Mar
28

A Few Good Women

5 Comments


Wal-Mart employees are ready for their voices to be heard. Source: The Guardian

Posted by Laurel

Is our society still biased against women? It’s no secret that more women go to college, a fact that is made even more obvious in graduate school enrollment (59% of students in graduate school are female). More than 60% of all women participate in the labor force, compared to only 32% of the female population in the workforce 50 years ago. Yet, why are women still denied equal pay? A 2009 study done by Marketwatch found that women earn only 75% of what men earn, at every level of education. There are many theories as to why this disparity exists, theories that, at the end of the day, are ridiculous. It’s time that someone took a stand.

Enter our modern-day David and Goliath. Today, the Supreme Court heard arguments concerning a class-action lawsuit filed by six brave women, claiming that they received lower wages and were discriminated against. The heinous oppressor? Wal-Mart. The largest private employer in the country, the multinational corporation; it doesn’t get much bigger than Wal-Mart… literally. If the Supreme Court decides to allow the six-plaintiff-suit to proceed to trial, it will be the largest class-action suit regarding employment in the nation’s history.

Seeing this story reminded me of another one that I read a couple of weeks ago about a female associate professor of psychology fired from the John F. Kennedy University in California after it was discovered that she was a performer at a burlesque nightclub. Allegedly, a male colleague of hers also performed at the same venue. Apparently, he invited students to the performance and discussed it with them (she did neither). He received no disciplinary action. An even more shocking example of gender bias at the university level was in the case of a male professor of psychology at Northwestern who organized for a live sex demonstration in class. By all accounts, he should have been kicked to the curb. In actuality, he just issued an apology and went back to the classroom.

As Americans in the 21st century, are we really going to let this policy of blatant discrimination against women in the workplace stand? Angela Merkel, Dilma Rousseff, and Cristina Kirchner lead some of the most powerful countries in the world. Plenty of women have served in the Cabinet and other high-ranking U.S. governmental positions. Amidst all of that progress, there lurks in the background the shadow of discrimination. It is absolutely absurd to me that stories like these still exist, and I believe the situation should be rectified. Dear Supreme Court Justices, please allow this class-action lawsuit to go to trial. Give David the chance to battle Goliath.

Related posts:

  1. The Democratic War on Women?
  2. Violence against women must stop. Full Stop.
  3. A Good Walk-Out
  4. What Makes For A Good Presidential Candidate

Tags: , , ,

Posted in Domestic Policy Laurel
5 Comments Posted by Laurel

5 Responses to "A Few Good Women"

  • Laurence says:
    March 28, 2011 at 6:18 pm
    Reply

    I like the subject matter of your post and I think the case should go to trial. But I have to disagree with your assessment of the Northwestern case.

    Michael may have more to say on the subject as he’s a current student, but my understanding is that the demonstration was optional, directly relevant to the class (an exploration of human sexual practices), and only served to help students in the class. I don’t see why this professor should be “kick to the curb” nor do I see why the professor’s gender matters. I don’t think a female professor teaching this class would have been treated any differently, nor do I think the professor should have been treated differently. I don’t think this example serves your overall point, which is correct in saying that the gender bias in payment is unfair, although I don’t have any suggestions towards remedies.

  • Laurel says:
    March 28, 2011 at 11:46 pm
    Reply

    While it is true that I do not know every particular of the situation at Northwestern, I stand by my use of it as an example supporting the greater theme of disparity between the treatment of men and women in the workplace. Perhaps a slightly more descriptive explanation of the two cases in academia would be the preferential treatment of professors with tenure as opposed to those without (though that is a separate issue).

    That being said, I believe that the role of gender cannot be discounted in this situation. Not many women would dare risk their valuable reputation by saying, as the Northwestern professor did, “Sticks and stones may break your bones, but watching naked people on stage doing pleasurable things will never hurt you.” Optional or not, I fail to see how arranging a live sex demonstration for students is more permissible than secretly moonlighting under a pseudonym at a nightclub.

  • Michael says:
    March 29, 2011 at 2:18 am
    Reply

    Hey Laurel,

    As a current student at Northwestern, I 100% agree with Laurence in his assessment of the recent Northwestern case. As Laurence noted, “The demonstration was optional, directly relevant to the class (an exploration of human sexual practices), and only served to help students in the class.” This is a spot on assessment of what occurred in this incident and would be affirmed by both male and female students. This professor certainly did not single out a certain gender in his show or acted based on a male-slanted basis. The week after, he invited a group of students to experience a transgender show at a gay bar. http://www.chron.org/2011/03/breaking-news-bailey-invites-students-to-drag-show/

    Whether or not you agree with the professor’s ideology or open exploration of sexuality (as many do not), it does not change the fact that the professor’s decision was protected by the University, as any other professor’s decision (male or female) would have been. The gender of the professor had no effect on the overall outcome of the situation.

    Thus, I have to disagree with you on your assessment of the Northwestern incident as an example of gender bias in academia.

  • Laurel says:
    March 30, 2011 at 10:35 pm
    Reply

    Laurence and Michael, I understand and respect both of your opinions. I still disagree with the professor’s actions and am surprised at the university’s handling of the situation. I noticed that both of you focused in on this particular case. I merely used it as a comparison to the incident in California. Because you both are so staunchly defending this professor at Northwestern, what say you about the JFK professor and her (in)actions?

  • Michael says:
    March 31, 2011 at 1:50 am
    Reply

    Hey Laurel, it took me awhile to come to an answer to your question, but I think I finally got it. The female professor in question has no contractual protection under university policy because she is not tenured. Subsequently, if they believe her actions brought “public disrespect, contempt and ridicule to the university”, as the university officials stated, then they have every right to dismiss her even without warning. Now, if this other male professor was not tenured and he was in a similar outside public position as the female professor, as she claims, then I believe she is being held to a double standard. That is not to say that the university didn’t have the right to fire her, but that they are not enforcing their policies fairly and are thereby at fault. Thus, I believe she has a strong chance of winning a sexual discrimination case.

Leave a Comment