Obama to Women: 'No Limits on Their Dreams'

"The markets HATE what Obama is doing and ultimately they haven't been wrong."

The markets are never wrong.

Right wing delusion at its finest.

Ranger, I defy you to show me one example of the outrageous behavior you suggestion, that is, that "Some places have signs posted stating "Women need not apply" when seeking applications and so forth." NO ONE does that. In places where there is discrimination against women (and I would not argue there is no such discrimination ever, any more than I would argue that there is no unspoken discrimination against people of color ever), it is not so blatantly and illegally stated.

And the old saw about women making 77 cents for every man's dollar is a useless statistic, because there are so many factors that go into that fact-- there's so many variables involved and it is not because women and men doing identical work with identical experience are being paid at wildly divergent pay scales based on sex or gender. Surely you know that.

Example from my bailiwick-- academia. Someone in another post earlier in the week cited some study that contended that female professors make 22% less than male professors. The study claimed to have factored in such things as experience and education levels. I call baloney. At my institution and every other academic institution I know (and in the course of committee work on merit pay, tenure and promotion, and hiring committees, I have had access to lots of info about other schools and their pay practices), a newly hired professor is going to be offered the same starting salary regardless of sex. Over time, that professor's salary will hopefully rise, but that rise will not be based on sex, age, race, or any other factor irrelevant to his/her job performance. Each case will be unique and there are many reasons why, in the aggregate, the average salary of the total group of female professors at a given institution will be less than the average for their male counterparts. There are fewer women in the scientific and business departments, where salaries are higher. There are more women who take more time off to be at home with children for a number of years or otherwise prioritize other things over full-time employment without interruption.

Crucially, it is impossible to compare even the salaries of two professors in a given department who on the surface may appear to have only gender to distinguish between them. Merit pay is based in many cases on such things as teaching excellence and research production. Perhaps the female published fewer journal articles than the male or published in a less prestious journal. That has nothing to do with her sex. Perhaps the woman excels in teaching rather than research, and unfortunately, it is harder to quantify teaching excellence and teaching does not get the financial reward it deserves as often as research accomplishments do. Perhaps the woman
did not get elected to as many university-wide committees or done other service work to gain additional merit consideration. All those things will factor into that woman's salary. It is impossible to simply say why any two professors of differing races, religions, or sexes who do not make identical salaries-- it is a complex determination. Your statistic does not prove systemic discrimination against female workers.

This would be a bit more credible had Obama behaved respectfully toward Hillary during the campaign.

All these panels, commissions and reports would also be more credible had any of these people bothered to support our Afghan operations in light of the horrid conditions women face there.

Work/family balance? Get serious. Women have it better here than anywhere else on the planet, although there's always room for improvement. We're talking about women who have NOTHING, who's daughters can barely survive their genital mutilations, and who now have a slim chance of something better, had our country been behind making things better in Afghanistan.

Our soldiers and officers were horrified by the condition of women in Afghanistan. They tell stories of how women are no more than pack mules, abused, violated, with no basic human rights. It's an abominable situation for half their population, as it was in Iraq (although less so there than Afghanistan).

But "liberals" could do nothing but agitate against what we're doing in Afg/Iraq, and make like more uncertain and difficult for these women.

You want to do something for women, start there.

GetReal

"we are all over the work force" in some professions, but in many blue collar jobs women are not. Some places have signs posted stating "Women need not apply" when seeking applications and so forth.

Our government has been strong-armed by the religious right for many years and this Catholic policy is so inclusive: "that women who seek ordination and bishops who attempt to ordain women are automatically excommunicated, without any further action on the part of the Vatican being necessary."

Don't forget - women can't be in combat either no matter what their expertise.....

Then you get back to that .77 on the $1.00 crap.

You're right - GET REAL!

When will we women stop agreeing to be treated like a protected class? We are in the majority and we are all over the work force and we have broken most of the glass ceilings of the past-- but not all, of course. Should we really have a council that focuses on equality for women and the impact of policies on women, rather than simply focusing on equality for all and the impact of policies on all. I think male/female is a strange dichotomy to be privileging, as it ignores so many other factors affecting disparities of treatment and opportunity.

Do we really need another council? That's sort of like another task force.
This is not the worst thing the president could do, to be sure. It's not a big deal. But it is, to my mind, just window dressing. At least it will not cost us a ton of money-- or at least, I hope they don't find a way to make this a costly enterprise.

"This is what's so screwed up with liberals. You can guarantee equal opportunity, but you cannot guarantee equal outcome.

That's simply Communistic."

Posted like a true male chauvinist.

Women's median annual earnings were only $.77 for every $1.00 earned by men. For African American women the gap is even worse – only $.71 for every $1.00 earned by men and $.58 for Hispanics.

'President Barack Obama said he was signing an executive order creating the White House Council on Women and Girls to "ensure that our daughters and granddaughters have no limits on their dreams."'

A council is going to do that?

This is what's so screwed up with liberals. You can guarantee equal opportunity, but you cannot guarantee equal outcome.

That's simply Communistic.

Posted by: Ryan C | Mar 11, 2009 6:22:57 PM

You really do live on a fantasy world.

Small business creates 97% of the jobs in this country. There has been NOTHING for small business.

Now Obama is selling the country out to George Soros. He has a plan to sell toxic assets to hedge funds, i.e. Soros.

More of that "Detroy America" thing.

The markets HATE what Obama is doing and ultimately they haven't been wrong.

Willem van Oranje

/-----
He was transparent with Americans. He explained it a hundred times to you and everybody else that now is not the time to overhaul the proces, which costs a lot of time. Even the Republicans are not going to let earmarks-proces disappear, despite their grandstanding now, and meanwhile taking huge chunks of taxpayer dollars home to their districts. Didn't you see L Graham last Sunday? What a hypocrite. Everybody else's earmark was "porkbarrel spending", but his own earmarks .... Well, that was something completely different. Hypocrites.
-----/

Indeed they are. Whining hypocrites.

He is the worse President in our history since former Pres. Carter. He has lied and broken promises to the America people. His report card is "F". That means he is a failure. The job losses now is about 8.1 high rating since he took office in Jan. His stimulus bill doesn't work. The stock market is down. Signed the bill yesterday while complained about the earmarks bills; he should have veto it.
He has a 'lack' of experience and leadership. Obama,The Democratic Congress, and cabinet members are so corrupt. Democratic Congress will lose big in 2010's election. Nancy Pelosi will not be the Speaker of the House anymore. She deserve to lose.

"...and he especially disrespected Hillary Rodham Clinton..."

How? By making her Secretary of State?

CNN Politics January 6, 2009

Obama "We are going to ban all earmarks"

Liar, Liar, pants on fire.

Obama killed the dream for women by cheating his way through the very un-Democratic caucus process. It's too little too late. He disrespects women and he especially disrespected Hillary Rodham Clinton who has earned the right to respect from ALL of us. Thank you Hillary for your lifetime of public service. Thanks to all women who fight to make the world a better place for all of us. Thanks to the men who support them and join them in the fight.

Happy Women's History Month! Let's celebrate women and focus on women's issues in a real way.

Obama has a poor record so far in naming women to top posts in his administration. His past record indicates he pays lower wages to women and hires fewer of them. WHY?

I suggest that ABC, PBS, the History Channel and all networks and cable focus on women this month. Black History Month was heavily covered on PBS and CNN in particular. I see no such homage paid to women this month. WHY?

Blacks are 11% of the population and women are more than 52%.

We need to focus on women's issues, respect, equal opportunity, equal pay and domestic violence, which affects l out of 3 women in this nation today. Shocked?

Women, it's time to unite together and elect MORE women to public office at all levels. Men, it's time for you to show respect and join us. It will benefit us

Sweetie" Obama is a phony. He has completly disrespected women. Especially the woman who should be our President, Hillary Rodham Clinton. She's the ONLY bright spot in his sorry administration.

Obama is also a liar. He made "no earmarks" a hallmark of his campaign promises..and today he's signed a bill including nearly 9,000 earmarks, including his OWN earmarks stuffed into the bloated bill last year. Disgusting hypocrite!

Kudos to Sen. Russ Feingold, Sen. Evan Bayh and Sen. John McCain who stood strong against earmarks.

That's why this Hillary supporting Democrat voted for John McCain. At least you can respect the man. I am one very disappointed centrist Democrat. Obama is leading us down a very dangerous spending path burdening our children with massive debt. It's outrageously unfair.

Wake up America! Despite what Newsweek mag rag claims, socialism is very bad for America. Capitalism is what made America great! Let's fight to keep it!

(The author of the Newsweek rag cover story on socialism is Evan Thomas, grandson of 6 time National Socialist Party candidate for President of the U.S., from 1928-1948 none other than Norman Thomas!) Surprised? Sickened? You should be

Obama "sweetie" doesn't support women. He disrepsects them. That's obvious. He's simply trying to pander to women.

The fact is John McCain pays his female staffers MORE than his male staffers on average. Actions speak louder than words.

Obama's actions: His record shows he paid his female staffers less than the male staffers.

Fact: Obama has fewer female appointments to top positions than Bush and Bill Clinton, who had the most.

Bill Clinton did far more for women and minorities than Obama has.

As bad as Bush was, Obama is proving to be far worse. His first 50 days have been a disaster. He's not ready for prime time (his constant teleprompters are a joke), his staff is incompetent and should be fired.

Why can't Obama hire anyone who pays their damn taxes???? It's disgrace. I think I'll refuse to pay my taxes this year. Care to join me in this protest? How about a nationwide tea party??????

May God help us. We are going to need it in the next few years.

This Democrat is still holding out for Hillary 2012.

"Why don't you go and teach the people in Tennessee how to pay their physicians"

I assume by your comment you want to demonize physicians as causing the high cost of health care that is unaffordable to many people. Look more towards the insurance companies if that is what trouble you.

Willem, there you go again, as Reagan said so well. You jumped on someone who supported McCain, writing: "Yes. I'm shocked that you voted for McCain who was opposed to equal pay for equal work. Women needed to study more he said."

Now, you are interpreting the facts on the ground in stating that McCain is "opposed to equal pay for equal work." What he opposed, and voted against, was the particulars of the Ledbetter law. I agree with him. Neither of us opposes women being paid the same as men doing equivalent work; both of us oppose this piece of legislation as a way to address any such disparity. Good people can agree on a problem without agreeing on the solution.

Then you segued into, "Plus that he voted against a bill that would have required plans to cover birth control if they covered prescription meds at all, like, um, Viagra." Newsweek knocked this talking point down back during the campaign. Yes, McCain was thrown by a question brought up after Carly Fiorina complained about insurers who cover Viagra but not birth control. However, the continued existence of such insurance policies turns out to be rather an urban myth. McCain had answered, honestly, that he did not recall specific votes on such measures (the reporter was apparently referring to the Murray and Clinton amendments that would have required such birth control coverage.)) However, what his record has consistently been is to oppose any coverage mandates at all. He is consistent and that is hardly targeted at one sex.

Finally, you sneered at this person who dared to support a candidate you did not, "And you voted for that guy? How silly can you be. Why should we have to take seriously what you think?"
I'm a woman (see, hyena, no worries *G*), I voted for McCain proudly, and I am not silly for having done so. I have already noticed that you, sir, do not take what I think seriously, but that is your loss, not mine.

"Would you go see a female surgeon or for that matter any doctor who most likely only received their degree because..."

Female physicians working for the government, such as for the VA, are paid the same as men.

Physicians in sole private practice are paid according to their retail fee schedule and reimbursed by insurance companies and the government at the same rates, male or female.

Physicians employed in groups are paid the same, whether male or female.

The same applies to other professionals such as attorneys, researchers, etc.

The disparity in the statistics lies with the reasons outlined by the GAO.

What does - "who only received their degree because of some government program forced the college to push them through."- have to do with anything?

You should stick with subjects you know something about.