieffer said equal pay laws make women “look like whiners”:

Minnesota state Rep. Andrea Kieffer (R) last week said that legislation to address equal pay and sick leave does not actually help women in the workplace, the Huffington Post reported.
"We heard several bills last week about women’s issues and I kept thinking to myself, these bills are putting us backwards in time," Kieffer said at a hearing on a bill to address the gender pay gap, according to an audio recording posted by the Alliance for a Better Minnesota. “We are losing the respect that we so dearly want in the workplace by bringing up all these special bills for women and almost making us look like whiners.”

She’s not saying that we shouldn’t have laws requiring equal pay for an economic reason. Or a fairness reason. Her opposition is that it will make women look like whiners.
Whiners.
Having equal pay and other equal rights is better than not being called a whiner. Not being called a whiner doesn’t pay the bills. But for pretending like this is an argument that justifies second class status for women in the workplace, Andrea Kieffer is the Asshole of the Day.
It is Andrea Kieffer’s first time as Asshole of the Day.
Full story: Talking Points Memo
NOTE: This post previously included a quote about Susan B. Anthony which I had mistakenly attributed to Rep. Kieffer. After someone pointed out the quote was said by someone else, I removed it.

Andrea Kieffer, Asshole of the Day for March 19, 2014

by TeaPartyCat ()

Democrats have prioritized women’s issues in the last few years, pointing out where they differ from Republicans, and highlighting what they refer to as the War On Women, which has become all too vivid with statements about rape from people like Todd Akin and Trent Franks, or with the whole Sandra Fluke smear campaign led by Rush Limbaugh.

One issue that is part of this is equal pay for women, which Republicans have voted against and blocked whenever it has come up. In the last week the GOP has trotted out women to try to justify the party’s opposition to these laws, which led to yesterday when Rep. Andrea Kieffer said equal pay laws make women “look like whiners”:

Minnesota state Rep. Andrea Kieffer (R) last week said that legislation to address equal pay and sick leave does not actually help women in the workplace, the Huffington Post reported.

"We heard several bills last week about women’s issues and I kept thinking to myself, these bills are putting us backwards in time," Kieffer said at a hearing on a bill to address the gender pay gap, according to an audio recording posted by the Alliance for a Better Minnesota. “We are losing the respect that we so dearly want in the workplace by bringing up all these special bills for women and almost making us look like whiners.”

She’s not saying that we shouldn’t have laws requiring equal pay for an economic reason. Or a fairness reason. Her opposition is that it will make women look like whiners.

Whiners.

Having equal pay and other equal rights is better than not being called a whiner. Not being called a whiner doesn’t pay the bills. But for pretending like this is an argument that justifies second class status for women in the workplace, Andrea Kieffer is the Asshole of the Day.

It is Andrea Kieffer’s first time as Asshole of the Day.

Full story: Talking Points Memo

NOTE: This post previously included a quote about Susan B. Anthony which I had mistakenly attributed to Rep. Kieffer. After someone pointed out the quote was said by someone else, I removed it.



Share on Tumblr   
Is Andrea Kieffer Asshole of the Day?

image

Is Rep. Andrea Kieffer asshole of the day for saying equal pay laws make women “look like whiners”?

Whiners. Let’s not have laws to enforce equal rights because doing so makes the people we’re protecting look like whiners?

Having equal pay and other equal rights is better than not being called a whiner.

NOTE: This post previously included a quote about Susan B. Anthony which I had mistakenly attributed to Rep. Kieffer. After someone pointed out the quote was said by someone else, I removed it.

Photo source: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/members/members.asp?id=15352



Share on Tumblr