Via Robert McClelland, we find this revealing exchange:
[NDP] MP Irene Mathyssen: I wonder, do you think that equal pay for work of equal value is a laudable goal?
[REAL Women's] Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: No, it’s a feminist concept. We do not agree with that.
Mrs. Irene Mathyssen: You talked about professionals in Canada, women having reached professional status. Were you aware that even in female-dominated professions in Canada, women still make less on average than their male counterparts?
Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt: Yes. And do you know why that is? Because women work differently from men.
Ignore, if you will, why an MP is wasting her time and energy on a right-wing dingbat like Landolt. Rather, imagine the hilarity that would ensue if Mathyssen introduced a private member's bill to (in accord with Landolt's anti-feminism) reduce all female Conservative MP's salaries to, say, 75% of their male counterparts, and all those "anti-feminist" CPoC MPs suddenly decided that Landolt was a screeching loon and they didn't want anything to do with her.
Man, I'd pay to watch that.
7 comments:
I'm still working on why the transcript shifted from MP Mathyssen to "Mrs." Mathyssen while continuing to use "Ms." the eeevil feminist term that blurs the married status of a woman is used for the REAL WOMAN tm.
REAL WOMEN Canada is just another franchise outlet of the American right wing HQ, run by fluffy white men except for the times they have the token Lady XX stand up and repeat their talking points.
Per usual, no one is interfering with RWoC desires to live a life subservient to their lord husbands and all other (white?) males in the world, but they can't rest easy until all women share their 'natural' state.
"...do you think that equal pay for work of equal value is a laudable goal?"
There is a trap in this question. It assumes that people will think that "work of equal value" is the same thing is "equal work." And unmentioned, but implied, is the thought that if you don't agree with this concept, you're a sexist pig.
The concept to agree with should be "equal pay for equal work."
Nobody has been able to come up with a way to measure "work of equal value."
Nobody has been able to come up with a way to measure "work of equal value."
And that includes the one we have now; the market. So what's the point exactly? LanDOLT is still an idiot for basically saying that women work in ways that should be valued less than men.
She should never be taken seriously again and her wingnut sugar-daddies should stop supporting her.
Chimera: Yeah, I spotted the trap there too, although it seems to me that "equal pay for work of equal value" is still a "laudable goal" despite measurement difficulties (in fact, it can actually be a "laudable goal" and a "feminist concept" at the same time).
Fortunately, the second question isn't ambiguous at all - it is about "equal pay for equal work" - and the sexism in Landolt's response is also much more plain.
Large corporations and other hierarchical institutions deal with "work of equal value" every day.
When designing pay scales for new positions, they compare the duties of the new position with those of other jobs.
If the new position does some things that people in a lower pay scale do as well as other things done by people in higher pay brackets, they calculate the mix and pay the new position accordingly.
It's not that novel a concept.
Adam: That second question is unambiguous. However, it was piggy-backed as a follow-up to the first question, and the insinuation is that both questions are the same. They are not.
I don't think much of Landolt, either. When doing the same job as men, women do not work differently from men. And she's an idiot if she thinks she makes any sense by insisting that they do.
Thwap: It may not be a new concept, but "equal pay for work of equal value" is one of the most bizarre smoke screens ever devised for paymasters to play games with. Corporations do not "deal with" the concept of work of equal value, because they have no idea what it means. And neither does anyone else. What they do is dress it up, pose it, bling it out, take it for a walk, and try to sell it to anyone who looks enough like a sucker to buy it. And because someone was crafty enough to put the "feminist-stamp-of-approval" on it, if you don't agree with it, you're accused of being a sexist pig.
Oink.
Chimera,
So, your response to the fact that the concept is employed frequently in larger workplaces is outright denial?
Thank you for playing.
Post a Comment