"Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006" was released by the U.S. Census Bureau in August of 2007. [1]
The publication states "The female-to-male earnings ratio of 0.77 in 2006 was not statistically different from the 2005 ratio..." In other words working women, on average, only earn 77% of what their male counterparts are paid.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it an "unlawful employment practice" to discriminate " against any individual with respect to compensation..." [2]
"Employers may not pay unequal wages to men and women who perform jobs that require substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions within the same establishment."
43 years later women are still being discriminated against in the workplace as can be determined by the $3.1 million in monetary benefits paid out in 2006 for claims filed against employers. [3]
When the women in this country cannot receive equal pay, based on the law, should it come as any surprise that women are not treated equally in other areas?
The current election is a prime example - the two Democratic contenders should be provided equal time by the media, but inequality on the cable networks is running rampant. We're not sure how many times CNN has mentioned the name Obama, but it should be clear to everyone by now that CNN believes there is no one else in the race except Obama.
Remember the Harry and Louise ads when Hillary was trying to get universal health care passed in the 90's? "I don't want the government sticking its noise in my medicine cabinet."
Funny thing, the same people responsible for the Harry and Louise ads now want to stick their noses into every room of your house and follow you around wherever you go. But people don't seem to mind.
NBC Universal pulled the original video claiming patent rights, but our own interpretation is that the video showed how unfair and unbalanced the media are and have been. http://www.alternet.org/blogs/election08/77752
As we know from the media coverage of the primaries, Hillary has to do twice as well as Obama to get half as much praise.
But - what can you expect in a country that still hasn't managed to get enough states to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment?
The ERA in Congress
ERA bills reintroduced in Congress on March 27, 2007:
The Equal Rights Amendment , first proposed in 1923, is still not part of the U.S. Constitution. The ERA has been ratified by 35 of the necessary 38 states. When three more states vote yes, the ERA might become the 28th Amendment.
Senator Obama is a former legislater from the State of Illinois and it might be interesting to note that Illinois is one of the few states that has not ratified the amendment. Apparently Obama is concerned about equal rights - as long as they don't apply to women.
The politicians that are running around concerned about being fair and wanting to replace our current Internal Revenue Service with the Fair Tax should take a step back in time and replace our current election system with one that treats all candidates fair and equally.
Even those that can't pee standing up! Are men afraid of women?
Are they afraid Hillary will succeed? Can it be possible that the men of this country are so chauvinistic they would rather vote for a candidate that is not qualified to be President of the United States than to vote for a woman?
Is that why women are still considered second class citizens in this country?
There is no excuse for the women in this country not voting for Hillary. There is no way you can look at the credentials of the two candidates, look at what plans they have for our future, and choose Obama over Hillary.
It's easy to sit back and say 'she voted for the Iraq war'. Excuse us, but Hillary did not vote to attack Iraq. Her vote, along with everyone else's was to give Bush the power to use military force, IN THE EVENT IT WAS NECESSARY. It was not necessary, but Bush chose to go to war.
It's easy for Obama to sit back and say "I was against the Iraq war from the beginning'. It's easy for him to say anything because he wasn't a U.S. Senator at the time; therefore he was not privy to the confidential data that was supplied to the U.S. Senators prior to the vote giving President Bush the authority to use military force in the event it was necessary.
Actually, if Obama had been a U.S. Senator at the time of the vote he probably wouldn't have voted to give Bush the authority to use military force in Iraq. After all as the Jr. Senator from Illinois he doesn't find it necessary to make an appearance in the Senate more than 67% of the time.
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
