I don’t think so, unless the woman in question is Judy McGovern, managing editor of the Ann Arbor News. Ms. McGovern published a signed editorial several days ago criticizing the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which as most of you know is leading an effort to amend the Michigan constitution to prohibit all state entities from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual “based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.”
Ms. McGovern fears this would be bad for the ladies. MCRI, she writes, is not
speaking out about the sorry condition of health care in Michigan, where women are more apt to die from breast and lung cancer than women in most other states; or about the similarly dismal state of mental health, where – according to a census-based report “The Status of Women in Michigan” issued late last year – only one other state performs as poorly.
In her response, as reported in MIRS, a Michigan political newsletter (requires subscription), MCRI executive director Jennifer Gratz paid Ms. McGovern’s comments the undeserved compliment of taking them seriously:
Ms. McGovern says that Michigan women “are more apt to die from breast or lung cancer than [are] women in most other states”? It follows that women in other states are more likely to die from some other lethal ailment, or accident, or murder, than are women in Michigan. They — we — are all going to die of something.
More to the point is that white women in Michigan (as of 2001) live a bit over five years longer on average than do white men in Michigan. (Black women more or less match white men; black men are far behind, 67.3 years vs. white women’s 79.9.)
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Healthy_Michigan_2010_1_88117_7.pdf
I haven’t checked these stats vs. the national ones, but I think they’re close.
In other words, if people are dying disproportionately young, they are male, black, or (especially) male and black. Women outlive men on average by several years, and not only in Michigan. I am really, really tired of people complaining about the lack of women-specific studies when the glaring fact is that what needs studying is the reason men die so much earlier than women do. If it were women dying five or six years earlier than men, then there’d be a reasonable case for special study of diseases peculiar to women. As it is, it seems bizarre.
The other part of the graph is black life expectancy vs. white, and that really could use some attention. And might get it, too, because here it’s blacks who have the lesser life expectancy relative to whites. That is the order of things that interests activists. Men dying years before women do isn’t interesting. Dammit, it has to be the victims who are suffering.
I’d almost give McGovern the benefit of the doubt and say that, rather than “try[ing] to confuse the issue,” she’s simply confused about what constitutes a civil right. She doesn’t present any argument that the MCRI would not be beneficial to women; it just doesn’t address the women’s issues of highest importance to her. I suppose I could similarly condemn a fathers’ rights group for not seeking a cure to male pattern baldness (an issue, I must confess, of ever-expanding personal interest).
Ward Connerly writes, according to John’s quote:
>>>Mr. David Waymire … has repeatedly questioned my commitment to the cause of ending preferences based on race, skin color, ethnicity, gender and national origin. He portrays himself as a defender of women’s rights and preferences for “minorities.”
Moreover, he has stated publicly that I am only involved in this battle to achieve personal gain for myself. The soon-to-be-released campaign reports of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative will reveal that I have contributed $465,000 to MCRI, as evidence of my personal commitment to eliminate preferences and to support the principle of equality for all.
I wonder how much of the millions in fees and commissions that Mr. Waymire has received from Indian Tribes and from big corporations to preserve race preferences has he contributed back to the causes for which he has been retained. I challenge him to match my contributions, past and prospectively, to the MCRI campaign. For every dollar that he personally contributes to defeat MCRI, I will contribute a matching dollar to promote it. Put up or shut up, Mr. Waymire! I am even willing to relieve you of responsibility of half of what I have already proudly contributed. Thus, you only need to come up with $232,500.”
The AUDACITY of this “man” knows no bounds. Where does Connerly get his money from to contribute in the first place? Why, none other than the same Confederate, white-power donors like the Olin group that he’s often received support from in the past, as Media Transparency illuminates here:
http://www.mediatransparency.org/people/ward_connerly.htm
Connerly is just the bag boy; a smiling brown faced herald for these nefarious anti-minority agencies. I make no secret of my utter contempt for this villain.
Judy McGovern writes in the linked article:
>>>Of course the group, which this past week restarted its campaign to amend the state constitution to prohibit any form of affirmative action, isn’t protesting the wage gap that finds women in Michigan earning 66.7 cents for every dollar a man earns – the biggest gap in all but two other states.”
The article also goes on to quote Jennifer Gratz:
>>>””Women can and have competed without preferences …” says Gratz, who opposes any gender consciousness in hiring or contracting.”
Now, John Rosenberg, you have frequently referred to your own daughter, Jessie’s outstanding educational achievements, (as well you should!) but would you be satisfied to learn that she could only make 66.7% of what a white man did her chosen field of endeavor? I don’t think you’d sit quietly for it. Now, there are voluminous studies on hiring, promotion and wage discrimination based on gender, John, so before you trot out your sources, I just want to know what your GUT, VISCERAL response would be if you heard that your brilliant daughter wasn’t earning what she was worth, and what you would suggest she do about it.
–Cobra
Judy McGovern (like Cobra) is the typical stupid liberal who has not kept up with the times and is still shouting slogans and taking positions that belong in the past. Take this quote:
Cobra,
Are you inclined to address my point? Ought we to be up in arms about one state’s higher incidence of breast cancer than another’s, when men live on average five to seven years less than women do? Which is the blip, which the glaring health disparity? And I recognize the lower life expectancy of blacks v. whites, and that needs investigating. As I said. What does not need special attention is the health of women. We live longer than men as it is. What idiot would pump more dollars into making the gap between ourselves and men bigger?
As for your ridiculous post to John, Cobra, you don’t get the actual wage of a woman in this country by grabbing a man, forcing him to state his wage, and multiplying by .66. I have a feeling that John’s daughter is well able to take care of herself. Also, that she’s shortly going to be making a hell of a lot more than I do.
Why, none other than the same Confederate, white-power donors like the Olin group
Earth to Cobra. The Civil War ended in 1865. The Union won. There are no more Confederates! Now calm down and take your medication.
Connerly is just the bag boy; a smiling brown faced herald for these nefarious anti-minority agencies. I make no secret of my utter contempt for this villain.
Wow, what a revelation. Thanks for the information. We would have never guessed it.
Of course the group, which this past week restarted its campaign to amend the state constitution to prohibit any form of affirmative action, isn’t protesting the wage gap that finds women in Michigan earning 66.7 cents for every dollar a man earns – the biggest gap in all but two other states.
Lies, damn lies and statistics. So just who is paying women 66.7% as much as men? Is it the Michigan State Government? I don
Cobra/McGovern: Do (should?) women have a right to earn the same thing as men, maids the same as janitors, librarians the same as truck drivers, etc., etc.?
In my opinion, the short — and pretty complete — answer to that is “No.” What they have/should have is a right not to be discriminated against because of their gender.
Regarding daughter Jessie, Cobra asks whether I would “be satisfied to learn that she could only make 66.7% of what a white man did her chosen field of endeavor?”
If that means she “could” make only two thirds of what a man makes because of some arbitrary limit, no one — not just me — would or should sit still for it. On the other hand, if she made only two thirds of what a man made who worked for her same employer (not just in the same field — are academic physicists in the same field as physicists in industry or teaching high school?), the question would be, why? If the man a) had more or better credentials, or b) more seniority, or c) had more relevant experience, or d) worked longer hours, or etc., etc., then I’d have no trouble sitting still. (But that may not say much; I generally have little trouble sitting still).
Reader Tracy Allen sent the following comment and agreed for it to be posted here:
>>>
Reading your post on MCRI inspired me to hunt down the source of Ms. McGovern’s claim.
Based on what I have read here, the advocates of affirmative action who are willing to comment don’t care about the facts. “If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit.” is par for their remarks. Go ahead and comment, you hangers-on, don’t be afraid to stand up for what you vote for. It’s tough when you only have pseudo facts like Ms. McGovern, or worse yet, you can’t cite anything to back up your outdated ideas, but, hey, no guts, no …etc.
As John alludes to, the “women make 67% of what men make” is based on innumeracy. Women make the same amount as men, once you account for experience, education, etc.
The reason women make less is because they typically take years out of the workforce to raise children. This is a “problem” only if one is a radical feminist that believes women shouldn’t be allowed to make that choice.
David writes:
>>>
As John alludes to, the “women make 67% of what men make” is based on innumeracy. Women make the same amount as men, once you account for experience, education, etc.
The reason women make less is because they typically take years out of the workforce to raise children. This is a “problem” only if one is a radical feminist that believes women shouldn’t be allowed to make that choice.”
Michelle writes:
>>>
As for your ridiculous post to John, Cobra, you don’t get the actual wage of a woman in this country by grabbing a man, forcing him to state his wage, and multiplying by .66. I have a feeling that John’s daughter is well able to take care of herself. Also, that she’s shortly going to be making a hell of a lot more than I do. ”
Richard writes:
>>>
Lies, damn lies and statistics. So just who is paying women 66.7% as much as men? Is it the Michigan State Government? I don
Cobra,
An outsider would be led to believe that this anti-affirmative action type movement is more about WHITE MALE DOMINANCE than any false beautitude about “fairness and equality,” because in EVERY SINGLE ISSUE, including those that DON’T INVOLVE RACE (such as gender gaps in salary) this gang will take up the white male advocacy position.
Um, yeah, Cobra, whatever you say. That would be why I reiterated that the black/white gap in life expectancy in Michigan (and everywhere else, so far as I know) needs serious attention, just like the male/female one.
Once more, Cobra, do you really think it makes sense to complain that the MCRI will hurt research into specifically female health issues when Michigan women are outliving Michigan men by about five years on average? If Ms. McGovern had complained that the MCRI would hamper research directed specifically at reducing the male/female and the black/white life expectancy gaps, she might have been making a mistake, but at least she’d have had a point. But her actual complaint was that the cohort already living longer (women) wasn’t to get yet more money diverted to it. Does this make sense to you?
Michelle writes:
>>>Um, yeah, Cobra, whatever you say. That would be why I reiterated that the black/white gap in life expectancy in Michigan (and everywhere else, so far as I know) needs serious attention, just like the male/female one.”
Really? Now what does Ward Connerly have to say on this black/white gap in health?
Apparently nothing, because in his failed attempt at statewide color blindness, Prop 54, there would’ve been restrictions placed on the state government’s studies and surveys on health related issues based upon race or ethnicity.
Here is a PDF outline on the potential damage that would’ve occurred under Ward’s lunacy.
http://www.chcf.org/documents/policy/RacialAndEthnicDataCollection.pdf
Michelle, I think you’re an earnest person. I think you have your positions based upon reason and your own personal experiences. You are NOT, however the sole advocate for this anti-affirmative action movement. I find it hard to believe that your compatriots would be the least bit concerned about the “health gap” afflicting African Americans if they have no concern about the WAGE GAP, HIRING GAP, EDUCATION GAP, HOUSING GAP, AND JUSTICE GAP that I document here TIME AND TIME AGAIN. Who are you kidding, Michelle? This is not any kind of indictment of you or your motives, but let’s step into reality.
–Cobra
Cobra,
Your tribute to my earnestness and my good motives would be more convincing had you not called me one of the “gang” who
in EVERY SINGLE ISSUE, including those that DON’T INVOLVE RACE (such as gender gaps in salary)
will
take up the white male advocacy position
just above. When I point out that I’ve done no such thing, your response is that, well, maybe I didn’t, but everyone else in the “gang” did. Although John’s was evidently the “most non-hysterical” response, so I gather I was more “hysterical” than he. (You do know the origin of that word, by the way? Use it with caution around educated women, if I may offer a tidbit of free advice.)
Michelle writes:
>>>As for your RIDICULOUS post to John, Cobra, you don’t get the actual wage of a woman in this country by grabbing a man, forcing him to state his wage, and multiplying by .66.”
“Ridiculous?” Well, that’s an over the top description of my message. Certainly, there are learned scholars who AGREE with my position about gender inequity within the workplace. Does it sound “more hysterical” than the response John gave? In my opinion…yes. That’s the wonderful part about America. I have the right to express my opinion. You also offered absolutely NO counterpoints to the documented research I provided that clearly shows the existence of gender discrimination. I would expect that an “educated woman” such as yourself would be AWARE of that research, since it’s readily available at your fingertips.
That is…if you want to hear the truth, as opposed to the white male advocacy propaganda of the MCRI.
–Cobra
“An outsider would be led to believe that this anti-affirmative action type movement is more about WHITE MALE DOMINANCE than any false beautitude about “fairness and equality,” because in EVERY SINGLE ISSUE, including those that DON’T INVOLVE RACE (such as gender gaps in salary) this gang will take up the white male advocacy position.”
Yes, Cobra, I do. Let’s see. You believe that constantly advocating for blacks, and you say you are one, is a good thing. You call this “fairness and equality.” I call this “Cobra getting over.” But, let’s see, I’m a white man, and it’s a bad thing for me to advocate for white men. Some con game, Cobra. Yes, I do dare to be as brazenly self-interested as you. I believe in “Stephen getting over.”
The real issue about women is comparing the same kind of work and experience. Corporate America is terrified of lawsuits along these lines. Such lawsuits are too expensive to incur. My wife and I long worked in the same type of job for consulting firms all over the U.S. We were always paid, to the penny, precisely the same rate at every one of these consulting firms. Most large firms establish pay scales for graded jobs precisely for this reason.
Stephen writes:
>>>The real issue about women is comparing the same kind of work and experience. Corporate America is terrified of lawsuits along these lines. Such lawsuits are too expensive to incur. My wife and I long worked in the same type of job for consulting firms all over the U.S. We were always paid, to the penny, precisely the same rate at every one of these consulting firms. Most large firms establish pay scales for graded jobs precisely for this reason.”
Congratulations, Stephen on you and your wife receiving the pay you felt your deserved. Now, let’s extend that logic.
This morning, I woke up, took a shower, enjoyed two Eggo waffles, a bowl of Kashii Go Lean cereal, and a glass of cold orange juice. Can I accurately make the statement that there is not a hunger problem since I myself had breakfast? That’s the assumption you’re making when you claim that since your wife was paid the same as you, there can’t be a gender inequity in wages.
Give me statistics and references folks. You’re making this too easy for me.
–Cobra
The Carnival of the Vanities, #122
THE CARNIVAL OF THE VANITIES, EPISODE 122: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength…and I’m in charge! Once again I’ve returned to the man the helm of the Good Ship Lollipop. Having been here twice before, Bigwig clear…
The Carnival of the Vanities, #122
THE CARNIVAL OF THE VANITIES, EPISODE 122: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength…and I’m in charge! Once again I’ve returned to the man the helm of the Good Ship Lollipop. Having been here twice before, Bigwig clear…