The worst state for women is Louisiana. “In terms of economic security, health and leadership representation, the analysis rates Louisiana the lowest. Full-time working women in Louisiana earn only 67 percent of what men earn, on average, and more than one in five women and girls in Louisiana are currently living in poverty. “
The best state is Maryland.
“The report also considered in its ratings the state’s minimum wage, family leave policies, percentage of 4-year-olds enrolled in pre-K, the gender management gap and publicly funded contraceptive services. Other states that earned an “F” overall in these categories are Utah, Oklahoma, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Arkansas, South Dakota, Indiana and Georgia. “Â
South Dakota joins the southern states at the bottom of the barrel. Utah is 49th and SD is 43rd.
Red Taliban States.
No hidden agenda or bias in these rankings I’m sure.
Yes, the Center for American Progress is a progressive organization. But I am uncertain what the ‘hidden agenda’ would be? Pay equality for women? Yeah, that’s a pretty awful agenda . . . put your computer down and go back to your cave.
I suspect “Pen 15’s” comment on a hidden agenda is based upon how it is in the best interest of liberal and progressive groups to continue to suggest that the Democrats care about women while the Republicans do not.
If you objectively look at some of the criteria they used for this grading system, ask yourself why this grade is tied to only women. Take the minimum wage for example – that impacts men and women alike, but the authors are trying to suggest it is more of an issue impacting women due to women having a higher chance of being employed in part time roles or due to them not being the primary earner in a household. Yet objectively – wages impact everyone regardless of gender.
Now look at the percentage of 4-year olds enrolled in pre-K. Why is this a women’s issue? The issue doesn’t separate girls and boys from being enrolled but rather is suggesting for some reason this is an issue that is an indicator of fairness to women? Why doesn’t this impact men as well? Are they suggesting that only women care about education or that women are at a disadvantage over their male counterparts if they don’t get a head start prior to kindergarten? Seems a bit sexist doesn’t it?
How about family leave policies? We have federal laws mandating time off for all parents, but they are trying to suggest this is unfair to women as if men have no desire to have time off due to family needs. The truth is, there is no difference between the amount of time given to men and women, but they assume for some reason this is unfair to one sex?
The point is, you can find inequality if you really look for it, but does that tell the whole story? Even if you look at wages alone it is meaningless without context. Yes few will dispute that women earn less than men, but when you start focusing upon select attributes such as level of education, years of experience, and specific career you soon find out the income gap all but disappears. For example, this is to say when you look at men and women with four year degrees who work as mid-level managers for insurance companies and who have been on the job for 10 to 12 years you will find there is very little, if any, gap in income between the sexes. In fact, when adjusted for other factors some recent studies have found men and women earn equal pay for equal work much more than previously thought.
It turns out the primary reason women earn less than men has to do with the careers they choose to enter into. More women enter careers like teaching, nursing, childcare, and administrative positions. On the otherhand, men tend to enter careers like those in the financial industry, sales, law, and technology. The career chosen has a much stronger correlation to one’s earnings as does gender. However – that isn’t nearly as fun to talk about, and it isn’t about to score anyone political points so it tends to be hidden amongst the piles of similar studies published in economic journals each year.
Back to this specific study, I won’t say I know if career choice is the determining factor leading to wage inequality in South Dakota or any other other “red” states shown here, but I just mention this because statistics and numbers only tell a portion of the story, and unless you really know how to interpret the data and understand the detail – you can fall into the trap of accepting the conclusions drawn by an author… which is pretty much what they want you to do.
I have often said that men make more in a particular field because men typically are more assertive when asking for a raise. But trust me, that is just my opinion. WM has gotten into trouble several times for paying female managers less then male managers. When we were interviewing Mike Myers the other day he said that 65% of the student body is Female at USD.
“65% of the student body is Female at USD.”
That is true (within a few percent) and that number has been steadily rising over the past decade. Depending upon the University and what majors they offer you see this quite often.
Look no further than DSU and you’ll see the vast majority are male. The School of Mines is the same way, while BHSU is overwhelmingly female. When you start thinking about the majors these schools specialize in, it tends to make sense. Although for USD I’m not sure I can really explain it – I wonder what has changed in the past 10 or 15 years to cause the shift.
Sure seems like 17 year old boys should give USD some strong consideration though doesn’t it?
I suspect “Pen 15′s†comment on a hidden agenda is based upon how it is in the best interest of liberal and progressive groups to continue to suggest that the Democrats care about women while the Republicans do not.
Repubs care about womens rights? Please. Some examples? Maybe even one? How bout a woman’s right to choose….say….an abortion?
I worked for a large company in my day. If ten mid management jobs were of offered to 50 men and 50 women….all with equal skills…9 of the 10 would go to the man…because, we’ll because that’s the way God intended it.
I’m lucky, my wife makes 50% more a year than I do.
Poly – let’s be clear. Politicians and political parties care more about getting themselves reelected and staying in power than they will ever care about women (or men for that matter).
I’m not about to get into a debate about which party cares more for one group or another – I was merely making an observation about why a perceived bias in this report would not really be all that surprising.
As to your experience with the hiring pracitces of your company, I’m not sure what decade you worked for them, but I can tell you in no uncertain terms that things have drastically changed. The scenario you describe isn’t reflective of most modern companies because most successful companies have realized not only does the best candidate do more for them in the long run, but diversity in leadership is a huge asset that pays back year after year.
Yes there are certain areas where you will find more men in leadership roles, but there are other areas where there are many more women. It really boils down to the career field more than anything although I’d be lying if I said there weren’t areas where a disparity exists just as there are still people out there who refuse to hire someone of a specific race even if they would be a far superior candidate.
there are still people out there who refuse to hire someone of a specific race even if they would be a far superior candidate.
Same with gender….regardless of decade. Spin your story any way you like Craig, gender bias is alive and well.
“Repubs care about womens rights? Please. Some examples?”
Ratified the constitution in 1870 allowing women to vote. And then again in 1915
Created special legislation in 1879 to allow women to practice law before the supreme court.
Civil Rights Act of 1964
1981 First female supreme court justice appointed by Reagan
1994 Gender Equity in Education Act
LJL, you are referring to a GOP no longer in existence.
Poly – I’ll bet you Craig doesn’t “get” that whether or not 4-year-olds are enrolled in preschool has something to do with expectations about where a woman “belongs” (work/home) as a social/cultural attitude toward women within a state. I’ll also bet he doesn’t get that his entire post could be interpreted as coming from a position of bias against women – deeply engrained – accepted as “normal”.
Eisenhower Civil Rights Act of 1960.
Interesting how Dems decide when parties no longer exist or change. Dem KKK members of the ’60’s are now Repubs in their opinion. NO, they were Southern Dems. Liberals love to put everybody in a neat little pigeonhole to suit their political needs.
Are present KKK members Repubs – Dems – or just white separatist with no real link to party affiliation.
Non Democratic blacks and whites rarely registered as Republicans in the South in the 50’s and 60’s as the Southern Democrats did not care which race they hung.
Okay, both of you anon advocates deserve credit on this one. Credit it LJL for digging up these artifacts, and Credit to Testor for pointing out the GOP of the past.
LJL’s Republicans haven’t existed since the 19th century:
“Civil Rights Act of 1964”
It was the leadership of northern Democrats and a southern Democratic President who made this happen.
“1981 First female supreme court justice appointed by Reagan”
And “only Nixon could go to China,” Justice O Connor turned out to be pro-choice to the chagrin of the pro-life/ anti-women Republican Party.
“1994 Gender Equity in Education Act”
1994? The GOP didn’t take over control of the US Congress until 1995. Why do they get credit for it. It was this same contemporaneous Republican Party which passed the DOMA Act…. (Yeah, I know with the help of a southern Democratic President.)
When you realize that Sioux Falls as a metropolitan area has the largest percentage of working moms in the country, and that their income is not potentially competitive with other states in the region only further strengthens the embarrassing reality of this story.
Unless you are going to claim that wages for women in Sioux Falls are at least competitive relative to the region, which in other word means that South Dakota women outside of the Sioux Falls metropolitan area are doing a lot worse than the meager State mean suggests.
LJL, if we were still in the 19th century, I assure you, I would be a registered repub. The parties have done complete 180’s since then, particularly since 1980. Today Eishenhower with his his remarks about the mitary industrial complex and funding for the Interstate highway system would be way to left of center. Same for Nixon for pulling out of Vietnam and china relations.
Your party redefined itself in 1980 with Reagan and his trickle down economics model. So how’s that working out so far? One in eight in SD on snap?
And womens rights and the NEW repub party? Take a few minutes. Just a tip of the tip of the iceberg.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VYcFHBEEfAg