Originally published by National Review Online
It's been a rough couple of months for establishment feminists. Their dreams of seeing Sen. Hillary Clinton become the first female president - or even vice president - were dashed. The National Organization for Women (NOW) and its sister organizations did everything they could for the Clinton campaign, providing a full-throated endorsement and launching a "Make History With Hillary" Political Action Committee. But it wasn't enough. Hillary Clinton won the overall women's vote among Democratic primary voters, but didn't close the delegate gap with Sen. Barack Obama.
This anemic show of strength was a prelude to a greater blow to their image as power brokers. Senator John McCain's nomination of Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska - a conservative, anti-abortion, pro-gun, mother of five - to be his running mate was greeted with a 20 percentage point surge of support among white women. From her policy beliefs to her personae, Governor Palin is the antithesis of NOW's vision for the American woman. Yet she is the one who is energizing American women and who has had such a sizeable impact on this campaign.
This week, the old guard feminist groups sought to reassert their relevance by endorsing the Obama-Biden ticket. Democrats should hope that Obama isn't counting on this to reverse his slide in the polls.
After all, the Obama campaign revolves around his promise of change and a new kind of politics. Yet the press conference held by the graying grand dames of NOW, Feminist Majority, and a handful of other women's groups may as well have been held under a disco ball. They trotted out retread rhetoric casting women as the victims of systemic pay discrimination and in desperate need of government protections.
Obama makes their tired claims his own in his campaign's new ad. He repeats the misleading statistic that women make "77 cents to the dollar a man makes," and charges that McCain opposes "equal pay for women" because he doesn't support giving the federal government the power to regulate private sector wages.
One might think the recent news coverage of the gender breakdown of his own staff might cause Obama to consider the problem with these statistics. An analysis of the salaries paid to Obama's staff revealed that his female employees make just 83 cents for every dollar he pays a male staffer. In contrast, McCain's staff includes numerous women in senior management and his female employees actually earn more than their male counterparts.
Does this statistics show that Obama, already suspect due to his "sweetie" and "lipstick" comments, is a closet sexist? No. Instead it reveals some of the problems with making these comparisons. The make-up of Obama's staff tell us nothing about the pool of candidates he interviewed or the work that they perform. I'd bet that Senator Obama simply chose the best of those who applied for jobs in his office and negotiated salaries with them, and it just happened that he ended up with more highly paid men.
Yet if Obama recognizes the problems with the "83 cents on the dollar" statistic to assess his office, he should also recognize how misleading the feminists' "77 cents on the dollar" statistic is to the American economy. When producing that statistic, the Department of Labor doesn't take into account factors such as occupation, years of experience, hours worked, education, or the many other factors that we all know affect how much someone is paid. Analysis of this statistic have found that the individual decisions that women make - not discrimination - explain the majority of the so-called pay gap.
Obama shouldn't use this misleading statistic in an advertisement. Not just because it's wrong, but also because it won't be effective. American women know from personal experience that they take many factors into account when they seek and accept a job. They know that these decisions affect how much they are paid. Most simply women don't feel like victims. Just ask Sarah Palin.
- Carrie Lukas is the vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women's Forum and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism.
12 Comments
Don | September 22, 2008, 3:17pm | #
At this point, Obama appears to be ahead again, probably due to the financial situation (ironic, since the Democrats are largely responsible for the mess, and Obama himself received considerable funds from Freddie/Fannie). However, it is still a very close election, and Obama's hemming and hawing and inability to debate will likely hurt him significantly in the upcoming debates.
This has been a very entertaining election so far.
JohnHolliday | September 22, 2008, 6:21pm | #
Socialsts always win when there is some real or fabricated catastrophe they can blame on their opponents. FDR - the depression and WWII. LBJ - the war on poverty. Al Gore is at it with global warming. There's always another catastrophe to mobilize everyone's focus.
In this case, it is real. The economy is faltering. However, the answer is not the socialist one of "managing the economy." That will surely destroy it.
The radical feminists need to understand that if they really want equal pay for women, having a socialist economy headed for the tank won't help their job prospects.
Susan in Oregon | September 22, 2008, 8:46pm | #
I completely agree with JohnHolliday's statement that a poor economy will not be helpful to women. History shows that when the belt tightens with employers it usually hits women first.
I disagree that the statistics of the Obama campaign pay for women is not telling. I disagree that Obama simply chose the women who showed up. No, judging by the people Senator Obama turns to for advice it is clear that he prefers the male crowd who have been pushing him through for nomination. Women won't have postions of power in an Obama administration. That is why Hillary Clinton is NOT his VP running mate.
You didn't mention that McCain's women employees make quite a bit more than the men.
Obama/Biden is a flawed ticket for women and it is dangerous ticket for the future of America.
WillNotBeFooledByObamaNATION | September 23, 2008, 3:28am | #
Hi,
I wanted to draw your attention to this important petition that I recently signed:
"Impeach Senator Barack Obama"
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/obamaimpeachment?e
I really think this is an important cause, and I'd like to encourage you to add your signature, too. It's free and takes less than a minute of your time.
Thanks!
--------------------------
Susanna Henderson | September 23, 2008, 1:03pm | #
wow! you guys are obnoxious! i am looking for a liberated group of women, open to making the best of life, but you all seem to have bought into the neocon point of view. why not write about being barefoot and pregant?
lillian | September 23, 2008, 9:18pm | #
Are you people NUTS election Mcain if you want to you think we have it bad now just wait and see Mcain is rich do you think he cares about us poor people? NO he only put palin on the ticket because he was loseing if she can be VP with no ecucation than why dont all of you run for president we all have as much going for us as palin and so mcain got hurt in the war so did my son and he is haveing as hard time getting help but in US it is who you no or who you screw as long as they are not black what a sad country we live in I HOPE ALL YOU MCAIN VOTERS ARE READY BECAUSE IT IS GOING TO GET WORSE
rebecca | September 24, 2008, 1:27pm | #
In response to the last two ladies who posted, why do democrats always resort to slander when they’re attempting to make their point(s)? We are "obnoxious" and possibly "nuts". Instead of an intellectual exchange of ideas they chose name calling. My father has always said "if you want to confuse a democrat use the facts". Obviously that is true as they were so confused by the article they failed to form a coherent opinion.
whatfacts? | September 26, 2008, 1:37am | #
Independent? I feel that this forum has nothing for an independent women. There are real issues in this election that need to be talked about, and what does this sight keep talking about? Well that NOW is a bunch of graying liberal bra burners that are out of touch with the rest of women.
Lets talk facts. McCain and Palin have voted numerous times against womens issues. Check out votesmart.org to look at their voting records for yourself.
My favorite example of how out of touch Palin is- While she was Mayor she voted to require rape victims to PAY for their own rape kits.
So I totally agree with NOW for backing Obama someone that actually seems sensitive to womens issues.
Queen Beet | September 26, 2008, 2:02am | #
I am disappointed in Carrie Lukas documentary.
She ignores the fact that a large number of working women—women who need the money to help support their families—can’t break into better-paying jobs because of active discrimination, job segregation
(“women’s jobs” and “men’s jobs”), and severe sexual harassment.
Stop covering women’s economic problems as personal (women just want to stay
home and be moms), while they cover men’s economic problems as political (good union
jobs are disappearing because of globalization or rising health-care costs).
Stop ignoring women’s real lives and offering up myths as if they were facts.
You do real damage reporting on the wrong problem, when that happens, public policy is less likely to deliver the right solution. And when women aren’t in the news, the news is inaccurate, slanted, and biased.
If the government does not take the responsibility to regulate the labor practices in this country, employers will continue to ignore the rights of women like Lilly Ledbetter. Tell her that she did not have a wage gap problem. No one expects an unqualified person to earn the same as a qualified person. You fail to understand how employers use “negotiation” as a means of discrimination.
A major financial institution was hiring two supervisors to head two units doing the same thing. The qualifications for the job were posted and a female from inside the company interviewed and was hired at $35.000.00 per annum. A male from outside of the company was hired at $40.000.00.
When the female inquired of her boss as to why the difference in pay, she was told that since he was coming from outside the company and they really wanted him, they added the extra as an incentive to have him join the firm.
That is fine, she said, but why was I not offered an incentive to join the team? Did you not want me as bad as you wanted him?
Oh yeah we did, but you were already here and had the experience we need so it was easy to bring you on board at the level we did.
Since I was that valuable to you, why not offer us the same.
He would not have come for what we originally offered so we had to sweeten the pot.
Therefore, you are saying that you went over scale to get him.
No, we brought you in at mid scale and him at a higher tier. And I could go on, I know this, I was that female, so don’t tell me that pay discrimination does not exist.
Jannabob | September 26, 2008, 1:30pm | #
Independent is exactly what I am; neither Republican nor Democrat. But when it comes to women's social issues, not fiscal issues, the ticket lies in the democratic party and always has.. I believe we must gain social equality first, then work on fiscal equality. If McCain/Palin go into office, that's one giant step back for women's rights. Palin is a modern day Benedict Arnold, she will sell out her sisters for a chance at the top.
Republicans are always first to showcase their women, but their women are just that; showcases. (or beauty pageant queens in this case)
I know it's hard to understand, because Palin actually looks like a woman, but don't be fooled, deep down she is a wolf.
I am glad some feminists got educated and realized this.
Angie | September 28, 2008, 6:24pm | #
Really? "WillnotbefooledbyObama", you have serious problems. I can't believe that you are all this misguided. Somehow you people are so wrapped up in your fiscal/social conservative craziness that you have lost your minds. I hope you can all go read articles on a non-biased site (in case you didn't know, that does not include this site) that will allow you to truly see the situation for what it is. Without the backing of some political party telling you to believe so.
chris | September 28, 2008, 6:26pm | #
Rebecca, way to do exactly what you claim democrats do. Bravo! Lovely exchange of ideas, all without name calling!