And what I want to know is this: how can she look herself in the mirror each morning and say to herself, “It’s ok the things that I say that hurt other women.” Hmmm? This is one of the not so secret problems, that there are women in positions to actually have an effect on opinion etc., and they take the oppressive position toward other women.

Wow. I’m depressed with Michelle Barnard’s devil’s advocate routine on this. Kinda feels like a betrayal. I keep forgetting how little sister solidarity there is for us with most women in the media. Where’s Molly Ivins ? I miss her so.

legally gooberish — LOL, Christy!

Victim? VICTIM??? Umm, how about someone with equal rights under the law, never mind equal rights in a world that claims to value social justice? Just askin’.

Fixed it.

Victim? VICTIM??? Umm, how about someone with equal rights under the law, never mind equal rights in a

world

country that claims to value social justice? Just askin’.

If we were to make a list of all the females in the media – that is the ones that get their voices actually heard and get time on the air and so on — how many of them are real progressives? Rachel? And….who else? I don’t watch tv so I don’t know who is out there. I would suspect if you totalled them all up, there are very few..so they have the same belief system as the rest of the Right does: I got mine; screw the rest of you. If you’d been smart, you would have been me.

(sigh) Tech challenged today. Sorry.

Christy !

Unbelievable comment by Bernard … IMO just another example that if you pay enough, you can get someone to say anything.

` ` It` was` two` years` yesterday ` `

Molly Ivins would have had a field day with this, wouldn’t she? *G*

“The problem with the…with the legislation that was signed yesterday is that we don’t know what the unintended consequences will be.”

:-) My wtf-moment came early. We don’t know the unintended consequences of any action or failure to act.

This isn’t about women for me, it’s about fairness, justice for all.

Thanks goodness for the auto-spelling notification feature on the iMAC, or I’d be utterly screwed on a regular basis.

As you can see from the “Thanks” above that I didn’t catch. LOL

If a man got paid less than a woman for doing the same exact job with equal experience, training, etc, conservatives would be screaming “victim”.

Hi, Christy & all! I’m de-lurking again after some time away.

I saw this on Friday and almost felt sorry for her. Cecile Richards did fairly well taking this on, but I was reminded of the old SNL skit of the prez debate b/t Dukakis & GHWBush, where John Lovitz (as Dukakis) sez: “I can’t believe I’m losing to this guy.”

Now I’m watching Jim DeMint (R-Idiocy) on “This Week” declaring that “many economists” agree with tax cuts, which are the “American way,” as the only way to help the economy. Barney Frank’s there and taking him on — though I’m hoping for more of the well-earned slapdown.

But we’ve got to figure out a more effective way to refute Teh Stoopid, because clearly, it’s everywhere!

Heya — wb! And, yes, Cecile Richards was a bit too milquetoasty in response, wasn’t she?

Whenever I see these RW lawyers blather on I always think the same thing, “if these clowns earned a law degree, how hard could it possibly be?”

Yep. We need Molly AND Cecile’s mom (Ann Richards) these days!

Boobies. Funny. My family-of-origin’s word. This whole Barnard post makes me want to go all chesty. Anyone remember a long-ago, bawdy album by Rusty Warren titled “Knockers up”? I think its time has come.

Hoist up “the gals” and get to work. *G*

btw, I’m sure you all may have noticed that this really irked me.

Knockers makes me think of WMD, I’m afraid…maybe that is what George was looking for…/s

Never mind that any number of them “got theirs” because they sucked up through the College Republicans and other wingnutty organizations designed to hand-pick candidates for wingnut welfare gigs to boost their credentials so that they home-grown, train and subsidize their own punditocracy.

Digby has been all over that for ages, as has Jane.

It was kinda subtle, but I sensed some irritation. *g* Small wonder.

Barnard conveniently skips the part in the new law where the 180 days starts after a woman finds out that she has been underpaid.
Not like what the old law said 180 days after the pay discrimination starts.
Just how can a woman sue over this if she does not know she is being discriminated against?
Barnard did at least side step that argument.
I wonder if Barnard will accept less pay just because she is a woman.
Put up or shut up Barnard!

Barnad’s an economic illiterate. Probably took one course in econ 101 and thought it was so simple she didn’t need to know the rest. Different things pain different people in different ways. As a professional teacher of economics, it pains me to see this utter tripe being given any credence at all. She’s not the only one. I am feeling a lot of pain lately, but this one is hitting close to home, as I am in the midsts of reading Nancy Folbre’s Valuing Children, which bears on the issues raised. More on that later.

Michelle or, should I say That Woman, makes me more than baffled.
Does she really believe what she says or is she just playing a role she thinks they are paying her to play or reciting lines she thinks the audience wants to hear?

OMG, I remember that!

Barnard is one of those people?

Oooh, I’d love to see you do an Oxdown diary on Folbre’s study on that. Please.

Yes, the “unintended consequences” of just overlooking gender discrimination seem to have never occurred to her, either. SIGH

I wonder why … /s

We be old! *g*

Nah, just “well seasoned,” as my granny used to say. *G*

For decades I worked in a predominantly female field (Nursing) that was paid lower wages just like teachers. Finally Nurses are earning a fairly decent wage in some parts of the country but it has taken a critical shortage to make that happen.

In my last job working for a software company, my manager who decided my wages was a woman, just before I left I found out by a co-worker that I was getting paid at least $15-20K less than he was. I interviewed him, was his mentor and helped him get up to speed. At that time I had found another job which was going to pay me equal pay for my work and when I was out processing with HR I brought this up and told him I was going to peruse it, he then threatened any future employment with their non-compete contract……. In other words, tie me up in legal fees

So for 2.5 years I lost 20K/yr including all that money that would go to my 401K and SSI…… Thanks a lot…..

‘Tis the object of the exercise. *g*

I think you got a case maybe a lawyer here can help?

WTF indeed. The LAW makes them a victim? How about women are already victimized by the fact that this country has yet to pass an equal rights law guaranteeing equal pay for equal work? Yet people like Rush Limbaugh will criticize the law as being advocated by “feminazis” instead of by women, many of them single, just trying to support themselves and their families abandoned by angry white men like Rush. They. Just. Don’t. Get. It.

I was watching CSPAN the day that they were discussing Kay Baileys watered amendment version. I don’t remember who was speaking, but she so did not get that it might take a while to figure out that a woman is getting paid less. There was a lot that she did not get.

LOL. My granma had a toaster, from the 20s I swear, where the sides dropped down, put bread in, put sides back up. Turned the bread to charcoal more often than not. She’d say, “It’s not burned, just browned,” as she scrapped the burnt part off. Fond childhood memories.

Number one, it tells women that you’re a victim

No letting your boss get away with underpaying you after you find out that you are underpaid for the same job, the same work makes you a victim.

Count me in the remembers group. I fink that makes us what my kids call “older than dirt.” :-)

When watching those sorts of responses, I’m always asking myself “is this serious ignorance and lack of real world experience — or deliberately false faux obtuseness meant to confuse the viewers?” Sometimes, it’s really tough to tell which is which.

[flyby] heard Barnard in real time and thought, gee sweetie, isn’t it nice you married well and networked your way into punditry.

GMAnFNBreak.

Smith, CFO Fedex on This Week talkin’ sense. Tax code has favored financial sector to detriment of industrial sector. [paraphrased]

Pay particular attention to how rapid her vocal cadence becomes as she spews out not-well-rehearsed talking points without much convincing belief in them until she gets to the trial lawyers ooogah-boogah part, and how she stumbles across the more ludicrous and dubious bits. It’s a tell.

Good observation maybe a tell directory for GOPers could be created one day.

Saw this, she looked even far worse than the ham-handed Matthews.

~ i am rich and so can you!

Avoid tells tell the truth all the time. But at least Barnard is not a Sociopath they lie with no tells.

I remember asking my dad, born in 24, if they had stagecoaches when he was a kid.

Her voice sounds a bit tight to like her throat is trying to close before she lies. I wonder if someone put her up to this?

Oh gosh, my grandmother had one of those, too. *hobbles off to answer the teakettle*

Most likely the Independent Women’s Forum, of which she is the CEO. Just take a peek at the link to SourceWatch about it above and you’ll see why.

Of course there can be unintended consequences to efforts at gender neutrality:

http://www.laweekly.com/2008-0…..ondoggle/1

I don’t think we have any way of knowing what the unintended consequences of this particular bill might be.

BARNARD: I think there will be…this is a payday for trial lawyers. I think they’re gonna be very happy. I think we’re gonna see the shuttle gates open up to all kinds of litigation, some of which will have merit and some of which will not.

So according to her logic if business costs go up the right to sue because a law has been broken any law should be waived?
I hope she eats peanut butter!

When it’s the discriminator or his/her supporters doing it, I am sure that it is a tactic, one of those “unintended consequences” that always profits them.

There are always unintended consequences of any newly signed law. I mean, honestly, how in the hell can you possibly predict everything? But her rationale that employers will stop hiring women simply because they are women was so ludicrous on its face — just as a matter of law — that I laughed out loud when she said it. *G*

There is currently no text in this page, you can search for this page title in other pages or edit this page

LOL

Didn’t want to watch the video, but I had to check Barnard’s employment.

Works for MSNBC, owned by GE.

Kind of makes you wonder if GE has some exposure to this issue, hmm-mmm.

And exposure that goes back a very long way.

I remember when employed in 1989 by a Fortune 100 company that a manager actually told an older female co-worker that he had to give raises to the two younger men in the department while passing her over that year. He told her, “These young guys have families and we have to take care of them.”

Never mind that the 40-year-old woman in question had two teenage kids who were going to be graduating from high school and heading for college within the next couple of years.

I don’t even know what the same manager did to the rest of the department, all seven women.

“These young guys have families and we have to take care of them.”

I wish I could count the number of times I’ve seen this statement used to justify pay disparity, not only concerning women but single men.

Ooops — dammit. Broken link — here’s the right one. Will fix above.

Old farts unite! Now we can help old-farts-in-waiting! *g*

Personally, I don’t think Barnard should be making more than $35,000/year for what she does. She’s not worth a penny more and I’m sure she would agree and would applaud her male counterparts who are making $250,000/year doing the same thing she does.

My dad, born in 18, used to tell me he walked a mile and a half to school every day, and that it was uphill both ways. I was amazed. Amazed, I tell you.

“So according to her logic if business costs go up the right to sue because a law has been broken any law should be waived?”

Not a question but a basic “conservative” policy statement. *nods* aye, a case of peanut butter crackers and roll of TP for her.

Forgive me but doesn’t the “lily ledbetter” law technically apply to *everyone* who is an employee who finds that they have a legal cause of action in the matter of pay inequity? Its not a “woman’s law” and it doesn’t apply only to women. If companies are used to screwing women over in the matter of pay now that isn’t to say that they will always be screwing women over in preference, say, to screwing older workers, workers with families, workers with different skin color. The issue is the pay inequity within job categories not who gets screwed.

aimai

She is an attractive black Woman a FACE on a white GOP organization that opposes the Left. She is an affirmative action hire hired to oppose affirmative action and women’s rights.
Long Story Short an Uncle Tom

[flyby 2] Snuffy leading one of the most constructive conversations I’ve seen in a long time on the stimulus package and the economy. Franks, biz guys from Fedex and google. DeMint getting his butt kicked a nice collateral benny, as Franks calls it.

Well worth watching. Where’s this quality of conversation been the last eight years?

It’s not really very surprising that some women with power would be willing to oppress other women, unless you think that women are very different from men.

btw, if folks could give this a digg, I’d really appreciate it. Thanks mucho!

Michelle Barnard is a Gooper stalking horse who gets booked as if she’s some kind of liberal. Not surprised that she is spewing the right’s talking points about equal pay and trial lawyers. Here’s a little test: if it sounds stupid on its face (but said with conviction)-it’s a Gooper talking point.

ooops, Barney Frank, not Franks.

You know, one of the truly frustrating things about this for me is that I was handed that line as a reason why I did not get a job in 1975. It’s like no matter what..there is this barrier that we as a culture cannot get over. Drives me nuts. As a mother, I had to be honest with my daughters and tell them straight out that this was something that they had to be prepared to face..and I hated myself for having to say it.

lol

Michelle Barnard is a Gooper stalking horse who gets booked as if she’s some kind of liberal.

True the only reason she gets on TV is she is an attractive Black Woman.

Dugg.

I don’t think that’s accurate, frankly. And it reduces her in the same way that the GOP tries to reduce liberal women bookings, too. I think we need to be very careful about that sort of oversimplified characterization and stick to rebutting facts. Truly.

I’m surprised Barnard didn’t say, “And I speak for all black American women when I say it’s better to make less money when compared to our male counterparts than it is to allow attorneys to protect the rights of women to make the same amount of money as they do doing the same thing!”.

Oh wait. She did say that. Nevermind.

Good Morning Christy and Firedogs,

Bernard is current Pres. of Independent Womens Forum – which makes her yet another Weyrich spawn ( a la Pfotenhauer)- just with a better concern troll schtick

ps – just saw that bastid died in December, how’s those hellfires Paul ?

These corporations know it, too. I’ve seen and heard of studies by several companies that discussed the pay gap between men and women; in at least two cases, they made adjustments to their evaluation processes that would ensure the gap decreased over time.

But these companies knew then — and know today — that they are at risk for lawsuits by affected employees who were paid less prior to those changes.

You can bet that for every one of these firms which made these constructive changes there are many more which knew the risks and did nothing.

I stand (well, actually, I sit) in awe of your knowledge, cbl2. I read your longest paragraph and realized I now must Google the whole thing. I have so much to learn. Seriously!

Weighing the current profitability of paying less for women (and others) against the potential risk of being found out and paying on the back end in penalties. Ahhhh…would that the ethics of doing so entered the discussion, eh?

You’re right. This isn’t a women’s issue. It’s an issue of justice. I remember reading management texts and policy manuals that preached negotiate with every employee upon hiring and pay them as little as possible regardless of what you pay others doing the same job. And, yes, make it a firing offense for employees too discuss or share information about their actual wages.

When the discrimination is against a woman/women the rationalizations are easier to make, though no less egregiously wrong, as there are memes in our culture which tend to support it.

Chris Matthews is the wrong person to hold this debate. Why isn’t he asking about the benefit equal pay is for the family or the retiring couple. There is also something else no one is talking about. These corporations that engaged in unequal pay could try to solve their problem, not by increasing women’s pay, but by decreasing the men’s pay. The management will do anything to make sure they keep their high salaries and bonuses, whether deserved or not. There is nothing beneath their moral compasses.

Make no mistake, Michelle Bernard in not in any way, shape or form a progressive. She is as right wing as one can get, a real wingnut.

For firefighters and other heavy work if a woman does not get the job then getting lower pay than men should not apply obviously.
Coed Showers or showers at different times a curtain tin the locker room or even adding a wall to separate a locker room is not much of a cost.
2 by 4s, plaster board a few nails. However

I don’t think we have any way of knowing what the unintended consequences of this particular bill might be.

I think the cost of this bill will be many woman getting out of poverty and a reduction in woman on welfare.
The cost will be negative!

Google accomplished. Oh, lordy! You are spot on, of course. Urgh.

You can bet that for every one of these firms which made these constructive changes there are many more which knew the risks and did nothing.

grandma cbl called that ‘bending over a dollar to pick up a dime’

good to see ya here this mornin’ gal :D

Unintended consequences as opposed to the ‘intended’ ones belonging to Republican fascists that attacked every moral idea that comes with social responsibility.

Hi Christy! Hi Firepups!

There should be complete pay equality for the same job.

Why is it that people aren’t willing to talk about how much they earn anyway?

ROFL

I think wage discrimination goes way, way back, even to farm labor and labor fairs, even, where there was one price for a male laborer, less for female, and even less for children.

She is a lying hack without facts. Sure the GOP employs men for that job too but for the females in that job the GOP does tend to hire eye candy.
Nothing wrong with eye candy if they have facts and don’t lie.
But the GOP uses eye candy to sell lies when they know the facts are not on their side.
She may be a good lawyer but her performance today suggests otherwise.

The boss normally tells you he is paying you more than the other guy so don’t tell anyone or they will get mad.

What happened to wages when women entered the workplace in the absence of men during WWII? Same as, less than . . . ?

Cassie — howdy.
Basically, this is a method that employers use to do two things: scare workers, which they like to do anyway and also to prevent info getting out so that people, esp women, can negotiate more effectively for wages. If a female walked into a final job offer interview and said, “I know you are paying $xxx for this job and I won’t do it for less”, then that puts the power back in her hands. If the company wants her, they have to pay the freight. But in most cases, companies take the position that they will only pay what they want to pay and would just not make the offer. Women know that and their neediness for a job tends to put them in a bad position for negotiating for wages.

You hit the nail on the head.

Bernard is an apologist for the impoverishment of a majority of Americans.

That’s women and children in families where women are the head of household.

Isn’t amazing how evil can wear makeup so easily?

Didn’t it seem the reason why Matthews held this debate was because of the debacle concerning Dick Armey’s sexist remarks to Joan Walsh of Salon? Seemed like it to me. Matthews wanted to show his viewers that he is concerned about how women are treated in our country. *rolling eyes at Tweety*

unintended consequences

The GOP has used cost studies to justify every attempt to regulate business.
They also use funny math to justify loaning money to hedge funds!

You bring up fine examples of intended foreseeable consequences. Did you read the article?

Hiya Kassie !

Will you promise complete transparency when you’re in the Oval Office ?

But once you’re there for a year or two don’t you know what the person at the next desk is making?

Or, like teachers, it’s right on the district website.

That’s going back to a time when labor was manual, with men able to exert greater muscle to produce more and able-bodied males being more scarce than women or children.

A syllogism:

Men Make More Money than Women

New Law Makes women equal-er

Company’s resent paying more to women and won’t hire them

Who will they hire?

Is there a third gender we don’t know about?

Y’all are going to be my advisors, right?

Its amazing how GOP studies all justify GOP views. I think that if the conclusion is predetermined ahead of time the study will agree with whatever you want.
Numbers can be juggled if logic and facts are twisted.

Independent Women’s Forum Sourcewatch

hmmmm . . . somehow different than the official wiki, aint it ;)

these were the creatures that fought Federal Domestic Violence protections . . . ” a question of intimacy” and all that doncha know

Of course you’re right to be enraged about this absurdity, Christy, but Michelle Bernard has been something of a puzzle to me. Throughout the primaries and campaign, for the most part, she seemed moderate to occasionally mildly progressive, although I understood she was labelled as conservative. Then, on some occasions, she would take a completely wrong-headed conservative line. I still don’t get her. I guess it helps to remember that one of her predecessors in the office she holds, was Nancy Pfotenhaur.

Yes where else would I get the idea about firefighters from?

Most likely the Independent Women’s Forum, of which she is the CEO

Hi Redd! (I still use “Redd” for FDL street cred.) Thanks as usual for pointing out the insufferably ridiculous.

I love the way she’s hidden her right wing hackery over the last few months behind being black and female as the political winds have shifted.

But the CEO of any joint that has Larry (’free markets’ until they crash and burn, in which case billions of govt. money is then ok because we wouldn’t want to upset the bonuses) Kudlow on its’ board, with a ‘directors emeritae’ assist from Mrs. Darth, Mrs. Turtle Head & Ol’ Sixty Grit will have very little to offer in the way of constructive advice for moving the country forward.

Yes, unless you’re smart enough not to hire us … *g*

Oh, gah! Just started to Google women’s wages World War II and one of the featured related searches is “comfort women World War II.” WTF?!

Hooo boy, now there’s an image.

The picture on the first page?

hahaha…Barbara..try ‘national labor board WWII women’s wages’ and see what that gets you.

Ah ha! Evil must always wear a mask. It’s part of the deception.

Sure what ever job you need us for a brown guy from Chicago in Dark Sunglasses and a Trench Coat can be very useful in convincing people to pass your bills.
And if that don’t work I’ll feed them to my cat!

In The Political Mind, George Lakoff asserts that there is a conservative mode of thought and a progressive mode of thought. He says that many people switch between these depending on the issue. Entirely possible, too, that some say what they are paid to say regardless of truth or moral consequence. :-)

Ugh. You mean when men had to pull plowshares themselves without horses?

Because as far as I know, a woman can pick just as much cotton or or as many vegetables as a man. Much agricultural work requires dexterity, not just brawn.

My brothers never kept up with my sister and me when it came to berry picking, for example, could outpick them 4-to-1 or better, even when allowance was on the line; good thing we weren’t relying on them for a living.

I’ve never known what the person I sat next to was making. And, I’ve had a lot of jobs.

Lookie here:

“I went to law school with Michelle and was a member of her wedding party (her first wedding). The reason why Michelle is a supporter of Obama is that she is an opportunist. In law school she was a liberal democratic and supported the party. A black male friend of ours Vernon Parker, changed his party to become a Republican. He got a political appointment and shot up through the administration. Michelle thought this was a great way to move up the ranks in politics…fewer black conservatives gives her higher visibility. So she went for it. She is supporting Obama because she wants a political appointment and this is the easiest and fastest way to get there now that she sees that the Republicans have no shot at regaining the White House.

Trust me, I know Michelle.”

Every time I think – Oh! now there’s a conservative that sounds reasonable – I mean I don’t start yelling, screaming and throwing stuff at the TV when they make their point – then they say something like Michelle just did.
My conclusion: Conservatives are out of their f*&^ing minds!

“comfort women” was a japanese euphemism for WWII korean sex slaves – Japan issued a formal apology and reparations in mid-80’s

ps – cursory googling shows ol Rosie the Riveter made about half her male counterparts

Jane’s upstairs re McCaskill and EFCA.

Thanks. I do know about comfort women, but WTF does that have to do with WWII women’s wages? Wages of sin??

but WHY?

She’s an opportunist and wants to be a beltway babe and being black and a conservative and easy on the eyes will get her face time with the MSM fools. It’s co dependency – they get a water carrier and she gets bucks and face time.

People like that are disgusting and have no center.

Has anyone informed Michelle Bernard that the audience she’s sucking up to with tripe like that actually believes, in their toxic little minds, that’s she’s not much more than an affirmative action recipient and candidate for Luckiest Girl In The World?

One of the great taboos, Cassie, is talking about money. People consider it the height of rudeness to have other people ask them how much money they make, what they had paid for something and so on. If someone offers it, then that is OK(though considered a bit crass), but to ask is generally considered rude. Employers have harnessed this attitude and have literally put it into their employee manuals saying things like ’sharing wage information is grounds for instant job loss.”

Well, I also get the feeling that, on 24-hour political cable channels, they may occasionally just pass out affirmative and negative roles to the regulars, just to maintain some interest. Pat Buchanon seems to waiver from occasional glimmers of sanity to his basic primordial tribalism. Chris Matthews does the same, perhaps from an opposite base point.

Thinking of my own childhood the boys were always more interested in horse play than picking.

Firewoman who don’t get hired are not the issue its about woman who do get hired for a job and then don’t get paid what men get paid.
The costs of showers and special locker rooms seem to be overblown pork.
Lowering physical requirements for a job is wrong.
However adding a pulley to make the job easier is actually common sense.
If the job is made easier so more woman can do it I have no problem with that.
The story you link to suggests more that politically connected building contractors got fat contracts for unnecessary work.

The reason why Michelle is a supporter of Obama is that she is an opportunist. In law school she was a liberal democratic and supported the party. A black male friend of ours Vernon Parker, changed his party to become a Republican. He got a political appointment and shot up through the administration. Michelle thought this was a great way to move up the ranks in politics…fewer black conservatives gives her higher visibility. So she went for it.

And I offered up as much at my 107 without even knowing this!

I love the way she’s hidden her right wing hackery over the last few months behind being black and female as the political winds have shifted.

One day you people here will appreciate my intuitive brilliance (just don’t bring up my “Gore vs. Thompson” prediction as you do.)

I believe in some corners what I have just offered up is known as “self gloss.”

Off to feed the strays at work then jump back into rereading Crawley’s translation of Thucydides’ History.

Be good to yourselves, and all other living things.

Namaste

Diary take her down!

I be laughin’. Remember, you brought up the Gore/Thompson thingie this time! I must now go prepare myself for four hours of breathing. Ciao. (Puppy ciao?)

I’ll toast your brilliance with some Grand Marnier later this evenin’. *g*

michele cannot see forest for trees – to much eye shadow impeding vision. Clearly spent too much time staring at her barbies when young.

ROFL … puppy ciao … brilliant, enlightening even ! *g*

Many private employers consider their pay scales very private, employees are under threat of firing if they discuss wages. In some industries employees negotiate or their head hunter negotiate the wages, who has the ability to get the best deal gets it. These employers make their pay scales vague and very wide…… Oh this position pays between 45,000 to 75,000 depending on XX and YY.

Then add the raises to this mix. You might start at a lower wage but get higher annual increases than your cubbie mate.

Only jobs such as government jobs have known wages.

Michelle is not too bright. Yes, I see her a LOT on Hardball. She rarely has an original thought. And the odd times she does, it is “original” like this one — older than the hills. Hate to tell you, Michelle, but this “original thought” is as old as the GOP. I worked for 35 years and ANY woman knew there was prejudice against women — even in white collar jobs. I was a technical writer — mostly a female job. But there were some males. And guess what? The males got paid more. Why do you suppose that is? (Hint: it wasn’t because they were BETTER.)

Face it — she is on because she is black. That’s it. Whatever that idiotic, “non-partisan” group she founded is called — it is lame. She hasn’t realized yet that Chrissie Matthews is just too lazy to get any new faces. Watch one of his programs, and you’ll know who’s gonna be on tomorrow, and the next day, and the next week, and the next month.

I’m sure she is just a front for the group.

Much dexterity required and that work was assigned to the women and children.
But other work demanded muscle. Digging, chopping wood, slaying dragons and other daily tasks.

Hey, my fine Canadian friend! That will make two of us.

Seems like we’ve been missing each other in the posts as of late, but I’ve enjoyed your usual witty insights when I’ve had time to revisit old posts.

We never got to Toronto around Boxing Day; between throwing a holiday party the Saturday after Christmas and preparing to go to Washington for the inauguration, the travel/entertainment budget was pretty much shot, but hopefully we’ll get a chance to hoist a glass together this spring.

Michelle is not too bright. Yes, I see her a LOT on Hardball. She rarely has an original thought.

Tweety has a ‘thing’ for certain women.

Notice how on his weekend show Katty Kay is always in the seat closest to him.

And while CHS’ disagreement at 74 is duly noted, I think there is some merit to the point that a major contributing factor to her frequent appearances is because she’s black and has conservative backing.

If you know that the Independent Women’s Forum was specifically founded to counteract the National Organization for Women, or maybe to collect all the Queen Bees in one place, then Bernard’s anti-woman flummery isn’t so baffling. I’d love to see her on the Rachel Maddow Show. There wouldn’t be anything left of her but a small pile of mincemeat.

Glenn’s up
O Brother, What Culture War?

Christy, I too, find Bernard a contradiction. But, her flip-flopping on issues seems to fit nicely with Tweety’s demeanor…He flips like crazy on almost every issue based on who / what he is allegedly reporting on that day…

I wonder if she is actually related to Pat Buchanan and has a contract rider with MSNBC based on that?? Both could get put in the corner daily for an extreme case of ‘cluefree’, but seem somehow to get back on the programs…

As SanderO points out from past experience, ‘The reason why Michelle is a supporter of Obama is that she is an opportunist.’

What face today?? No one knows….Phony and Chameleon come to mind…

Just to put this in context, she was on McGlaughlin today and was seated in the chair usually holding Pat Buchanan. Just so you know that someone did seat her correctly

slaying dragons and other daily tasks.

Hey, hey, watch that! *g*

Hey, whatever you gets you through the night — kiddingly or otherwise.

World over we know the truth of it all, what labor women really do.

OOOOH! Sorry and regards to the family.

So Michelle Bernard believes that the fact that employers are willfully breaking the law, sometimes for decades, should just be ignored because the employer might infer that it was a mistake to hire the woman for the job to begin with. I would ask why the employer hired the woman? Could it be because they knew that women could do the job as well as men, but the woman would likely have to settle for lower wages? By concealing their discriminatory practices when they pay woman less for working side by side with men doing the same job simply because they can get away with treating women like second class citizens insults my intelligence and should be an insult to all women, especially someone like Michelle Bernard! The fact that it doesn’t register with her reduces the credibility of both Michelle herself and the organization that she purports to represent.

Maybe Michelle is too young to remember the woman’s movement that brought the glass ceiling up to the level that it currently is, that is, making about $0.70-$0.75 on the dollar compared to men’s earnings. The norms of the 1950s and 1960s show women earning $0.53-$0.60 on the dollar compared to men working the same job. She doesn’t remember the protests for “equal pay for equal work,” as I do. As one of those women who thought the concept was so basic and so totally logical that I told my boss, a fairly enlightened man already (but working within the archaic bureaucracy of a State University) that if he wanted to stagger the pay of people doing the same jobs, he would also have to show increased responsibilities for those with higher pay, and that’s what he did.

I am appalled by Michelle Bernard’s total cluelessness on this subject, and it has eternally earned my complete disdain for her opinions henceforth. Likewise, the Independent Women’s Forum will always be an organization more dedicated to accepting second class citizenship rights for women than discussing how to put women’s issues at the forefront of consciousness when determining the best policies for the future. And congratulations and thank you, Christy, for shooting this down so deftly!

I was responding to a point concerningpossible origins of pay disparity.
I’m neither (entirely) nor (ditto) braindead.
If your talking strict truth, the stoop labor in rice production is best done by shorter people . Chopping kindling isn’t felling trees, and if you look at the way the axe is being gripped, it truly is different strokes.

The Independent Women’s Forum is an interesting example of how Wingnut welfare works. There’s quite a collection of position papers and policy briefs, which all say that the IWF is “non-partisan”. Which must be a good thing, right?

Well, the “Directors Emiritae” (s.b. Emeritae) include:

– Lynne V. Cheney, Mrs. Vader
– Midge Decter, Mrs Podhoretz
– Wendy Lee Gramm, Mrs. Phil Gramm
– Kate O’Beirne, Mrs. National Review
– Nancy M. Pfotenhauer, whose head has not yet exploded, for some reason

What a non-partisan group.

“independent women” – what they really mean is that “we are independent of all other women and their thinking and their problems and issues. We have thrown our lot in with the men who oppress women because that is what benefits us most.” It’s all very logical if you think about it.

Spot on Christy.

Michelle Bernard. Black Female Republican.

Whenever I think of a Black Republican I always think if they were blind they would be Clayton Bigsby.

The funniest thing was when Cecil stated, “I can’t believe any woman in this country would be against this.”

Michelle had this look like, “Why do I keep doing this to myself.”

Since Michelle is a female I guess that would make her Clayton Bigsby in a dress.

Clayton Bigsby in all his *********.

[Mod Note: Please avoid the volatile and racist language. Thank You]
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/…..on_bigsby/

Barnard worries about unintended consequences and how this will affect employers. To me, the first unintended consequence could be that women get paid the same as men for the same jobs. And that employers will begin to do that?

Am I being an optimist here?

Christy your are spot on but even more despicable was the way Matthews allowed MBarnard to misrepresent the legislation.Notice when Barnard lies about female workers in non-profit com making the same as male workers in a profit com,two different com.The legislation refers to the workers within the same com.But look how Matthews does not allow the other guest to respond to Barnard lies,Matthews chimes in with another question to the other female thus taking her attention to a new question & so the claims by Branard appears truthful to the Tv viewers who haven’t examined the legislation.Btw,David Gregory uses the same technique to promote the Repukes talking points.It’s why any person appearing on these Tv shows for Dems must be made aware to respond to the Repuke lies before answering any other questions.

Please send this to Laura Ingraham. She was all over the signing story, mocking Michelle Obama, and making this arguement that women do not make less. I doubt she will learn or listen, but it would be nice for her to see an authorative rebuttal.

No reasin to be optomistic, at present. The most likely outcome is that wages will equalize at about the lower rate.