Feminist...A Little Righteous Anger

[Madspirit]

http://www.now.org/news/note/080707.html

A Little Righteous Anger

Below the Belt: A Biweekly Column by NOW President Kim Gandy

August 7, 2007

"The women of this country ought be enlightened in regard to the laws under which they live, that they may no longer publish their degradation by declaring themselves satisfied with their present position, nor their ignorance, by asserting that they have all the rights they want."


Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902)
I often think of this century-old quote when I hear women say that things are "just fine," women already have equality. Wonder what those women would have thought about the U.S. House debating the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, quibbling over when a 180-day time limit for filing a pay discrimination claim should start — whether that period starts from the first act of pay discrimination or from the most recent discriminatory paycheck. And I stopped to wonder, "How many women even know there is a 180-day window? Or that the window is 300 days in some states?"

In case you were wondering, the House chose the second option 225-199 (that's 222 Democrats, one independent, two Republicans), deciding the 180 days should start with the most recent discriminatory paycheck. Yes, we won a victory with the House passage of the Ledbetter Act, designed to correct the Supreme Court's recent misinterpretation of Title VII, the law prohibiting sex discrimination in employment. It's a victory, but only a small one, because there's still a long way to go before this "fix" become reality.

Not only does the Senate still have to pass this bill, but George W. Bush would then have to sign the bill into law. No problem, you'd think — surely no one could oppose the right of those paid unfairly to sue their employers for pay discrimination, could they? Yup. Bush has promised to veto the legislation , claiming falsely that "the bill’s vastly expanded statute of limitations would exacerbate the existing heavy burden on the courts by encouraging the filing of stale claims." Heifer dust (for the uninitiated, that's a polite term for B.S.).

Even if Bush can't be trusted to do the right thing here, there's always the possibility of overriding his veto. That, too, is more of a challenge than it ought to be. Almost 200 members of the House, nearly all Republicans, voted against this fix, including House Republican leader John Boehner, who said in a press release, "This measure would put small business men and women on the hook for decades of decisions that may or may not have even been truly discriminatory, even if the accused passed away long ago." Passed away? Companies darned well know whether a female employee is being paid the same as her male peers (particularly when they've been doing it for 19 years, like Lilly Ledbetter's employer) and if they don't know, they should find out. It's against the law. And if a long-ago act of pay discrimination left a female employee (or any employee) earning less today and every day, the company isn't helpless. They can fix it. Or they can pay in court.

Pay us now, or pay us later. That is, if we win the veto-proof majority we need for the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. And we can do it if we put pressure on our representatives to help women secure equal pay. Send a message to your representative today. Our automatic system will recognize whether your House member voted for or against the Ledbetter Act and will word your message accordingly – and you can add or edit the message as you wish.

Blaming the Victim?

Apologists for the persistent pay gap often use an economic version of the "blame the victim" argument, claiming that the gap in women's wages, compared to men's, is largely due to women's own unwillingness to ask for raises or negotiate salaries. While it may be true that women are less likely to negotiate for more money, a recent study indicates that this is a perfectly rational response to existing sexist workplace attitudes. In a new study from the Kennedy School of Government, researcher Hannah Riley Bowles found that "men were always less willing to work with a woman who had attempted to negotiate than with a woman who did not. They always preferred to work with a woman who stayed mum. But it made no difference to the men whether a guy had chosen to negotiate or not."

It seems that the work-related risks of negotiating must be weighed against the potential financial gain, and this cost-benefit analysis may be exactly what women are doing when they choose not to ask for that raise. So much for the idea that women just need to be more assertive and they'll miraculously find equal pay.

Another study, presented yesterday at the Academy of Management, shed light on another sex-based prejudice that affects women in the workplace. In research conducted by Yale post-doctoral fellow Dr. Victoria Brescoll, participants judged male and female job candidates who displayed either anger or sadness about losing an account because a co-worker arrived late. In terms of both status and salary awarded, participants penalized the angry women and rewarded the angry men — to the tune of a $14,500 difference in salary. This just confirms what many employed women already know: that women face a double standard in the workplace whereby they're supposed to be assertive and powerful in order to get things done, but are often penalized if they're anything but cool, calm and collected.

Is it the chicken or the egg?

These kinds of sex stereotypes, and expectations that women will (or must) behave differently from me is one of the bases of the current movement for single-sex public schools and classes. They argue (though without scientific basis) that girls and boys learn differently, and therefore should be educated separately. As I said to USA Today on the subject: "The notion that the sexes can't be taught together because boys are unruly and girls are timid insults both sexes. Education models based on stereotypes drive the sexes apart, while socializing our kids to perpetuate these divisions throughout their lives." Are social stereotypes driving these assumptions, or the other way around?

I can't end this column on employment challenges without noting that there has been some good news for women on the employment front. A judge in Manhattan has allowed a class-action gender and pregnancy discrimination lawsuit to proceed against manufacturer Novartis Pharmaceuticals. The plaintiffs, 19 women who are current or former employees, claim that pregnant women faced discrimination in pay, promotions and personnel evaluations.

The class could be as large as 5,000, making this one of the largest class action lawsuits for sex discrimination. The largest is the pending case against Wal-Mart, where the federal Court of Appeal recently confirmed the class action that includes 1.6 million current and former female employees.

Speaking of Wal-Mart, if you find yourself in New York in September, you might want to check out a new off-broadway show called Walmartopia! The Musical. This satirical show takes a humorous but biting look at the life of a single mom working at Wal-Mart. There will be a special NOW showing on Thursday, September 27, featuring a conversation after the show with NOW's Executive Vice President Olga Vives. Get tickets online at http://www.walmartopia.com/now.

These class-action lawsuits, and the recent hearings on equal pay in Congress, remind us all that there are laws in place to protect a woman's right to equal wages. Unfortunately, Lilly Ledbetter's case reminds us that it not just the laws that are important to protecting our rights, but also who enforces the laws. With the stroke of a pen, Bush's newly-stacked Supreme Court severely weakened the law designed to protect us from such discrimination and now we face an uphill battle to restore the original meaning of the law. To say nothing of continuing to battle the prejudice and discrimination that hold women back in the workplace.

As Gloria Steinem once said, "The truth will set you free . . . but first it will piss you off." Here's to truth, freedom, and a little righteous anger.

[Madspirit]

1. kick

[saracat]

2. Great post!