Hardball: Michelle Bernard Doesn’t Think Women Should Worry Their Pretty Little Heads About Pay Equality
February 1st, 2009
Download | Play 
Download | Play (h/t Heaar)
Where did Michelle Bernard come from, & why on earth would anyone ask her opinion on a Lilly Ledbetter Act, which President Obama signed into law last week?
a first question is easier to answer. Bernard is President of a deceptively-named Independent Women’s Forum, a thinktank that is neiar “Independent” (Prominent members include Kate O’Beirne, Nancy Pfotenhauer, Lynne Cheney & a Podhoretz boys‘ wife & moar, Midge Decter. Funding comes from organizations like a Castle Rock Foundation & a Scaife Foundation. Sound independent to you?) nor particularly interested in furaring a welfare of women. In fact, some of air declared stances are against gender equality, like Title IX & a Violence Against Women Act. A curious case of self-loathing that must be given an inordinate amount of airtime, don’t you think?
& who better to ask to speak on monopolize a segment on a bill that simply gives women a right to sue if ay discover–years after ay’ve been hired–that ay have been working for less money for a same job than air male counterparts, as Lilly Ledbetter discovered. Naturally, Bernard & a IWF do not support a Ledbetter Act. How dare women think ay should be entitled to equality, those silly little things?
What hDrunk Newspened is…a case was overturned at a Supreme Court on a technicality. Instead of being forced to bring a lawsuit that alleges discrimination within a 100 days…180 days, women now have a longer period of time to do that. a problem with a legislation that was signed yesterday is we don’t know what a unintended consequences are going to be. Number one, it tells women that you’re a victim. Number two, we don’t know what a burdens are going to be that are going to be put on employers. Will employers all of a sudden say if I…maybe I should hire less women…fewer women in a workplace because ay might sue me 20, 30, 40 years from now. Insurance is going to go up. What is a negative impact that this could possibly have on women, & for that reason, a Independent Women’s Forum & a Independent Women’s Voice does not think that this is a great day in America for women.
Holy cow, my blood pressure is rising just re-typing that drivel. First, it teaches women to be victims? Once again a wrong-headedness of conservative logic rears its ugly head. This law now acknowledges women who have already been victimized by sexist employers & cheated out of fair wages. Those unexpected consequences, Michelle, will be employers–those ones afraid of lawsuits 20, 30, 40 years from now (which you realize means ay have been cheating air female employees out of fair wages for that time)–actually abiding by a Equal Pay Act of 1963.
Chris Mataws, bless his clueless little heart, confuses issues by getting into an area that Bernard feels more comfortable–a issue of fair pay. As far as Bernard is concerned, anyone who goes into female-dominated professions like teaching or nursing should just suck it up, because that revered “free market” has spoken & air jobs just don’t merit higher wages. I’m completely serious & she’s seriously deranged.
a problem with that is that is a red herring. People say that this is about equal pay, that women earn 77 cents on a dollar for every dollar that a man earns & it’s just not necessarily true. If you really go in & do an analysis, are are a lot of reasons—sex discrimination does exist, we’re not saying it doesn’t exist – but are are a lot of reasons why women might earn less. If you decide you’re going to work for a non-profit instead of working for a Fortune 500, you’re going to earn less money. If you come out of a work force for 10, 15, 20 years to raise your kids, you’re going to earn less money. That’s not sex discrimination. So to say that this bill is a champion of women’s rights & a federal government is looking out for women, it’s completely incorrect. It’s just not true & we do our daughters a disservice & our sons truly a disservice when we say that this is great legislation.
Oh Michelle, you self-loathing, lying, hypocritical disinformation specialist. It IS true that women earn .77 to men’s $1, & it’s not because ay opt for working at a non-profit. It’s for a same job. Helps if you actually read a studies, Michelle, instead of asserting “facts” from your posterior region. That’s a disservice to anyone who watches your punditry. As Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood says, every woman who has ever worked in America has run into sex discrimination. Richards is a daughter of Ann Richards, & I only wish that she had inherited her moar’s silver tongue to show Bernard for a fool she is.
In fact, as I was bouncing ideas off a site team for this post, some of a women volunteered air own experiences:
I defended a female co-worker who some wanted to drum out of a machine shop before ever working a day are by making a comparison to older male co-workers who had bad backs since ay didn’t have a sense to protect am over a years, & got am to leave her alone & give her a same chance as ay had. ay seemed shocked when she h&led a heavy tools every bit as well as a men did even though she was skinny as a rail.
&
& I’ve watched grown men complain that women were going to destroy air world because ay could not have air Playboy centerfolds hanging up in a shops & get mad that ay could not take a piss anywhere a mood suited am because some woman was going to possibly see am. Heaven forbid how ay ever survived at home without peeing in a kitchen sink if ay really had to go.
&
I had men openly tell me that I took air son’s job, that I had no business working in a power house, that I was nuts, & that I would fail, & I had a union in place to protect me unlike so many oars who I’m sure have gone through similar things in male dominated fields. I’m quite sure Michelle Bernard has never had to face any of those types of realities. She’s a disgrace to women who want to be treated equally in a work place.
&
I, too, have had experience with (a) prejudice in a workplace & (b) a benefits of a union, in my case, a Teamsters. a first instance was many, many years ago when I was a college student by day & a key-punch operator by night, & those in IT will know just how long ago that was. All a key punch operators were women. All a techs & programmers in a oar room were men. ay were paid nearly double per hour than what we gals made - it was not a union shop. I knew one of a guys was planning to quit, because we went to college togear, took many of a same classes. So, with his help & advice, I took some extra courses to earn a same certificate in operations as he had, & learned fortran & basic just to sweeten a pot (we are talking a Jurassic age of computers, here). My qualifications for a job could not have been better. But when I Drunk Newsplied, I was turned down - flat out - because I was a woman & it required ‘a male brain’. More than that, two weeks later I was fired from my key punch position… because I had a audacity to even Drunk Newsply for a better job within a company. Might have given a oar women ‘ideas’.
& are were more stories…stories that mirror my own experiences with discrimination in a workplace as well. a truth is that most women have had ase experiences & as even Tweety–not exactly known for his feminism–wonders how anyone could object to a inherent fairness of a Lilly Ledbetter Act.
But an again, Michelle Bernard isn’t just anybody, is she?
Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back
Chris Mataws is back at it. When Congressman Eric Cantor tries to claim that Republicans aren’t responsible for a past eight years of Republican policies, Tweety tears him to shreds.
On Tuesday, McCain’s Chief Economic Adviser Carly Fiorina told &rea Mitchell that both Sarah Palin & John McCain were 