Scanner

Like men, only better educated and trained, and with higher student loan debts to pay off with their measly paychecks.

The headline of this post is misleading and unfair to McCain. Opposing a change in the procedural rules for bringing and pursuing a wage discrimination claim does not equate to opposing gender equality, not by a long shot.

Its seems perfectly fair to criticize McCain for weighing the supposed danger of abusive suits too heavily against the need to give claimants a better opportunity to bring their claims in court, but ascribing patronizing misogyny to him for it is a bit much. The law does need reform, but surely people can disagree about how to go about reforming it without one side or the other necessarily being opposed to wage equality.

This post mischaracterizes the Ledbetter Act, which does not in fact mandate equal pay. The Equal Pay Act already does that (though without an enforcement mechanism as effective as it should be). Making this distinction is not some insignificant quibble, because mischaracterizing Ledbetter that way implies that its opponents must be against wage equality. Surely some are, but we would need a lot more to go on to conclude that about someone. Jumping on the assumption that one's adversary has insidious motives, instead of assuming that their positions are principled and taken in good faith (although incorrect), is a hallmark of the kind of politics we need to leave behind.

Dorian-

McCain's own words characterize an opposition to the intentions of the Equal Pay Act. According to McCain, "This is government playing a much, much greater role in the business of a private enterprise system." As the Ledbetter Act does nothing to expand the role of government in the business of a private enterprise system, but rather clarifies the conditions under which an offense against the Equal Pay Act is actionable, McCain must either be criticizing the Equal Pay act or committing a logical fallacy. It's not assuming insidious motives to draw logical conclusions from McCain's words. The only thing it is assuming is that McCain is capable of logic, and gave his position on this matter some thought.

To be perfectly fair, however, I don't think this is evidence of misogyny. As the Ledbetter Act is essentially an amendment of the Equal Pay Act, which is an amendment of the Fair Labor Standards Act, its provisions, and, more significantly, the precendent that would be established in suits brought to court under its provisions, this act effects changes affecting anyone protected by the Fair Labor Standards Act in its amended form (essentially, any employed individual). McCain, despite public perception that he is not a corporate Republican, has a history of favoring the rights of corporations over the rights of individuals. This, to me, is an example less of misogyny than it is yet another example to disprove the claims made by conservative pundits that the liberal agenda attacks the rights of the individual that Republicans seek to protect. Corporations are not individuals.

Women are not paid less-not for the same work.  The average median annual pay is less for women than it is for men, but that says nothing about their comparative wages for the same job.  The most significant reason why is women work less hours in week, but there are other factors, as well.  Maternity leave and choice of job field are a couple other reasons.

Should women be paid less because they go on maternity leave?    Now that I think about it, they should probably be fired for it.  That way, the only women who are in the work force will be those who are barren (and the lesbians, but they dont count) and we will have an easier time knowing who to mock!