The Unicorn Jelly Forum

Please excuse this bait-and-switch regarding last night's debate. Reviewing a clip on this part, I actually shrugged off the above quote as harmless. But what shocked me was Romney's following comment that "We're going to have to have employers in the new economy, in the economy I'm going to bring to play, that are gonna be so anxious to get good workers they're gonna be anxious to hire women."

Verreaux's translation: Employers will be so desperate they'll even hire women. Even housewives like the one I hired who can't work the hours that a man can. Because, you know, it's the woman's place to look after the house and kids.



Damnit, Romney, there's a reason all the people who applied for your cabinet were rich white men.

Something that most people in the country, including both of the candidates, don't seem to realize... is that the gender gap is gone!

Yes, statistically speaking, women make less than men. But that's only if you look at women as a whole. We've actually SOLVED the problem, without resorting to affirmative action in the workplace -- if you look at people under 30, and control for education and amount of leave taken, the difference in wages disappears! (You have to control for leave taken because statistically women take more leave than men. It wouldn't be fair to pay them the same amount if the man is taking less time off.) The push since the 60s to get equal treatment for women has paid off in the form of better education and reduced wage discrimination in the workplace.

Unfortunately for statistics, education only helps the young women who could participate in it. This means that women who were ALREADY in the workforce are still going to get lower wages, because they've hit their own glass ceilings. They could theoretically go back to school and benefit from that, but the cost of schooling for them will nullify the benefits.