As we continue to mourn the passing of Geraldine Ferraro, and honor her extraordinary life, women today must not forget the words she spoke in her 1984 convention speech, "The issue is not what America can do for women, but what women can do for America." These words should serve as a clarion call for this generation of women to take action in advancing women's progress.
So, as we mark yet another Equal Pay Day today, we also remember that in that same inspiring speech Geraldine Ferraro said, "It isn't right that a woman should get paid 59 cents on the dollar for the same work as a man." She fought her entire life to end this inequality, yet we are still fighting that wage gap today.
It is time to recognize that the women's movement is stalled. We have spent the last decade fighting to protect the hard fought gains of my mother's generation. This is not good enough. We need to be moving forward.
It is alarming that in the 21st century, 27 years after Geraldine Ferraro spoke at the convention, millions of women who make up half the workforce make on average 78 cents for every dollar earned by men for equal work. For women of color, the disparity is much worse: African American women earn 71 cents on the dollar while Latino women only earn 62 cents on the dollar. Over the course of their careers, women and their families lose anywhere from $700,000 to upwards of more than $1 million.
Ensuring that men and women who do equal work receive equal pay is more than just a matter of principle. It is clear that a rebuilt middle class rests squarely on women helping to lead the way to economic recovery. More than half of all U.S. households today rely on dual incomes and the key for middle class success and economic security hinges on women being on equal footing in business, education and politics. In fact, according to recent statistics, it is estimated that if women's paid employment rates were raised to the same level as men's, America's GDP would be 9 percent higher.
Women are also often protectors of the most vulnerable, including seniors and children, and are more likely to be heads of single households. As a result, discriminatory wage practices undermine women's ability to provide for their families and survive on a decent retirement income.
We must close this chronic gap that shortchanges America's women. When women earn more, families are stronger and children have better access to quality health care and education. In fact, if we closed the wage gap, poverty would be cut in half for single moms and by more than 60 percent for married working women.
This year, I will once again lead the fight with Senator Mikulski to pass The Paycheck Fairness Act, which would prohibit employers from retaliating against workers for sharing salary information with their co-workers. The legislation would also establish training groups to help women strengthen their negotiation skills, enforce equal pay laws for federal contractors, and require the Department of Labor to work with employers to eliminate wage disparities through better outreach and training.
But that's not enough. I am deeply concerned that women only hold 17 percent of the seats in Congress, 6 Governor's mansions and just 22% of all statewide elected offices. For the first time in 30 years, the percentage of women in Congress went backwards, and women under 40 only represent less than 1 percent of Congress.
These are terrible indicators. Women have to get more involved because if they don't participate, decisions are going to be made about every aspect of their lives, and they may not like those decisions. My goal is to get women off the sidelines. To get them to be engaged, to care about whatever their priority is -- whether it's healthcare, education, access to capital, or tax policy. Women have to become part of the debate, because if they don't, they may not like what they find.
Follow Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SenGillibrand
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand: It's Time For Congress To Act On The Paycheck Fairness Act
Manisha Thakor : The 77/11 Effect: Will It Hurt Someone You Know?
So why, please, don't feminists kick up a bigger fuss about ongoing sex segregation in the labor force--particularly for the jobs that the 2/3 of Americans who aren't college graduates go for? It's not a matter of choice--women can't get those jobs. I've tried and know others who have.
Lets see if there is a real problem.
Same goes for the "female executive". Why does she allow advantage to be taken of her?
If these are truly examples of discrimination, what good will making more laws and commissions and studies do that can't be done simply by women demanding more of their employer (or leaving)?
If so, you may have a legitimate complaint.
One thing to remember is that often salaries are negotiated. If that was true in your case, you may not have done as good a job at negotiating. They will pay you less if you agree to it (and that is NOT discrimination).
Julia is working odd jobs doing part time teaching at a local community college and teaching courses at a local art supply shop where her students are eager to learn composition and painting technique. Her husband has been retired for several months, collects a retirement fund, and they both have fears about making house payments to keep their home. Their medical costs are so out of proportion with their salaries, and with the morgage payment, it may not work.
If women will sell their services for 78% of the wage demanded by an equally qualified man, then any rational employer will only hire women, and take advantage of that cost differential in the competitive marketplace.
No man would ever be hired.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MuqwrNVDMGoJ:philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2010/09/03/study-says-young-single-women-are-new-income-bubble/+income+for+single+women&cd=17&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
Which is why it needs to stop being about gender war fare and focus on the class war fare that threatens both genders.
I know that some people have CLASS and some do not..........
but I object to the term MIDDLE CLASS....................why not say Middle INCOME ???
If you really want to support the Middle INCOME people
Please support JAN SCHAKOWSKY's deficit reduction plan.
HER PLAN should become more famous than this Ryan path to Prosperity ...for the rich of course.
He is nothing but a ROBIN HOOD for the richest.
Rep Jan Shakowsky 's plan is the only one really that can PROTECT the Middle Income and it cuts the same 4 Trillion .
today for the first time SIMPSON mentionned her plan.
SO LET US put all those plans on the table ............and let people VOTE for them.
there is an obvious explanantion for this: men are more likely to hold jobs affected by the current recession
what I want to know is: why isn't Senator Gillibrand complaining about this obvious discrimination of employers against men?
like manufacturing, finance etc.
http://blogs.reuters.com/columns/2009/10/06/the-myth-of-the-man-cession/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alice-oconnor/fact-fiction-and-female-u_b_773564.html
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2009/10/hecession_shecession
The Job that I was competing for was a specialist job. The job required that the employee be willing to work emergency overtime during the normal workday, be willing to work 1 or 2 weekends a month and an occassional holiday.
Unfortunately for me, the women who were eligible for the promotion turned it down because they were working mothers with children. They only wanted to work an 8 hour day, Monday thru Friday. They had no interest in working more than that.
It took 8 months for a woman to finally accept a promotion. She had only been promoted to my level a few months before and had to wait until she was in that job a year before she was eligible to be poromted again. She was single and, as luck would have it, she was also Black. It took another 6 months after that for the Personnel to allow me to be promoted.
Sometimes the glass ceiling is so transparent, you'd think it wasn't even there.
If a woman has necessary skills to help a company stay in business, the employer will pay her enough to keep her, if he can.
Employment is a two-way street. If you agree to work for less, then less you'll get. If women demand more, and their skills are indispensible, then they'll get more. We don't need more laws, hand-wringing, victim mentality, and made-up crises.
If a woman doesn't make enough, she is just as free as a man is to find employment elsewhere.
------------
Which is why the legislation that makes aggregate compensation data public is needed. So individual women can see when they are getting a bum deal.
Employers, after all, are well known liars when it comes to compensation data. They'll tell you anything that gives them a negotiating advantage.
If women want to climb the career ladder fast, it is essential that they put child bearing off until the next life time. Women who make raising kids a priority are simply not going to have the time and energy to devote equally to the fast paced corporate world and meet the needs of being an attentive mom. It's simply a matter of choice.
The thrust of the article wasn't, in any case, about equal pay for equal work.