From Texas' staunch opposition to women's sex toys, to the novel fetus protection bills, which disarticulate the nature of pregnancy as though there is no woman involved, the Republican message is clear. Women are not people, and any attempt to suggest as much is wholly un-American, anti-Christian or some form of reverse intolerance. Last week, the message was reiterated.
In the latest effort to maintain the subjugation of woman, our Republican senators have declared that women are so stupid that they require the GOP's beneficent protection from money-grubbing trial lawyers. In the words of Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, defending the Republican filibuster of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in last week's New York Times, "The only ones who will see an increase in pay are some of the trial lawyers who bring the cases."
If you, distracted by the buzz words, missed the implication there, allow me to explain. Republicans filibustered the bill because they think women seeking fair pay either do not have a genuine gripe (it's a frivolous law suit), or predatory lawyers will take advantage of them.
The back story involves Lilly Ledbetter, who found out she was making far less than her male counterparts as a manager at Goodyear. In response, she sued for back pay and social security over her employment history. The jury, appalled by Goodyear's practices, decided to send a message to Goodyear's executives by awarding Ledbetter $3 million in damages. Goodyear appealed last year, making it to the Supreme Court where the ability of women to sue their employers for discrimination was all but gutted. The justices, in a 5-4 decision (surprised?), went in favor of Goodyear because Ledbetter did not file a suit within 180 days of receiving her first paltry pay check. Never mind that Ledbetter didn't even know until she received an anonymous tip shortly before her retirement, or that she filed a claim while she was receiving lower pay. The Supremes arbitrarily decided to interpret Ledbetter's ongoing and cumulative claim of discrimination as discreet actions, like getting fired, or acts of sexual harassment, for which a complaint must be filed within 180 days. So, each time she received a pay increase, or the lack of a fair increase, the slate was wiped clean 180 days later.
I couldn't say it better; so, Dahlia Lithwick, writing for Slate.com, sums up our conservative Supreme Court's message: "So remember, ladies, it's better to be fired for discussing your wages than to be paid less for being a woman."
In response, Democratic lawmakers decided to clarify Title VII so that no court could interpret a statute of limitations on a woman's capacity to file such a case. As you already know, Republicans filibustered that change to death last week.
While the rhetoric does matter, in all fairness, the bill was doomed. President Bush pledged to veto it because he thinks businesses shouldn't be bothered if they've been getting away with it for years. Bush's message to women: You ladies are too slow!
John McCain, also siding with his chauvinistic ilk, was not to be outdone with insulting anti-women comments either. He believes there's a better solution to the problem. Rather than simply removing ambiguity from Title VII, he thinks: "They need the education and training, particularly since more and more women are heads of their households, as much or more than anybody else."
Did you catch that? Did that make sense to you? Apparently, more training for women, who are already doing the work they supposedly need training for, will somehow alleviate the fact that men are discriminating against them in the workplace. I shudder to think what flawed logic McCain would employ as our president.
It's time for conservative women to wake up and smell the funk affected for them. Alternatively, it wouldn't hurt if the Republicans weren't so out of touch with our American women.
