Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Wisconsin State Senator Says Women Are Paid Less Because ?Money Is More Important For Men?
Wisconsin State Senator Says Women Are Paid Less Because ?Money Is More Important For Men?
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) quietly repealed his state?s equal pay law last week, a decision that will make it harder for victims of wage discrimination to sue for lost earnings and back wages. The law was enacted primarily to address the massive pay gap that exists between male and female workers, which is even bigger in Wisconsin than in other states.
Repealing the law was a no-brainer for state Sen. Glenn Grothman (R), who led the effort because of his belief that pay discrimination is a myth driven by liberal women?s groups. Ignoring multiple studies showing that the pay gap exists, Grothman blamed females for prioritizing childrearing and homemaking instead of money, saying, ?Money is more important for men,? The Daily Beast reports:
Whatever gaps exist, he insists, stem from women?s decision to prioritize childrearing over their careers. ?Take a hypothetical husband and wife who are both lawyers,? he says. ?But the husband is working 50 or 60 hours a week, going all out, making 200 grand a year. The woman takes time off, raises kids, is not go go go. Now they?re 50 years old. The husband is making 200 grand a year, the woman is making 40 grand a year. It wasn?t discrimination. There was a different sense of urgency in each person.? [...]
Grothman doesn?t accept these studies. When I ran the numbers by him, he replied, ?The American Association of University Women is a pretty liberal group.? Nor, he argued, does its conclusion take into account other factors, like ?goals in life. 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.?
Among Grothman?s inaccuracies is the idea that only males ?expect to be a breadwinner someday.? In two-thirds of American families, women are either primary or co-breadwinners, and yet they still earn less than their male counterparts in all 50 states.
In 2011, the Wisconsin GOP carried out an extensive war on workers that led to recall efforts for state representatives, senators, and Walker himself. In 2012, Grothman and his colleagues have expanded that war to one on women, meaning a group of workers that was already struggling tokeep pace with their male counterparts is only going to fall further behind.
"You don't get to be all puke-face about your kid shooting your undead baby daddy when all you had to do was KEEP HIM IN THE FLUCKING HOUSE, LORI!" - doctorwho
Re: Wisconsin State Senator Says Women Are Paid Less Because ?Money Is More Important For Men?
I'm not as outraged by the repeal of the statute as I thought I'd be, mostly because it was only enacted in 2009. This isn't a Ledbetter-type situation, where a court (or should I say activist court?!) is overturning a longstanding interpretation of a law.
But the comments are just gross. I am, and very well may always be, the "breadwinner" in my marriage.
When did we go back to the 50's? Don Draper? Is that you?
I'm the primary breadwinner in my family. I make about 50% more than my husband, and if we have two kids he wants to quit his job or go part time and stay home with them. This state senator is clueless and possible just downright stupid. He is at the least sexist. SO women should be penalized because we have uteruses? Is his suggestion that women should stop having kids?
Oh, and apparently the state senator who put forward the repeal is 56, never married, no kids, homophobic and living in his mom's basement. Great experience with women there.
On one hand I agree that if you take time out of the work force to raise kids (whether you are male or female) you should not expect to make the same salary as someone the same age as you who did not take time off. More experience gets you a bigger salary in many cases. Everyone makes their own personal choices.
On the other hand, I once did not get a job when the other person up for the job was a man with a family. We had similar experience, education, and skills. We had actually been through the same intern program at the same time, so had almost identical background experience. The people reviewing our applications selected me because I had better writing samples (it was a writing job). The hiring official selected the man and admitted it was because he had a family to support and needed the promotion more. The hiring official saw nothing wrong with this.
And you filed a complaint with the EEOC, yes?
my read shelf:
This. PLEASE tell me you filed a complaint.
"You don't get to be all puke-face about your kid shooting your undead baby daddy when all you had to do was KEEP HIM IN THE FLUCKING HOUSE, LORI!" - doctorwho
The problem is that only women HAVE to take some time off. I've never heard of someone taking zero days and going back to work the day after the baby was born, on a weekend, of course (well, excluding the Russian mail order bride blogging type of jobs). Employers expect that you will cause some inconvenience. I mentioned having back problems to a boss and he was like, "it will only get worse when you have kids." Because I'd gotten married two months ago, this is OK to say to me? Great, glad we are now assuming I will have physical problems, too.
I agree if you take years off. But this happens to people who take 3 or 4 months off, which in the grand scheme cannot be worth that much in extra time and experience. You don't learn that much in 4 months to justify a sustained wage gap for years.
haha, same here!
More and more I come to understand why much of my family left IL for WI voluntarily. Many of them commute to IL including to Chicago and as far as Schaumburg.
Because they all agree with this. Including the women. And including those under the age of 35. Also? Remember the state senator who said abused women need to remember why they fell in love to start with? Most of the family agrees with that sentiment as well. It's more important for kids to have a mother and a father who are married than to have positive relationships modeled in their lives and safety in their homes.
Bridey, curly et al, I don't know how you live amongst these crazies!
Um... I know someone like that. I have a good friend who is a lawyer. Her husband is also a lawyer. She never wanted kids- super career focused with a Master's in Molecular Biology and a JD. She does high level patent law for an international law firm. After they were married for a few years, her husband decided he really wanted kids. She acquiesced and then when she was newly pregnant she was 'nominated' for partner. Her firm is total old boy network and her attitude was "I am not going to let this pregnancy stop me from making partner," so she had a scheduled c-section on Friday and Monday was at the office. Granted, she didn't work a full day and her husband had to drive her to the office, but she had that all important face time. Her husband, who was not a partner, took a 3 mos paternity leave from the firm he worked at then (which is where my husband still works) and she was back full time about 8 days after the birth.
With her 2nd, she was already a partner, so she took a week off. Once again, her husband took 3 mos from his new firm, where he was made partner the year before.
She makes more than him. A lot more.
No I did not file a complaint because the man ended up turning down the job, and I got it. I didn't find out the reason the man was selected first until I had been at the job for 6 months. The boss (hiring official) was and a$$ about many other things and ended up getting fired about a year after I got there.
Based on what I remember of the WOW, I'd bet his suggestion is that women GTFO of the workplace*. This is one of the states that was going nuts on birth control, right?
* Edit: Since we don't care about such things as careers and money.
And yet you manage to live among the crazies who voted for Marion Barry in 1994.
Seriously! He is still on the city council nearly 20 years later! We all have our own special crazies.
Uh yeah, I don't actually believe that. Sorry if the tone in my comment didn't come across as I intended.
I make a lot of snarky comments about my family because they drive me nuts, not because I believe everyone in WI is like them (thank goodness!).
Which is why a culture that values women as productive members of society would work with that, by allowing for flexible employment (part time, 4 ten-hour days, telecommuting, flexible hours, on-site child care, paid mat leave). There are things companies can do which can both get the kind of production they need out of their employees and allow their employees to have time with their families and deal with doctor's appointments and child care.
40/112
I've never understood this argument.
Assuming you have two kids and take your maximum 12 weeks, that's 6 months off. Two people the same age can easily have six months of difference between them based on different graduation dates, gap years, different experiences, so many different factors.
I have been with my company for a great 5 years. I hope for it to be a long, loyal career with them. If I have a baby next year I'll have been working for them for over 600 weeks by that time. If at the next promotion they want to take into account that I took 6 weeks off to recover from birth, then I hope they'll consider the sick time, family illness time, medical leave, etc. that all the other candidates took.
we all fall down sometimes
brass and ballet flats
I just can't anymore. I know this should infuriate me. And it does. But I've reached a point where I'm at the bottom of the fury well and I'm coming up dry.
We can't recall these a$sholes fast enough.
food blog | garden blog | curly dogs blog
Ding ding ding.
Despite the logic in your argument, the cynic in me says don't hold your breath. But I'm still bitter about losing out on a promotion to a much less qualified man with no children.
That happened to me once. My area manager said he paid the male managers more because they had families to take care of. As I completed my exit paperwork, he was trying to screw me over on my rate of pay for my final weeks at the job. I said perhaps it would be better if I went over his head and told the higher ups about his blatantly illegal remarks. He backed down and I got my rightful pay. I still told the higher ups what he had said but I waited until I was gone from the company so I wouldn't have to deal with the backlash.
I also told corporate about a woman manager I had who was blatantly racist and said, in a meeting, that we should hire more people who looked like Sally. Sally was the young, cute, perky white girl in the group.
My Chart My Nest Bio
Oh, what utter nonsense. In this day of laptop and tablet computing, virtual meetings, global companies, off-shore centers, etc. etc. etc. mobile and telecommuting is simple and easy to organize and coordinate. Not only within a department but across multiple departments and even multiple external partners.
Hell, in our department alone we have some people who work 7:30 - 4:30, some who work a regular 8-5, some who work 9-6 and one person who strictly telecommutes. We all get our work done quickly and efficiently.
food blog | garden blog | curly dogs blog
I do agree with this, since I'm assuming you mean a long term gap in employment of potentially several years and not a 6-12 week maternity leave. I also cringe at the suggestion of part time employment as a work policy to aid women...someone who works part time shouldn't expect the same promotions as someone working full time.
I also would like our entire culture to change as far as attitudes toward men's and women's responsibilities in child care, so that the call for things like flex time and flex place aren't solely a "women's issue". It bothers me when workplace policies are posed as the solution to the problem that women, statistically, bear the brunt of child care in a way that hurts their career.
Putting all that aside, though, I think it's a red herring, since I strongly believe there's inequality problems that lead to the male/female pay gap that have nothing to do with time off from work whatsoever.