Equal pay for the same job has been the law since 1963. what feminists want is to rule that male-dominated jobs are worth less than female-dominated jobs (i.e., that "mere" garbaage collectors are worth less than receptionists.)

In fact, the "average" woman makes less than the "average" man because, on the average, she works part-time to his overtime; on the average she makes smore per hour than he does.

You don't know what you are talking about. The Lily Ledbetter case changed how the law has been interpreted to say that you could only file for discrimination within a limited time period from the time of the first incident of discrimination. That is, although Lily was paid a lower wage for doing the exact same job as her male counterparts, she is SOL because she didn't realize it back when she was hired decades ago. She had proved this in a lower court, and the SCOTUS did not disagree with any factual findings.

The bill that McCain opposed was designed solely to restore the interpretation of the bill that had held since 1963.

blueshift:

You don't know what you are talking about. The Lily Ledbetter case changed how the law has been interpreted to say that you could only file for discrimination within a limited time period from the time of the first incident of discrimination. That is, although Lily was paid a lower wage for doing the exact same job as her male counterparts, she is SOL because she didn't realize it back when she was hired decades ago. She had proved this in a lower court, and the SCOTUS did not disagree with any factual findings.

The bill that McCain opposed was designed solely to restore the interpretation of the bill that had held since 1963.

Lily Ledbetter's pay was based on job evaluations which she disagrees with; I also disagree with some of my job evaluations, but I don't think that the government would rule in my favor anyway.

Againm, the feminist argument is that we should have the government ruling that women are more valuable than men.

Rapier1:

Could you please point me to your source for those statistics?

Can you provide the source of any of your accusations?

Anyway, it's a former member of the NOW board called Warren Farrell who makes that claim.

Lily Ledbetter proved in court to the satisfaction of a jury that the pay she received was not commensurate with her performance. Its not just a mild disagreement, its a career long inequity. Please note that your argument has shifted from "different jobs" to job performance.

"Againm, the feminist argument is that we should have the government ruling that women are more valuable than men."

Sorry, but your straw man isn't scary.

Don, could you please point me to where I made any "accusations" in my post?

Lily Ledbetter's pay was based on job evaluations which she disagrees with

That's not the point of the case. Nor is it relevant that "equal pay" has been the law of the land for a long time. The question is how that law is enforced.

Businesses find ways to evade laws all the time. If it's hard to sue to enforce the law, then the law will be violated in practice. Ledbetter claimed that she was discriminated against for years but didn't find out about it until long after the discrimination had started. The Supreme Court said that the clock within which she had to sue started from when the discrimination started, not from when she found out. So in effect, it didn't matter whether she had been discriminated against or not; he suit was barred from the outset.

The upshot is that businesses that find ways of hiding discriminatory pay, or plaintiffs who just don't find out about it until too late, can violate the law with impunity. And that can make the law pretty darn ineffective.

There would seem to be little reason not to allow the filing period for a suit to start when a person actually finds out about the discriminatory practice (plaintiffs should not be allowed to "run up" damages by waiting, but there's nothing to be gained if all you get is the difference between what you got paid and what you should have been paid all along). Consequently, it's hard to see why someone would vote against legislation that provides just that.

"Againm, the feminist argument is that we should have the government ruling that women are more valuable than men."

Don, what sort of legal protection would you like to have if you were to discover that you had been receiving discriminatory pay from one of these imaginary feminists?

Olive & Ouzo & Figgy:

"Againm, the feminist argument is that we should have the government ruling that women are more valuable than men."

Don, what sort of legal protection would you like to have if you were to discover that you had been receiving discriminatory pay from one of these imaginary feminists?

I've already suffered job discrimination form real feminists, but the government won't protect me from them.

And you're going to insist that, unlike that woman's job evaluation, anything a woman has to say about me has to have been true.

I've already suffered job discrimination form real feminists, but the government won't protect me from them.

Anti-discrimination laws work both ways. If the discrimination was job-related, then you could bring a suit--unless it started a long time ago and you just found out about it, in which case the Supreme Court says it's too late to do so, and McCain voted against allowing the government to protect you in that case.

"I've already suffered job discrimination form real feminists, but the government won't protect me from them."

You don't answer my question. Do you want legal protection from discrimination or not?

"And you're going to insist that, unlike that woman's job evaluation, anything a woman has to say about me has to have been true."

No I'm not; so why did you make the accusation?

what feminists want is to rule that male-dominated jobs are worth less than female-dominated jobs (i.e., that "mere" garbaage collectors are worth less than receptionists.)

The notion that some jobs are worth more than others are nothing new, nor is it particularly partisan. Why do doctors make more than teachers? Why do CEOs make more than God? Who knows? The entire wage market is a menagerie of abstract distinctions and equivalencies.

I'd probably make more money as a garbage collector than I do as a receptionist, but it would probably be harder to get time off for auditions and such.

dsimon:

I've already suffered job discrimination form real feminists, but the government won't protect me from them.

Anti-discrimination laws work both ways. If the discrimination was job-related, then you could bring a suit--unless it started a long time ago and you just found out about it, in which case the Supreme Court says it's too late to do so, and McCain voted against allowing the government to protect you in that case.

Anti-discrimination laws do NOT work both ways; at least that's what the lawyers I went to said.

Olive & Ouzo & Figgy:

"I've already suffered job discrimination form real feminists, but the government won't protect me from them."

You don't answer my question. Do you want legal protection from discrimination or not?

"And you're going to insist that, unlike that woman's job evaluation, anything a woman has to say about me has to have been true."

No I'm not; so why did you make the accusation?

At least that's what the lawyers told me, that in today's political climate in a he said/she said case it's her word the court takes for granted.