The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009

The White House - Blog Post - A Wonderful Day

Today, President Obama signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.  This act will counteract the Supreme Court's decision of 2007 to limit the ability of employees to take their company to court for pay discrimination.  In 2007, the supreme court ruled that employees had only 180 days from the first day a valid discrimination of pay was instituted by the company the employee was working for to file a suite.  This ruling was not a 180 days from the first day you learned of the pay descrimination, but 180 day from the moment of pay descrimination.

Why is this a problem? Because often we do not know if we are being discriminated against, since the culture of silence around discussing issues such as salary is so institutionalized.  Indeed, several companies I have worked for has required employees to sign an agreement that specifically states that they will NOT disclose their rate of pay to other employees under the threat of disciplinary action or loosing their job.  These clauses often embedded in company "loyalty" oaths statements help corporations and other smaller companies legally practice forms of civil discrimination, and in my book - this does not bode well for labor, minorities, and women.

In Lilly's case, it was years before she knew that she was being paid substantially less for doing the same job as her male counterparts and so it took years before she brought the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. to court.  for me, today is a good, as the White House Blog states, but for others it is not such a good day.

The Sunlight Foundation, a fantastic organization that works to promote transparency in government and business using technology and blogging, is worried about this action today by Obama.  In a blog post, Paul Blumenthal rightfully questions the "transparency" promises of the White House with this bill.  Blumenthal writes:

For quite some time President Obama has promised that all non-emergency
legislation will be open for public comment on Whitehouse.gov for 5
days before the President signs it. I am not sure what constitutes
“emergency” legislation; providing emergency appropriations in response
to a disaster or attack would apply. This was supposed to be a major
element to the President’s transparency efforts, even though the effect
of it can be disputed (the bill has already passed and can’t be changed).

As Blumenthal points out, this is a huge slip of transparency on the first major act of the Obama Presidency.  Yet the truly important point I believe that Mr Blumenthal presents us with, and a critical thinking point at that, is how does the administration and WE define emergency. 

Here is the rub!

For me, civil rights violations constitutes an emergency.  It continues to be a problem in this country, and a very serious one at that.  Being that most of the people I have heard from regarding this issue today are men, I would ask them to take a moment and consider the position of others like Lilly who has been consistently discriminate against because of their race, gender or disability.  Further, think of those solders who have served our country who are also being currently discriminated against because of corporations' fear that they will be called back to combat and so they are also being discriminated against. In general, I believe Obama's efforts here constitutes a utilitarian action - the most good for the most amount of people.

For others such as some fellow twitterers (sp?), an emergency equals only war.  I understand and emphasize with this position.  Regardless, for me, transparency should be really followed in times of war - look at the lack of transparency used to get us into our current war-and how well that came out, right?!  So how do we define 1) transparency and 2) emergency.  This is the real question and we should be debating this question right now and then relaying our definitions to the current administration.   Blumenthal and the Sunlight Foundation is quite right about being concerned here and as was pointed out in his post: "I am not sure what constitutes “emergency” legislation" (para 2), and either am I -this is a problem.  As to other "responders" who calls these concerns "retarded" (Para. 11), this is the communication approach most of us were rejecting when we voted for now President Obama. 

From a communication/ critical thinking point of view, "That's just retarded" is an example "loaded Language" and an ad baculum fallacy that ends discussion possibilities and potential for transparency, as a result of threating language and/or insults.  May I suggest that we all join the conversation and not simply end it.

All thoughts are welcome here.

Rebecca

(Note: I have published this post on both my personal and educational blogs because I think these questions are vital)

Blind to Discrimination and Pope Benedict XVI's Loss of Sight

BBC NEWS | Europe | Gay groups angry at Pope remarks

"Speaking on Monday, Pope Benedict said that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour was as important as protecting the environment."

I would like to allow this quote to frame two thoughts today--going on the third day of Hanukah and two days before Christmas. 

thought one: "gender" is a social construction and it has nothing to do with our sex.  Why do young girls play with dolls?  Is it because of her gender?  NO!  It is because we have socialized females to believe that it is proper behavior for a young girl to "practice" her later assumed role of "mother," in the same we we encourage boys to play with trucks for their assumed role of "bread winner."  both are constructions and both are lies.  Depending on the family, some men do a better job at "mother," and some women do a better job at bringing home the "bacon."  It is attitudes such as the Pope's remark that forces people into small frames of being--which is wrong and dangerous. 

I would like to ask,by the Pope's own reasoning, associating sex specifically with gender, what should we do with the hermaphrodite?  Taken from Greek mythology, Hermaphroditus was the son of Hermes and Aphrodite who was later merged with the nymph Salmcis, creating a being with both female and male characteristics.  Hermaphrodites are found in nature (flowers, worms, some fish) and humans. 

In fact, intersexuality among human infants are common.  Here is a situation where a child is born without absolute characteristics of being a male or female.  Under these situations a sex is assigned to the child--a decision made between the doctor and the parents. Sometimes the sexual assignment is successful and that child grows up to what they were assigned, often the guess is not the best guess and the grown child is left with confusion and heartbreak.

If you would like to read an interesting book on the subject, may I suggest R.W. Connell's Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics. 

I think Connell is quite right with the determination that:

"The categories 'male' and 'female' are not categories of social life and sexual politics; the categories 'men' and 'women' are.  The two pairs overlap but the second pair is far richer and more complexly determined than the first." (137)

The Second point I would like to make deals with Toulmin's approach towards argumentation and whether a statement has a solid warrant or not.  Toulmin asks this question: "so what?"

The Pope stated:

"It was not 'out-of-date metaphysics' to 'speak of human nature as man or woman', he said. It came from the 'language of creation, despising which would mean self-destruction for humans'.

Gender theories, he said, led to man's 'auto-emancipation' from creation and Creator."

By asking "so what," I come up with the following questions:  Who's version of creation?  Because gender bending and homosexuality has been around since recorded history and we do not seem to have "self-destructed" yet, what makes us think that we will "self-destruct" now?  Again, "so what." 

Seriously, I am straight and married, but I have many friends who are gay and other friends who enjoy mixing the social construction of man/woman gender assumptions--so far my marriage has not disrupted because of my association with these friends.  Nor has my security in my particular sex been compromised, nor has my husbands.

So obviously, my social structure is not vulnerable to self-destruction because of those who challenge typical gender ideals or the gay community.  Pope Benedict XVI's social space may be threatened, this is true, but not all of the world's standing.  To associate these issues with the environment is a false analogy--the environment affects everyone no matter their sexuality, color, nationality or religious affiliations, being gay or transsexual does not.

I can kind of understand why Pope Benedict XVI and others like him feel threatened.  They live in a world where issues come in two frames: right and wrong.  For many of these folks, there is set rules that guide living and behavior, and you either obey by those rules or you do not.  If you are defined from this point of view, allowing for alternatives to the set rules can threaten your existence and your values.  If gender bending were allowed and if homosexuality was fine, could there have been a Garden of Eden?  An Adam and an Eve?  A virgin Birth? I think so, yet I can see why they do not.

But I am someone who sees discrimination as just that: discrimination.  It is misnomer to believe that Homosexuality
and sexual orientation is not a civil rights issue--because it simply is.

R