Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
August 01, 2014, 07:40:12 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Obama War On Women: Records Show White House Pays Women On Average $11,000 Less  (Read 761 times)
Fury
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21035


All aboard the USS Leverage


View Profile
« on: April 12, 2012, 08:52:23 AM »

HOSTILE WORKPLACE
OBAMA WHITE HOUSE PAYS WOMEN LESS THAN MEN, RECORDS SHOW

Female employees in the Obama White House make considerably less than their male colleagues, records show.

According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).

Calculating the median salary for each gender required some assumptions to be made based on the employee names. When unclear, every effort was taken to determine the appropriate gender.

The Obama campaign on Wednesday lashed out at presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney for his failure to  immediately endorse the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, a controversial law enacted in 2009 that made it easier to file discrimination lawsuits.

President Obama has frequently criticized the gender pay gap, such as the one that exists in White House.

“Paycheck discrimination hurts families who lose out on badly needed income,” he said in a July 2010 statement. “And with so many families depending on women’s wages, it hurts the American economy as a whole.”

It is not known whether any female employees at the White House have filed lawsuits under the Ledbetter Act.

The president and his Democratic allies have accused Republicans of waging a “war on women,” and have touted themselves as champions of female equality. Obama’s rhetoric, however, has not always been supported by his actions.

White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters last week that Obama believes it is “long past the time” for women to be admitted to the traditionally all-male Augusta National Golf Club, site of the Masters golf tournament.

But the president has demonstrated a strong preference for all-male foursomes in his frequent golf outings, a bias that extends well beyond the putting green and into the Oval Office.

“Women are Obama’s base, and they don’t seem to have enough people who look like the base inside of their own inner circle,” former Clinton press secretary Dee Dee Myers told the New York Times.

In a 2011 article titled “The White House Boys’ Club: President Obama Has a Woman Problem,” TIME magazine’s Amy Sullivan detailed the president’s fondness for male-dominated environments.

“There’s a looseness to Obama when he’s hanging out with the boys club that doesn’t appear in co-ed gatherings,” she wrote. “The president blows off steam on the golf course with male colleagues and friends. He takes to the White House basketball court with NBA stars, men’s college players, and male cabinet members and members of Congress.”

As a presidential candidate in 2008, Obama was criticized for paying the women on his campaign staff less than the men, and far less than GOP opponent John McCain paid his female staffers.

http://freebeacon.com/hostile-workplace/


Haha.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7810


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 12, 2012, 09:25:32 AM »

Remember suskinds' book? 
Report to moderator   Logged
Skip8282
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6370



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 12, 2012, 04:46:41 PM »

Crickets from the left.


What a shock.  Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 24893


one dwells in nirvana


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 12, 2012, 06:05:06 PM »

any comparisons for men and women in the same job or is this just a comparison of all men and woman regardless of job title

Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7810


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 17, 2012, 01:18:28 PM »

Obama declares National Equal Pay Day
washingtonexaminer.com ^ | 4/17/12 | Joel Gehrke





President Obama declared today National Equal Pay Day, as he called for equal pay for equal work between men and women. The day is designed to call attention to his campaign talking points, and chiefly to honor his own accomplishments on women's economic issues.

"I call upon all Americans to recognize the full value of women's skills and their significant contributions to the labor force, acknowledge the injustice of wage discrimination, and join efforts to achieve equal pay," Obama said in the declaration. Certainly, women's work (in and out of the home, as Hilary Rosen had to admit) is very significant and wage discrimination is unjust. But this declaration is about getting Obama reelected, and nothing else.


(Excerpt) Read more at campaign2012.washingtone xaminer.com ...
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7810


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: August 24, 2012, 02:41:51 PM »

Obama celebrates Women’s Equality Day
 politico44 ^ | 8/24/12 | politico


Posted on Friday, August 24, 2012 5:38:50 PM


President Obama signed a proclamation Friday for Women’s Equality Day. "On Women's Equality Day, we


(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...


* kristen-bell-660.jpg (98.61 KB, 660x495 - viewed 123 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7810


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: August 25, 2012, 06:45:16 AM »

No babies allowed at Democratic National Convention: feminists revolt
 Life Site News ^ | August 23, 2012 | KATHLEEN GILBERT


Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2012 9:10:34 AM by NYer



Gloria Steinem suggested that the Democratic Party could recognize that where there are women, there are often children.


CHARLOTTE, North Carolina, August 22, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Feminists are denouncing a rule at the upcoming Democratic National Convention that will bar children, including breastfeeding babies, from entering the event without being credentialed.

Critics say that officials for the event slated to begin Sept. 4 in Charlotte make it difficult for moms to credential their children, leaving delegate moms at a loss as to how to provide for their tots.

Top feminist icon Gloria Steinem said that by not even offering child care at the event the Democratic Party will alienate female voters, and that the party should acknowledge that, where there are women, there are occasionally babies too.

“Women are the key to a Democratic victory, and sometimes, children are the key to women,” said Steinem in a statement noted by the Charlotte Observer. “It’s both right and smart for the Democratic Convention to behave as if children exist.”

Activists with the National Organization for Women in California also said the rules set up an “insurmountable barrier for mothers.”



“The DNC requires children and babies to have a credential to enter the convention, and then denies these credential requests from moms,” said Hollywood NOW President Lindsey Horvath. “The DNC credentialing process is being used as a tool to prevent mothers from participating at the convention and is nothing short of discriminatory.”



Convention spokeswoman Joanne Peters said that delegates can access a directory of private child care options, and that lactation centers for nursing mothers will be available - but that children require credentialing to access the convention floor.



California Democrat Susie Shannon, 45, who planned to come to the convention with her 4-year-old daughter Gracie, called Peters’ response “not enough.”



“When the Democratic Party refuses to provide child care at the convention and denies automatic access for young children to join their moms who serve as delegates on the convention floor, an entire group of women are disenfranchised,” said Shannon. “Moms with young children 6 years of age and under who cannot be left at home, some of whom are breast-feeding, are relegated to second-class status within the Democratic convention.”
Report to moderator   Logged
MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15764


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: August 25, 2012, 08:51:09 PM »

No babies allowed at Democratic National Convention: feminists revolt
 Life Site News ^ | August 23, 2012 | KATHLEEN GILBERT


Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2012 9:10:34 AM by NYer



Gloria Steinem suggested that the Democratic Party could recognize that where there are women, there are often children.


CHARLOTTE, North Carolina, August 22, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Feminists are denouncing a rule at the upcoming Democratic National Convention that will bar children, including breastfeeding babies, from entering the event without being credentialed.

Critics say that officials for the event slated to begin Sept. 4 in Charlotte make it difficult for moms to credential their children, leaving delegate moms at a loss as to how to provide for their tots.

Top feminist icon Gloria Steinem said that by not even offering child care at the event the Democratic Party will alienate female voters, and that the party should acknowledge that, where there are women, there are occasionally babies too.

“Women are the key to a Democratic victory, and sometimes, children are the key to women,” said Steinem in a statement noted by the Charlotte Observer. “It’s both right and smart for the Democratic Convention to behave as if children exist.”

Activists with the National Organization for Women in California also said the rules set up an “insurmountable barrier for mothers.”



“The DNC requires children and babies to have a credential to enter the convention, and then denies these credential requests from moms,” said Hollywood NOW President Lindsey Horvath. “The DNC credentialing process is being used as a tool to prevent mothers from participating at the convention and is nothing short of discriminatory.”



Convention spokeswoman Joanne Peters said that delegates can access a directory of private child care options, and that lactation centers for nursing mothers will be available - but that children require credentialing to access the convention floor.



California Democrat Susie Shannon, 45, who planned to come to the convention with her 4-year-old daughter Gracie, called Peters’ response “not enough.”



“When the Democratic Party refuses to provide child care at the convention and denies automatic access for young children to join their moms who serve as delegates on the convention floor, an entire group of women are disenfranchised,” said Shannon. “Moms with young children 6 years of age and under who cannot be left at home, some of whom are breast-feeding, are relegated to second-class status within the Democratic convention.”


First, babies inside the womb, next babies outside the womb.

Team Obama: War on infants.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7810


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: October 19, 2012, 05:52:30 PM »


Obama's 'War on Women' at the Harvard Law Review

by Alan R. Lockwood18 Oct 201218post a comment

When Barack Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review, he faced a heated battle with the law school's Women’s Law Association (WLA) because women comprised only 25% of the editors selected for the Review during his tenure.
 
At that time, the Review’s president (with the help of two other editors) oversaw the selection of the new editors of the journal. All Harvard Law students were eligible to apply to the Review at the end of their first year by entering its writing competition, which involved editing an article and/or writing a case comment. New editors were chosen through one of three ways: through their writing competition scores; via a combination of 70% grades and 30% writing scores; or through a supplemental method that included affirmative action.
 
Obama sparked a heated controversy when 27 men, but only 9 women, were selected for the Review. He blamed the result on an insufficient number of women choosing to compete for editorial slots. The arithmetic flaw with Obama’s defense was that women were 40% of the Harvard Law class, 37% of the competitors, and yet only 25% of the editors Obama selected. Under the prior president of the Review (Peter Yu), women were also 37% of the writing competitors but were 41% of selectees. Under Obama’s successor (David Ellen), 37% of the new editors were women. Therefore, among these three successive male editors of the Review (two of whom were minorities), only Obama had a dramatic underrepresentation of women editors.
 
Reacting to the shortfall of new female editors, one of the co-chairs of the Women’s Law Association recommended that women should be included in the Review’s affirmative action program. As quoted in the Harvard Law Record, the law school's newspaper, Obama rejected that recommendation.
 
In response, the WLA co-chair said: "It disturbs me that there is this shortage this year and it is even more deeply disturbing if the people running Law Review don’t care enough to correct it."
 
In rebuttal, Jim Chen, an executive editor of the Review under Obama, wrote a letter to the Harvard Law Record that objected to the WLA’s call to reinstate affirmative action for women at the Reivew. Chen wrote that such a suggestion was “bigotry and sexism” and that the “misguided Law Review editors who voted in the affirmative action plan” were “racist.” The co-chairs of the WLA responded by claiming that the Review’s underrepresentation of females was a “disgrace" and attacking Chen for “buying into the language of the oppressor."
 
Obama then responded with his own letter to the Harvard Law Record, in which he argued that including women in the Review’s affirmative action program was “unnecessary.” He defended affirmative action policy in general, noting that he had "undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs."
 
Perhaps some "binders full of women" would have helped.
 
Alan R. Lockwood is the author of Barack O'Liberal: The Education of President Obama.
 

Report to moderator   Logged
Roger Bacon
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20461


Roger Bacon tries to be witty and fails


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: October 19, 2012, 05:59:02 PM »

I don't understand what's wrong with paying women less, if they'll work for less?

Huh

Report to moderator   Logged

Shockwave
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19040


Decepticons! Scramble!


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: October 19, 2012, 06:10:24 PM »

I don't understand what's wrong with paying women less, if they'll work for less?

Huh


Women aren't real people anyway, so who cares? They only count like 3/4 of a man, so they should get paid that. And they should be making me a sammich.
Report to moderator   Logged
whork
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5331


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: October 20, 2012, 11:38:45 AM »

Lol at the retards in this thread.
Respect for woman except when ramming a vagina scanner up to check for a fetus
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7810


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: February 20, 2013, 07:35:23 AM »

bump for Andrewantstobeobamasbody man 
Report to moderator   Logged
Pray_4_War
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 2667


11 inch penis


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: February 22, 2013, 03:02:03 AM »

any comparisons for men and women in the same job or is this just a comparison of all men and woman regardless of job title



Thank you for finally thinking like a conservative.  This is the exact type of logic I used when speaking to my liberal freinds during the Presidential election.  Obama had just successfully gotten them all hyped up about equal pay for women.  I argued that it was a non-issue because the "statistics" that Obeezy was using to back up his contention made no reference to education or experience level of the workers. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7810


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: March 19, 2014, 08:10:47 AM »

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/female-share-federal-workforce-declining-under-obama



 Shocked
Report to moderator   Logged
loco
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8888

Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: March 19, 2014, 08:18:57 AM »


March 19, 2014

"Obama is no doubt preparing to cast stones at the private sector. He really ought to look at his own administration.

Since Obama has been in office, according to data from the Office of Personnel Management, the percentage of women in the civilian federal work force has been shrinking. Before Obama took office, it was already smaller than the percentage in the overall national civilian labor force. Under Obama, it has gotten smaller still.

OPM maintains a database called FedScope that contains historical information going back to 1998 on much of the federal civilian labor force (but excludes, for example, the Judiciary, the White House, the Office of the Vice President, several intelligence agencies and the legislative staff of Congress). According to this database, about 44.4 percent of civilian federal workers were female in 1998.

In 2013, only about 43.5 percent were female — the lowest percentage in the sixteen years available."

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/female-share-federal-workforce-declining-under-obama
Report to moderator   Logged
bears
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1691


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: March 19, 2014, 09:23:26 AM »

any comparisons for men and women in the same job or is this just a comparison of all men and woman regardless of job title



you do understand that this is EXACTLY what most conservatives say and get criticized for when discussing equal pay for women.  the answer is no job to job comparisons are not taken into consideration when they talk about these types of statistics. 

then when conservatives use the same formula on the Obama administration now all the liberals take a deep hard look at the statistics and find this error.  this type of cherry picking of information is becoming something worse than laughable.  its getting scary. 
Report to moderator   Logged
dario73
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6101


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: March 20, 2014, 05:19:10 AM »

then when conservatives use the same formula on the Obama administration now all the liberals take a deep hard look at the statistics and find this error.  this type of cherry picking of information is becoming something worse than laughable.  its getting scary. 

This is why idiots like strawboy can't be taken seriously.

Those morons have one standard for Republicans. When the same standard is applied to the dems and evidence shows that they fail even more miserably, all of the sudden they come up with excuses. They begin the blame game in order to protect their sacred political cows. It is blindness of the worst kind.

Liberalism is a mental disease.
Report to moderator   Logged
bears
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1691


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: March 20, 2014, 07:45:22 AM »

This is why idiots like strawboy can't be taken seriously.

Those morons have one standard for Republicans. When the same standard is applied to the dems and evidence shows that they fail even more miserably, all of the sudden they come up with excuses. They begin the blame game in order to protect their sacred political cows. It is blindness of the worst kind.

Liberalism is a mental disease.

the problem is that its becoming their religion. 

Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7810


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: July 02, 2014, 11:32:26 AM »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/male-female-pay-gap-remains-entrenched-at-white-house/2014/07/01/dbc6c088-0155-11e4-8fd0-3a663dfa68ac_story.html



 Wink
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7810


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: July 09, 2014, 06:14:10 AM »

http://www.businessinsider.com/female-white-house-staffers-got-smaller-raises-than-men-2014-7


 Cheesy
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!