HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Todd Akin Suggests Employ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 03:08 PM

Todd Akin Suggests Employers Should Be Able To Pay Women Less

Source: TPM

Todd Akin appeared to endorse allowing employers to pay women less than men at a town hall on Thursday.

Gender discrimination in compensation has been illegal in the United States since the passage of the 1963 Equal Pay Act. But in video provided by Sen. Claire McCaskill's campaign, Akin responded to a question about the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act -- which made it easier for workers to sue over unequal pay -- by suggesting that employers shouldn't even be barred from paying women less in the first place.

Here's a transcript:

AUDIENCE MEMBER: You voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Why do you think it is okay for a woman to be paid less for doing the same work as a man?

AKIN: Well, first of all, the premise of your question is that I'm making that particular distinction. I believe in free enterprise. I don't think the government should be telling people what you pay and what you don't pay. I think it's about freedom. If someone whatís to hire somebody and they agree on a salary, that's fine, however it wants to work. So, the government sticking its nose into all kinds of things has gotten us into huge trouble.



Read more: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/todd-akin-suggests-employers-should-be-able-to

73 replies, 12684 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 73 replies Author Time Post
Reply Todd Akin Suggests Employers Should Be Able To Pay Women Less (Original post)
DonViejo Sep 2012 OP
onehandle Sep 2012 #1
pnwmom Sep 2012 #2
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #45
pnwmom Sep 2012 #48
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #49
pnwmom Sep 2012 #51
oldsarge54 Sep 2012 #61
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #66
pnwmom Sep 2012 #69
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #70
Stuart G Sep 2012 #3
tech3149 Sep 2012 #4
Delmette Sep 2012 #22
tech3149 Sep 2012 #31
Delmette Sep 2012 #33
tech3149 Oct 2012 #73
Darth_Kitten Sep 2012 #67
xmas74 Sep 2012 #39
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #47
johnlucas Sep 2012 #72
Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2012 #5
Patiod Sep 2012 #7
Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2012 #11
Sherman A1 Sep 2012 #13
xmas74 Sep 2012 #40
Javaman Sep 2012 #6
DallasNE Sep 2012 #8
etherealtruth Sep 2012 #34
randome Sep 2012 #9
Tx4obama Sep 2012 #10
kiranon Sep 2012 #12
midnight Sep 2012 #14
The Last Democrat Sep 2012 #15
Zoeisright Sep 2012 #16
Blue_Tires Sep 2012 #17
JDPriestly Sep 2012 #18
BlueJazz Sep 2012 #19
NightOwwl Sep 2012 #20
RC Sep 2012 #35
xmas74 Sep 2012 #41
Swede Atlanta Sep 2012 #21
wutang77 Sep 2012 #23
Ash_F Sep 2012 #24
tclambert Sep 2012 #25
Fresh_Start Sep 2012 #26
tanyev Sep 2012 #27
Manifestor_of_Light Sep 2012 #64
christx30 Sep 2012 #65
McCamy Taylor Sep 2012 #28
McCamy Taylor Sep 2012 #29
MichiganVote Sep 2012 #30
randome Sep 2012 #32
Third Doctor Sep 2012 #36
StevePaulson Sep 2012 #37
yardwork Sep 2012 #38
pnwmom Sep 2012 #58
yardwork Sep 2012 #68
L0oniX Sep 2012 #42
elbloggoZY27 Sep 2012 #43
volstork Sep 2012 #44
kooljerk666 Sep 2012 #46
hrmjustin Sep 2012 #50
liberal N proud Sep 2012 #52
lumpy Sep 2012 #53
patrice Sep 2012 #54
Politicub Sep 2012 #55
Brigid Sep 2012 #56
Scairp Sep 2012 #57
patrice Sep 2012 #59
davidn3600 Sep 2012 #60
daleo Sep 2012 #62
AllyCat Sep 2012 #63
Don C. Nuttin Sep 2012 #71

Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 03:09 PM

1. 'Huge trouble.'

For Neanderthals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 03:11 PM

2. Just recently, I had a couple DUers ask me why passing an Equal Rights Amendment would even matter

when I said I didn't approve of women getting drafted unless and until we had an ERA.

This is why. Without an amendment, anything could happen in any state represented by people like Akin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 05:45 PM

45. Discriminating against someone on pay

 

based on their gender is already illegal.

So why would it take an ERA to prevent something that is currently against the law?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #45)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 07:25 PM

48. Because current law can be changed by a simple majority vote. And current law

still allows places like Walmart to pay women less than men, according to the Supreme Court.

A constitutional amendment would give much greater protection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #48)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 07:27 PM

49. So just to be clear: no rights are being infringed on currently

 

your entire concern is on some hypothetical future where all current anti-discrimination laws have been repealed.

In that case shouldn't the fact that only males are eligible for the draft be a concern since of course we reinstate the draft at any moment simply following a majority vote?

Actually all it would take to make women or blacks or anyone non-citizens would be a constitutional amendment. We've had those before. So by your logic no one has any rights at the moment. Not for real anyway. They could be taken away with simply a massive political undertaking for which there is no public will and would ensure political suicide for all involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #49)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 07:32 PM

51. Did you hear about the Walmart cases? The Supreme Court had no problem with

Walmart paying women less than men, and Scalia said that women are not a protected class under the Constitution.

So no, I don't agree that no rights of women are being infringed on currently. We protect the rights of people based on race and religion; we should also protect them based on gender.

If men are worried that they might be unfairly subject to a draft at any time, then they should all be pushing for an Equal Rights Amendment, which would help them, too.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/scalia-constitution-does-not-p.html

Justice Antonin Scalia has weighed in on the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, leaving women's rights activists seething.

In an interview with California Lawyer, Scalia said that the Constitution itself does not protect women and gay men and lesbians from discrimination. Such protections are up to the legislative branch, he said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #51)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:50 PM

61. Our good friend Scalia

Also struck down the first 13 words (42%) of the 2nd Amendment, being that is has no application anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #51)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 10:10 AM

66. It is illegal to pay women less than men

 

for doing the same job.

If they were not doing the same job (ie working fewer hours, carrying less, etc) then it is fine to pay them less.


So no, I don't agree that no rights of women are being infringed on currently. We protect the rights of people based on race and religion; we should also protect them based on gender.


We do. It is illegal to discriminate based on gender.

Except for some things like the draft, which you're ok with.

If men are worried that they might be unfairly subject to a draft at any time, then they should all be pushing for an Equal Rights Amendment, which would help them, too.


Yeah because that's what the ERA is about.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #66)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 04:12 PM

69. You need to learn some history.

One of the major objections to the ERA was that it would necessarily lead to women being drafted. Everyone agreed that it would have that consequence.

The ERA isn't just about women -- it's about men, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #69)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 04:40 PM

70. Seems pointless then

 

The only ingrained legal discrimination based on gender is the draft system.

You don't need a constitutional amendment to get rid of that. Just end the draft system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 03:14 PM

3. Well, Well Well, isn't it swell..........

Good by, Todd Aikens good by
...defend this remark, you can try..
But ..please don't get too blue...
.. WhenMissouri voters..say Fuck YOU!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 03:19 PM

4. Is this stupid freak married?

I was married for 29 years to the most intelligent and thoughtful woman on the earth. That and my experience in the working world has shown me that the women were always smarter, less egotistical, and more receptive to alternative ideas.
For my money, I think it's time that women rule the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tech3149 (Reply #4)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 05:26 PM

22. The women in Iceland

Who were elected to public offices seem to be doing just fine. I think that the white Christian men who have been running this are figuring out that they are a minority now and they don't like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Delmette (Reply #22)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 10:56 PM

31. Someday I'd like to write an historical book

I'd love it to be titled "When Women Ruled the World" Even more, I'd like to be able to read it to a grand niece, or a neighbor's child, or a bunch of five year olds overwhelming some underpaid and overstressed teacher.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tech3149 (Reply #31)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:09 AM

33. Sign me up...

For the first copy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Delmette (Reply #33)

Mon Oct 1, 2012, 01:18 AM

73. I'm not sure if I'll ever get it done, but you should check this out

Hahna Rosen "The end of men and the rise of women"
It's a new book coming out and I'm listening to an interview with the author, sounds like it will be a great read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tech3149 (Reply #31)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 11:31 AM

67. Do it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tech3149 (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 02:33 PM

39. He's married

and his wife is supposedly even more staunch in their beliefs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tech3149 (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 07:15 PM

47. "women are always smarter, less egotistical, and more receptive . . ."

 

You realize this is a bigoted statement yes?

Just flip the genders and it becomes obvious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tech3149 (Reply #4)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 11:26 PM

72. Eh. Women can be just as bad as men

I love that women have more choices in how to direct their lives than ever before.
But I don't buy into the notion that paradise will come from a woman's rule.

Women are not better than men.
Men are not better than women.
They are co-dependent on each other for survival.
There are no men without women.
And there are no women without men.

Women can be just as much buttholes as men can be.
The details may differ but the effect is the same.
Men can be good just as much as women can.
Women can be good just as much as men can.

This Boys Club/Girls Club stuff was fine for the sandbox but in reality it does us no favors.
You want WISE people to rule. Wise men. Wise women.
Wisdom is not predicated on gender.

I'm willing to vote for the 1st female American President.
No problem with that.
But not if that female was Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann.

Women aren't always smart, DO have big egos, & AREN'T always receptive to alternative ideas.
I know you love your wife & it's flavoring what you put in your post here but good & bad exist in BOTH genders.
Choose wisdom over genitalia & you won't ever get it confused.
John Lucas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 03:23 PM

5. McCaskill wanted Caveman Akin for a punching bag and skillfully got him. He continues to oblige. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #5)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 03:26 PM

7. Aiken - the gift that keeps on giving

God Bless the Tea Party for this.

They take safe seats (like the Senate seat from Delaware) and hand it on a silver platter to buffoons like Aiken or O'Donnell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Patiod (Reply #7)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 03:38 PM

11. McCaskill has an ad budget in reserve and held back on pounding him so that he would stay in. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Patiod (Reply #7)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 03:45 PM

13. Indeed

He does however provide great entertainment value.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 02:34 PM

40. And people on DU complain about Claire!

She's done a brilliant job with this campaign so far. She has a reserve and will begin using it, starting in October.

I can't wait to once again send my vote her way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 03:23 PM

6. doubling down on stupid seems to be republican strategy for this election. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 03:28 PM

8. By Extension

Akin could also be against keeping companies from hiring people based on race, religion, party affiliation -- you name it because that would be free enterprise. Besides, that after all, fits the bill of the "government sticking its nose into all kinds of things".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #8)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:19 AM

34. I am inclined to believe that is exactly what he meant

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 03:30 PM

9. And his political consultant compared him to being under seige...like David Koresh!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 03:30 PM

10. K&R n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 03:39 PM

12. Would he say the same if only males/Christians were paid less?

Of course not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 04:35 PM

14. Akin promoting right to work legislation.... Oppression is his M.O.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 04:37 PM

15. The reason

the Gov. has itís noise in itÖ.is the employers donít pay enough to live on, not hard for we the people to understand. Maybe he should pass up his next pay raise if he goings back to Washington. His remark is just another reason to not vote for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 04:44 PM

16. That guy should be deported.

He is literally as unAmerican as they come.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 05:02 PM

17. Funny...Ron Paul along with the Birchers have given the EXACT same reason

for opposing Civil Rights and integration...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 05:03 PM

18. Who is us?

So, the government sticking its nose into all kinds of things has gotten us into huge trouble.

What "us" is he talking about? Certainly doesn't include me. I'm a woman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 05:07 PM

19. It's a good and holy thing that I'm not a violent person. cause if I were....

...I'd beat this piece-of-human garbage, shitbags face in.

What a slap in the face to all the hard working females out there...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 05:13 PM

20. He doesn't like the gov't

sticking its nose into all kinds of things...

unless it's your vagina.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightOwwl (Reply #20)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:20 AM

35. You mean like this?

 

"Insurance Company Fined Over $1 Million for Covering Missouriansí Abortions and Contraceptives"
http://jezebel.com/5946994/insurance-company-fined-over-1-million-for-covering-missourians-abortions-and-contraceptives

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #35)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 02:40 PM

41. I heard about this the other day.

Supposedly the fine isn't just for that but for things that the insurance didn't cover. (someone I know in mental health said something about autism spectrum. Whether that's true or not...) Anyway, even if $1 of that fine is for offering coverage of abortions and contraceptives it sucks. Makes me glad I work for a large corporation here in Missouri that would prefer we not get pregnant, due to possible medical issues w/o early prevention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 05:16 PM

21. They seem to believe that blatant, open discrimination based on sex is perfectly fine.......

 

I don't think that will sit well with many female voters in Missouri. I have no issue with the "right to contract" where an employer and employee agree to a salary and benefits package. But that must be moderated by a requirement that differences must be based exclusively on neutral characteristics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 05:40 PM

23. Akin is trolling at this point right?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wutang77 (Reply #23)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 05:40 PM

24. I know right, it's surreal. /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 05:53 PM

25. Is Akin intentionally trying to distract voters from the stupid things Mitt Romney says?

No. No. That would require some intelligence, some ability to comprehend the consequences of saying the stupid things he himself says. So just no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 05:55 PM

26. the first we should do is remove the 'fixed' payment for members of congress from our statutes

at the end of their terms, the voters get to decide how much they are worth.
Free market, don't you say

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 06:38 PM

27. "And you know women miss more days of work, what with their monthlies and all."


*Not intended to be a factual quote

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tanyev (Reply #27)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 02:41 AM

64. Then women should have reasonable accommodations made

for what would be defined as a periodic, recurring disability.
Like paid illness leave.

I can dream, can't I??? The work world makes no allowances for any physical or mental needs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manifestor_of_Light (Reply #64)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 07:09 AM

65. That's because to the work world

you are a piece of equipment: Easily replaceable. They don't give the coffee maker days off for leaks, right? They just get a new coffee maker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 07:18 PM

28. So he is good with firing Americans and hiring illegal immigrants for lower wages?

And child labor is ok, too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 07:19 PM

29. Keep talking, Todd. You cost your whole party votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 10:21 PM

30. I firmly believe there's a boy scout in this guy's closet

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichiganVote (Reply #30)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 11:10 PM

32. You may be right.

The man just reeks of creepiness. Just looking at him makes my skin crawl. There is SOMETHING not right about him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:46 AM

36. Damn! This

guy is like a bull in a china shop!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:16 AM

37. Akin Lives In A Bubble

Republicans live in an alternate universe.

http://republicansareadisease.com/?p=52996 < - Alternate Universe Article

They all live in a bubble where they think "people" think it should be ok to pay women less than men for the same work, just because you can. They call it "freedom" or some other bs.

Good luck with that one Akin you freak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:23 AM

38. This is the Republican Party line. The strong now have "freedom" to lie, cheat, and steal.

Basically, anything goes. If you are stronger than other people, then you should be allowed the "freedom" to steal from them, abuse them, let them starve to death, let them die. That's the message of the Republican Party now.

Many of the people who are trying to take away all government assistance themselves benefited from government assistance. It's how they became wealthy and powerful. There is no dissonance in their minds. They "won." That gives them the right to keep everything themselves.

This is what we're up against.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #38)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:16 PM

58. That's right. Under their Libertarian economic policy, the owners are free to do anything they want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #58)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 11:44 AM

68. They don't believe in democracy. They believe in a completely different system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 02:59 PM

42. Hey Akin ...please keep speaking from your cold, dead, obsolete, caveman heart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 04:59 PM

43. No N0 & NO

 

Women should get equal pay.

End of this Debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 05:40 PM

44. Effin hypocrite

"So, the government sticking its nose into all kinds of things has gotten us into huge trouble."

They believe this until it applies to sexual behavior or to abortion, then they are ALL ABOUT the government "sticking its nose into all kinds of things..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 05:47 PM

46. If a nice rape is ok..........

 

then women will love a fucking too.........(sarc)


GOTO hell & burn Aikin (no SARC)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 07:29 PM

50. As a gay man, I hate Women haters.

makes me sick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 07:32 PM

52. This creep shouldn't even be close in this race

He is proof that the republicans would vote for an ax murder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 07:50 PM

53. Many years ago I worked for a bank as a teller. I knew I was making less than a fellow male

teller doing the same job. I approached my boss one day to ask why I did make less for doing the same job. His reply was that that the guy had a family to support. I made the point that I was a single mother supporting my child with $50.00 mo. child support. He had no answer for that, only sympathy (for being a woman, I guess) and simply that that was the way it is. Cold hard fact. I am happy that women have made some inroad in that respect.
Akin the Ass has no conception what freedom is all about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 07:51 PM

54. So, it's okay having a man & a woman in the same job & paying either one of them less. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 07:55 PM

55. We need the ERA

To close the door on this kind of thing once and for all.

The genius of the ERA is its simplicity:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:01 PM

56. Dear Todd Akin:

You say it's about freedom, and that if a job applicant agrees to a wage, however paltry, it's all good? You seem to be saying that if the wage is too low the person shouldn't take the job? Well, here's a little news for you: When somebody's applying for a job, they're not bargaining from a position of strength. Certainly not these days. They take a job on terms they are forced to accept, or no job. If you knew anything about how people really lived, you would understand that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:04 PM

57. He is such a pig

I wish he would just fuck off and die already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:21 PM

59. Bet y' Toddy is all for pay parity when the Good-ol'-boys are setting it for CEOs across the nation.

Lavish CEO pay doesn't work as intended: study

http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/27/14125675-lavish-ceo-pay-doesnt-work-as-intended-study?lite#__utma=238145375.1607569865.1342448430.1345527900.1348799192.23&__utmb=238145375.1.10.1348799192&__utmc=238145375&__utmx=-&__utmz=238145375.1348799192.23.4.utmcsr=drudgereport.com

Talk about how the cream rises until it sours and the perpetuation of a mediocresy:

To determine how much to pay a CEO, corporate compensation committees look at how much the chiefs of similar companies earn, which has the result of lumping together all CEO talent into one pool. Elson and Ferrere argued that expertise in management isnít the same, and isn't as good, as having a deep base of knowledge in one particular industry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:24 PM

60. In the end, it's about social programming

It is how we are raised. The perception that our society has had for centuries is that the woman stays home and raises the kids. The man works and provides. This is still very much ingrained within the psyche of our society today. To some men, they would not be able to accept a relationship when their wife makes as much (or more) than they do. It becomes an ego thing. So there is an attempt to rig the system to maintain the advantage.

And it isn't just men either. There are women who would refuse to date men that make less money than they do. Because they think it's the man's job to make more.

I dont know if we necessarily need more laws as much as society needs to change how it views the family unit. I think right now we are still in the middle of a transition period as far as this issue is concerned. When you look at the attitude of the youth today, it's much more gender neutral. While when you look at older folks, there are still a push to maintain barriers between the genders.

It's not something that can be solved at the snap of the fingers. It's a process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:22 PM

62. Naive Liberterianism is stupid

His remarks seem to be of that ilk.

P.S. All Liberterianism is either naive, or insincere, in my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 01:34 AM

63. Hasn't gotten anyone into huge trouble except you and the other misogynists

who say stupid $hit like this Todd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 05:11 PM

71. Not an issue as big as the man.

Equal pay for equal work just isn't a big enough issue for a man whose own people compare him with David Koresh.

A consultant for Rep. Todd Akin likened the Senate candidate to David Koresh on Friday, saying Akin's ability to withstand GOP pressure to withdraw from the Missouri race was like the cult leader's resistance during the deadly 1993 standoff with federal authorities.

Consultant Kellyanne Conway said she has expressed her opinion to Akin "for a while now," adding Akin was successfully able to sustain the aftermath of his controversial rape comments last month.

"The first day or two where it was like the Waco with the David Koresh situation where they're trying to smoke him out with the SWAT teams and the helicopters and the bad Nancy Sinatra records. Then here comes day two and you realize the guy's not coming out of the bunker. Listen, Todd has shown his principle to the voters," Conway, CEO of The Polling Company, said on a radio show hosted by Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread