McCain v. Women

Lilly Ledbetter was voted against in the Supreme Court for waiting too long to say she was paid less than her male co-workers. Then congress just voted down the Fair Pay bill, which would have provided more opportunities for restitution for someone like Lilly – who’s case was lost on what seems to me to be a sad technicality.

I hope my Republican friends are following this – especially the women. Here’s a good op-ed column from the New York Times by Gail Collins, summing up the whole shebang.

Here’s a quote to whet your whistle – McCain’s response to women not receiving fair pay in the workplace. Or rather, a national average of .77 on every $1. (And that’s just white women, African American women and Latinas earn even less!)

Having delivered his objections to the Ledbetter bill this week, McCain went on to tell reporters that what women really need is “education and training, particularly since more and more women are heads of their households, as much or more than anybody else. And it’s hard for them to leave their families when they don’t have somebody to take care of them.”

It’s hard for them to leave their families when they don’t have someone to take care of them? Does he mean children? Or does he mean the women need someone to take care of them? It’s annoying – whatever he meant. Women don’t need more training. If, like Ledbetter, they’re doing the same work for less pay, that’s unfair, and it’s gender discrimination, which is SUPPOSEDLY illegal in this freakin’ country!

Here’s another good story about the same issue, from Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick.

One Reply to “McCain v. Women”

  1. […] went on a little tirade a couple days ago regarding John McCain’s sexist statement that women just need more […]

Leave a Reply