Three women, including now Senator Olympia Snowe, sent a letter stating their concern about the fact that women received only .60 compensation to every dollar that was earned by their male counterparts. Roberts was not happy about GOP women getting so uppity:
I honestly find it troubling that three Republican representatives are so quick to embrace such a radical redistributive concept. Their slogan may as well be, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to her gender.'"
Because believing that a person should be compensated based on their ability, not on their gender, is the same as being a communist.
He gave the standard concerns about how women leave the workforce, seniority, blah, blah, blah - whatever, it's a lot of crapola.
First of all, women's wages weren't lower because they started a job at equal pay with their male counterparts, but left to make babies, and they missed out on a raise or a promotion while they were gone. Woman have historically been given lower starting wages then men, even when both the man and the woman have the same package of skills and experience. Now, women who give birth usually do leave the workplace for a time, although I know a lot of women who went back to work as soon as their six weeks of maternity leave was over. (Six weeks, that's only one week longer than just one of George Bush's annual vacations.) No weight is given to those women's contributions while they are at work, even working women are seen as just baby making machines who are eventually going to get knocked up and leave, so why pay them equal pay for equal work?
It's also an interesting contrast to another group of people who leave the workforce - those who are called to duty in the military. Those people are mostly male, and they have a special law that not only protects their jobs (if they follow standard procedures and are honorably discharged), but protects any raises they would have received while they are serving their country, and protects their seniority.
Now, I don't want to take anything away from those people who are called into service, but I don't think shooting people in far off lands is any more important than raising the future citizens of this great country of ours. Clearly, Roberts' does not value the job of having and raising children, because he thinks all women should be punished because some women have the temerity to leave their jobs, even if only temporarily, to push babies out of their filthy woman parts. (And this doesn't even touch on the fact that only women are expected to sacrifice their education, time and money for raising children.)
It's part of the continuing war against women being waged by the radical right-wing Republican party (RRWR). Women cannot win - if you work, you are paid less money, you are castigated for not being home with your children where you belong, and you are called selfish and uncaring. If you stay home, you better have a well compensated husband, otherwise you aren't getting any help from the government - if you can't afford to feed your kids, you should get a job or three and quit whining! At the same time, they are trying to make it impossible for women to control their own reproductive systems so they can have a freaking choice about whether or not they want to have a kid in the first place. At first, I was going to write that they just don't want women to have sex, but it's more than that. They don't want women to be free to make any choices of any kind about their own lives. There is only one acceptable path in life for women, from the RRWR party's perspective: grow-up, get married, be a submissive wife and make as many babies as your husband decides he wants to have.
And to just top that delicious shit sundae with a cherry, the Democrats don't think it's worth fighting over. Do they understand that political capital isn't the same as cash? This is a subject worth debating and arguing about. Democrats, you can't win if you don't put up a fight!
Here's the info to contact your representative in the Senate.