A Menacing Tide Against Women Who Speak Their Minds
The glorious Internet offers us more ways than ever to triangulate the truth and then opine about it on our favorite blog. But, oh my, the inglorious invective that pockmarks those virtual town squares.
In the past week, I've read that retired anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan is an "opportunistic idiot." Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a "feminist twit." And that Lilly Ledbetter deserved the lower pay she got from Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. because she wasn't smart enough to prove earlier in her career that she was earning less than her male counterparts.
Bombasters hiding behind screen names especially targeted Ginsburg and her dissenting opinion after the Supreme Court threw out Ledbetter's pay-discrimination claim last Tuesday.
The attack on women who speak their minds about so-called women's issues feels, at the moment, like a menacing tide. But Ginsburg - and a young street poet at Folklife - give me hope that women among us will continue to stand, speak and act despite the vitriol and shifting sands.
Ledbetter was a longtime supervisor at a Goodyear plant in Gadsden, Ala., who, after leaving her job, confirmed through an anonymous tip that she had been making substantially less than males at the same level.
She filed a pay-discrimination suit in 1998, won back pay and damages from a jury that said "more likely than not" she had been discriminated against because of her sex, and then lost when the company appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
That court said Ledbetter could not prove she had suffered discrimination in the 180 days before she filed her claim, a time limit written into Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964. Though she received paychecks, the decision on how much she received in those paychecks was made before the 180 days. In a 5-to-4 vote last week, the Supreme Court agreed.
The bottom line: It is now harder to sue employers for pay discrimination. With this ruling, only new discrimination counts under Title VII.
According to the Supreme Court justices who dissented, the majority is blind to the realities of wage disparity between men and women. Because of secrecy, wage disparities can take years - not six months - to emerge.
In a rare breach of Supreme Court conventions, Ginsburg read the dissenting opinion from the bench.
"In our view, the court does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination," she said in the Ledbetter dissent. "Title VII was meant to govern real-world employment practices, and that world is what the court today ignores."
Ginsburg also read the dissent in April when the court upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in another 5-to-4 vote.
"This way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women's place in the family and under the Constitution - ideas that have long since been discredited," she said in response to that majority opinion.
Her oral dissents, as some have noted, are a clarion: Women's rights are being weakened.
The vote was 5 to 4 in the Ledbetter ruling, but you might have thought Ginsburg was the lone dissenter, given some bloggers' demeaning reactions. While Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer concurred with her, they weren't singled out as "feminazi," as Ginsburg was in the blogosphere last week.
As I thought about Ginsburg delivering the dissent aloud, I flashed on another woman I heard speaking her mind recently.
Making our way through Folklife two Saturdays ago, my 10-year-old daughter, her friend and I came upon a Youth Speaks poet delivering impassioned verse on stereotypes of Asian women.
Part rapper, part beatnik, and all volume and precision, the young woman and her rejection of passivity transfixed me and the otherwise-impatient fourth-graders at my side. She was mad, she was eloquent, she was smart and she had a point.
Youth Speaks is a nonprofit group that "encourages young people to think critically, to write and speak honestly and, especially, to reclaim their own educational process so that the next generation of leaders may emerge," according to their MySpace site.
In her words, the group's mission and my companions' rapt attention, I find hope.
Empowering, vocal displays by a Supreme Court justice and a street poet give me hope that the tide doesn't have to have disastrous effects, especially if more of us listen, stand, speak and then act.
Andrea Otanez is a regular contributor to Times editorial pages. She is the journalism instructor at Everett Community College. E-mail her at otaneza@gmail.com
Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
10 Comments so far
Show AllI suspect young women who don't vote don't see any point in choosing between tweedledum and tweedledumber when neither is offers a program that represents a change in the status quo for them.
I hope don't come off as sexist by saying this, but I often get frustrated with women because, since they make up the majority in the U.S., you'd think they could just totally turn the tables so to speak. You'd think we'd have had a woman in the White House 20 years ago.
I remember reading somewhere that young, single women are the least likely to vote. Why is that? I know lots of people who should vote and don't, but with that group there seems to be little anger or fear or concern. In fact, they seem uncomfortable when politics are brought up. I had a girl tell me once that she didn't want to see me anymore because she thought I was too caught up in politics. She couldn't understand why I care.
If I was a woman I'd be scared to death right now. Hell, I'm a guy, and I'm scared for women right now. I'm scared for us all.
Damn women could have really kicked butt and taken names, especially these last few times out.
Old men with old ideas about women. What goes around, comes around and now the younger generation, (which takes their rights for granted) is seeing that nothing is set in stone. Women's work is never done and in todays's political scene, that is very much the case.
I'm so glad to see this issue receiving attention! Please see my comment on the poor treatment of Cindy Sheehan at: http://hankedson.squarespace.com
As a 56 yr old woman I feel increasingly diminished by this administration, the not-so-Supreme Court, and their followers. I hang tight to a quote by Gloria Steinem:
Severe opposition is a measure of success (because) one inevitable result of winning a majority change in consciousness is a backlash from those forces whose power depended on the old one.
- Gloria Steinem
Bring back civil disobedience - in word and action. Now!
chuck is right. apparently the eeoc (equal employment opportunity commission) saw it that way until now. do we have to go all the way back to the stone age before we impeach cheney and bush?
up to now, women who held extraordinary jobs had to earn them. under affirmative action, the beneficiaries (i was one) had to qualify for their jobs. apparently 150 lawyers who graduated from regents university (the pat robertson creation which ranks upon the lowest tier of law schools) were hired into today's justice department over the life of the bush administration. THAT discrimination was actually a test of affiliation, not of attainment. male and female, appointed he them. we need to get back to qualifications determining who gets the job. it should be not who you know (or worship) but what you know how to do.
That would be the logical assumption, chuck. Even with the 2-year statute of the Equal Pay Act, that law does not require proof of intentional discrimination - only that the company's actions result in a pay disparity for work that is "substantially" similar.
This is corporate justice, where the corporate "person" has more rights than the individual, actual person.
so, if I have been discriminating against blacks forever, I am free to continue? does this give the KKK free reign to recommence lynchings?
this is justice??????
Seems to me, each time they cut her an undervalued paycheck, and decided not to increadse her pay to the level of her male counterparts, they were re-discriminating against her.
So the ruling says although the plaintiff was being underpaid within 180 days of her complaint, since the mechanism which set her illegal pay scale had gone into effect prior to the 180 days (at her hiring, apparently), she cannot sue for back pay? Doesn't everyone but the Reagan/Bush/Bush corporate-fascist supreme court majority see this as wrong?
Bush's supreme court appointees are the real time bomb of his presidency. We'll eventually get out of Iraq, but it will take far longer to escape from under the thumb of this ultra-right court, and who knows how much damage to individual rights they will have done by then.
Women are not stupid and they are not powerless. All of us, men and women, need each other to balance out our worst tendencies.
The marginalizing of half the population not only threatens them it threatens the rest who are complicit in putting them down. There is no greater violence visited upon women than the demand that they must be like men in order to be treated equitably.