Rachel Maddow Makes History and Triumphs over the War On Women

By: Jason EasleyApr. 29th, 2012more from Jason Easley

Republicans tried to target Rachel Maddow in their war on women, but Maddow made history by calling out the GOP’s condescending misogyny on Meet The Press.

Here is the video:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Transcript:

RACHEL MADDOW: Policy. It should be about policy. And all of our best debates are always about policy. And it should be about policy that affects women specifically. The Romney campaign wants to talk about women and the economy. Women in this country still make 77 cents on the dollar for what men make. So if–

ALEX CASTELLANOS: Not exactly.

RACHEL MADDOW: Women don’t make less than men?

ALEX CASTELLANOS: Actually, if you start looking at the numbers, Rachel, there are lots of reasons for that.

RACHEL MADDOW: Wait, wait. No.

ALEX CASTELLANOS: Well, first of all, we–

RACHEL MADDOW: Don’t tell me what the reasons are. Do women make less than men for the same work?

ALEX CASTELLANOS: Actually–

ALEX CASTELLANOS: –because.

RACHEL MADDOW: No? (LAUGH) Okay. No.

ALEX CASTELLANOS: Well, for example—

ALEX CASTELLANOS: –men work an average of 44 hours a week. Women work 41 hours a week. Men go into professions like engineering, science and math that earn more. Women want more flexibility–

RACHEL MADDOW: Listen, this is not a math is hard type of conversation.

ALEX CASTELLANOS: No, no. Yes, it is, actually.

RACHEL MADDOW: No, it isn’t.

ALEX CASTELLANOS: We’re having to look–

RACHEL MADDOW: No, listen–

DAVID GREGORY: All right, let Rachel–

RACHEL MADDOW: Right now women are making 77 cents–

ALEX CASTELLANOS: And litigated–

RACHEL MADDOW: –on the dollar for what men are making, so–

ALEX CASTELLANOS: Well, that’s not true.

RACHEL MADDOW:–so–

ALEX CASTELLANOS: If so every–

DAVID GREGORY: All right, let Rachel make her point.

ALEX CASTELLANOS: –greedy businessman in America would hire only women, save 25% and be hugely profitable.

RACHEL MADDOW: I feel like this is actually–

ALEX CASTELLANOS: That’s it.

RACHEL MADDOW: –and it’s weird that you’re interrupting me and not letting me make my point, because we get along so well. So let me make my point.

ALEX CASTELLANOS: I will.

RACHEL MADDOW: But it is important, I think, the interruption is important, I think, because now we know, at least from both of your perspectives that women are not faring worse than men in the economy. That women aren’t getting paid less for equal work. I think that’s a serious difference in factual understanding of the world.

But given that some of us believe that women are getting paid less than men for doing the same work, there is something called the Fair Pay Act. There was a court ruling that said the statute of limitations, if you’re getting paid less than a man, if you’re subject to discrimination, starts before you know that discrimination is happening, effectively cutting off your recourse to the courts. You didn’t know you were being discriminated against. You can’t go.

The first law passed by this administration is the Fair Pay Act. To remedy that court ruling. The Mitt Romney campaign put you out as a surrogate to shore up people’s feelings about this issue after they could not say whether or not Mitt Romney would have signed that bill. You’re supposed to make us feel better about it. You voted against the Fair Pay Act. It’s not about–whether or not you have a female surrogate. It’s about policy and whether or not you want to fix some of the structural discrimination that women really do face that Republicans don’t believe is happening.

DAVID GREGORY: It’s policy is the argument.

ALEX CASTELLANOS: It’s policy. And I love how passionate you are. I wish you are as right about what you’re saying as you are passionate about it. I really do.

RACHEL MADDOW: That’s really condescending.

ALEX CASTELLANOS: For example– no.

RACHEL MADDOW: I mean this is a stylistic issue.

ALEX CASTELLANOS: I’ll tell you what–

RACHEL MADDOW: My passion on this issue–

ALEX CASTELLANOS: Here’s a fact–

RACHEL MADDOW:–is actually me making a factual argument–

Rachel Maddow was correct. The interruption by Castellanos was significant, because Republicans don’t want to talk about the war on women. They have adopted the same position towards the rights of women that they long ago adopted towards issues like poverty and racism. It doesn’t exist. Castellanos was trying to muddy the waters with funny math designed to deny the fact that women earn less than men. Women who work full time earn 77% of what men do. Until today, that fact was not in dispute.

Castellanos tried to use different factors to claim that the wage gap doesn’t exist, but even when all factors are taken into account, 41% of the wage gap is unexplained. This means that when a man and a woman have the same background, are doing the same job, and are working the same hours, women still make less money than men.

For Alex Castellanos the argument was matter of political strategy. His goal was to make some people believe that there is cause for question on the existence of the pay gap. (You may also recognize this strategy as the exact same course the right has pursued on climate change).

Castellanos’s behavior towards Maddow proved that the Republican Party has declared war on women. By watching the video, you can see his condescending tone directed at Maddow. When he said that he appreciated her passion, but that she was wrong, he was trying to portray her as an irrational woman who was being guided by her emotions.

The fact that Alex Castellanos thought he had the right to demean Dr. Rachel Maddow’s intellect because she is a woman demonstrates that the Republican Party’s war on women goes deeper than politics and policy. In their hearts, they truly believe that women aren’t equal to men.

It was enraging and embarrassing to watch Rachel Maddow get treated that way on national television. It is even more embarrassing to think that most men, including myself, have behaved that way at one time or another towards a woman. (The good news is that men can learn, grow, and change if they really want to.)

The Republican war on women is a political affirmation of misogyny. The Republican message to men is vote for us to reclaim your rightful place of superiority. You don’t have to change. Women are beneath you. Let’s keep them in their place. We can stop progress. Sadly, there is a group of men in this country who find the prospect of codified misogyny both attractive and exciting.

The goal was to put Rachel Maddow in her place, and to stop the “hysteria” from the “girls” who don’t understand that because men say so there is no war on women and pay gap.

When Rachel Maddow called out Alex Castellanos’s misogyny on Meet The Press it was an historic moment in the push back against the war on women. I can’t remember another woman in the media standing up and calling out the condescending behavior of the right wing champions of the war on women. The mainstream media, except for MSNBC, has mostly ignored the war on women. Much like the Republican Party, the media has acted like it does not exist.

Republicans are afraid. They don’t want the country to know about their anti-woman agenda, and they would love nothing more than to discredit one of the primary national watchdogs of their behavior, Rachel Maddow.

But this is bigger than Rachel Maddow on Meet The Press. This is a civil rights issue that impacts all Americans regardless of gender. There are no men’s issues, or women’s issues. There are American issues, and we all must stand together to reject the agenda of discrimination and inequality being perpetuated on us by the Republican Party under the guise of a war on women.

Because this isn’t a war on women, it’s a war on us all.

Rachel Maddow Makes History and Triumphs over the War On Women was written by Jason Easley for PoliticusUSA.

Rachel Maddow Intellectually Destroys the Republican War On Women
Rachel Maddow responded to the Republican denial of a pay gap, and the Meet The Press attack on her, by ...
Rachel Maddow Shoots down the Right's Myth of the Gun Hating Liberal
The right is always trying to portray the entire left and especially Rachel Maddow as wimpy and anti-gun ...
Rachel Maddow Lays Waste To The GOP's Bogus Obama War On Religion
On Meet The Press, Rachel Maddow debunked the Republican claim that Obama has declared war on religion a ...
Rachel Maddow: The Healthcare Bill Contains a Poison Pill for Progressives
Rachel Maddow was on Meet The Press today talking about the healthcare bill that the House recently passed. ...
Rachel Maddow Cuts Off Paul Ryan's Obama Lie Filled Romney Introduction
Paul Ryan's introduction of Mitt Romney after the Wisconsin primary was so full of lies and inaccuracies ...

By Blogsdna

177 Responses to Rachel Maddow Makes History and Triumphs over the War On Women

Bobfr (aka Our4thEstate)

Apr. 29th, 2012 at 6:07 pm

Outstanding essay Jason.

Couple of tweets for you:

twitter.com/#!/Our4thEstate/status/196722003590389760

twitter.com/#!/Our4thEstate/status/196720454378061826

#AmericaThisIsNotATest

#PRESSON
What do you think? 0 0
Carrie

Apr. 29th, 2012 at 6:12 pm

Amazingly honest and brilliant writing jason. I’m si furious at that condescending dirtbag will someone start a petition to make him apologize to Rachel who is ten times smarter than his pea brain can even comprehend?! Please!!!
What do you think? 0 0
- Gigi Jacobs
  
  Apr. 29th, 2012 at 11:54 pm
  
  I do think Ms. Maddow’s comments on the misogyny and the condescending behavior were good calls. I do however wish she had mentioned to this rude and uninformed jerk how statistical studies are done. In other words, I’ve heard many conservatives argue that the difference in pay is due to having different jobs, different seniority, difference in the number of hours, etc. If he knew anything, he’d know that when they say a woman makes .77 cents on the dollars they compare equal situations. That means they compare a woman and a man doing the same job, with the same performance level and the same seniority, etc. Many conservatives have no idea about facts, statistics, science, etc. That would have been the only thing I would have added as it seems that this misconception occurs frequently among conservatives.
  What do you think? 0 0
  - jaQ
    
    Apr. 30th, 2012 at 6:52 am
    
    The 77% comes from median wages of men and women; it is NOT adjusted for any mitigating factors. See the links in this article – adjusting explains some, but not all, of the pay gap. When considering “equal work,” there is still a gap, just a smaller one.
    What do you think? 0 0
Shiva (Moderator)

Apr. 29th, 2012 at 6:13 pm

Men ALWAYS shy away when the point is equal pay for equal work. They go directly to women make more and then the hypocrisy when they say men make more because they go into engineering and higher paying jobs.

Not one tv caricature ever stays with the topic when its about equals. I wonder why?

Which is it? Castellano buried himself twice on that one.
As one who has traveled the US representing for my company to the Big 3, I can tell you there’s lots of women in the Engineering fields in the auto industry. I would have to assume that the same is true in other industrys. Sorry Castellanos you fail
What do you think? 0 0
- Jo Hargis
  
  Apr. 29th, 2012 at 7:06 pm
  
  Heck it isn’t even about how many women go into math and engineering! Rachel’s whole point was that a woman doing the exact same job, same company, same hours, makes less than a man. So this applies to ANY job, even some traditionally considered to be a woman’s field like nursing (which has changed from that stereotype). Try telling a male nurse that his pay will be 77% of a woman’s and watch the chit hit the fan.
  
  There are two major things the GOP is trying to do this election season, that we MUST not let them get by with. One is the war on women, in all ways….reproductive rights all the way to equal rights/pay. The other is the Sanitizing of George W. Bush. They desperately want to make people forget him, what he did, the legacy he left the US. They’re determined to make Obama own the entire recession and all its resulting problems. While it’s only fair that Obama does own certain things, we cannot let them make folks believe GWB had nothing to do with us getting here.
  What do you think? 0 0
  - A Walkaway
    
    Apr. 30th, 2012 at 12:49 pm
    
    In my field (archaeology), women make the same pay for the same job. In a really grueling (but reasonably small) job we just completed, two out of of an eight person crew were women, and they got the same pay as the rest of us, and rightly so. They worked just as hard, faced the same difficulties and unpleasantnesses we did, and had the same level of education and ability. On a previous job, it was the same. They were COLLEAGUES, and that’s the way I like it.
    
    Maybe there is some connection between level of education and equality. All of the archaeologists I know have a degree – most have at least a M.A. or PhD (or are working on it) and I’ve been told that having a M.A is becoming the rule. I know a relationship between level of education and equal pay is not a hard and fast rule (I think female college professors still get paid less on a nation-wide average, as stupid as that is), but with fields requiring higher education, there does seem to be more expectation of equality.
    What do you think? 0 0
- Gigi Jacobs
  
  Apr. 29th, 2012 at 11:56 pm
  
  Good call Shiva!
  What do you think? 0 0
Sarah Jones

Apr. 29th, 2012 at 6:23 pm

What an idiotic little fool he is. I remember my first job working for an auto company doing the same job as a man and one day I found out they paid the men at least 100 dollars a day more than the women, no matter what our level of experience. I was shocked that they admitted it and saw no problem with it. It was their “policy”.

I worked harder, took less breaks, and did more – all in high heels (try that, Alex) with my hair and nails done to their specification (which means extra time at home getting ready for the non-work we women do).

BITE ME, Alex, and by the way, your knuckles are dragging on the floor, you poor little fool.
What do you think? 0 0
- Shiva (Moderator)
  
  Apr. 29th, 2012 at 6:40 pm
  
  Im having a problem understanding how you really feel here
  What do you think? 0 0
  - Sarah Jones
    
    Apr. 29th, 2012 at 6:51 pm
    
    Lysistrata!
    What do you think? 0 0
    - Shiva (Moderator)
      
      Apr. 29th, 2012 at 7:05 pm
      
      I had to google it but point taken lol
      What do you think? 0 0
- john cairns
  
  Apr. 29th, 2012 at 7:46 pm
  
  Why they have the UAW…………equal pay for equal work.
  What do you think? 0 0
  - Sarah Jones
    
    Apr. 29th, 2012 at 8:52 pm
    
    Not all jobs are under the UAW. We were contractors.
    What do you think? 0 0
- Megan
  
  Apr. 29th, 2012 at 10:59 pm
  
  You are awesome!
  What do you think? 0 0
David N

Apr. 29th, 2012 at 6:27 pm

I think the fact that he cuts her off is not significant in that it shows how Republicans don’t want to discuss this issue. I think it is significant in that at the same time that he is arguing that women are treated as equals in the workplace he is failing to treat a woman as an equal in the workplace.
What do you think? 0 0
- Jo Hargis
  
  Apr. 29th, 2012 at 7:09 pm
  
  There is actually a whole LOT more to his interruptions than meets the eye, from a psychological standpoint. People that interrupt like that are sending a message that what the other person has to say is not as important, not as worthy; it’s a message of superiority. You’ll see this in your real life too; I know I do.
  What do you think? 0 0
  - David N
    
    Apr. 29th, 2012 at 8:00 pm
    
    Agreed, I just think it is particularly prevalent in male/female communication where misogyny is involved.
    What do you think? 0 0
  - f joy
    
    Apr. 30th, 2012 at 1:42 am
    
    One of the main points here is that this is the way all of the GOP act about all issues ever discussed. They talk over the opposing view, interrupt them, take up all the air time until the host has to break, and then they out and out lie. BRAVO for my heroine Rachel Maddow! She’s smart and the best at what she does, which is real journalism (unlike her host). Excellent post Jason. Hope it goes viral.
    
    Now if we can only get the main stream media to acknowledge every time the GOP says there’s no war on women, that someone can state all the legislation passed against women by state and federal government dominated by the Republican party in the last two years since the midterm (fiasco) elections.
    What do you think? 0 0
  - A Walkaway
    
    Apr. 30th, 2012 at 12:59 pm
    
    Very true, and it’s also a studied phenomena in anthropology and sociology. The use of language in culture is especially important and how it’s used is part of critical discourse analysis. The whole talk would make an interesting study of the way power structures are reinforced through language use.
    
    I noted just from the description of the situation a number of ways the audience was being told that Rachael’s views weren’t important or accepted, and even David Gregory added to the message. His was the “voice of authority” on that show as moderator, and by joining in with a comment that seems to align with Castellano suggests that she is in the wrong and her comments are not as informed or accurate as those of the Republicans.
    
    He should have put Castellano in his place right away, and by not doing so covertly supported him.
    
    I don’t have the time to really tear the whole thing apart, but it would make a worthwhile endeavor for someone who wanted to write a paper for a class (for instance).
    What do you think? 0 0
- PBerg
  
  Apr. 29th, 2012 at 9:42 pm
  
  Thanks for noticing that David N. I felt his scorn and attempt to belittle her from the first word out of his mouth. I hope she cold cocked this guy when she got off that round table ! :)
  What do you think? 0 0
Jose

Apr. 29th, 2012 at 6:29 pm

The answer is never the answer. What’s really interesting is the mystery. If you seek the mystery instead of the answer, you’ll always be seeking. I’ve never seen anybody really find the answer. They think they have, so they stop thinking. But the job is to seek mystery, evoke mystery, plant a garden in which strange plants grow and mysteries bloom. The need for mystery is greater than the need for an answer.
What do you think? 0 0
- Reynardine
  
  Apr. 29th, 2012 at 8:10 pm
  
  Jose, that’s delightful prose, but it makes me suspect that what you should be perusing is a Select Seeds Cream of the Crop catalog (I can’t praise them enough).
  What do you think? 0 0
Karen

Apr. 29th, 2012 at 6:29 pm

Go Rachel!!! I am a lucky female as an electrician and in a union so I make the same pay as men. I’m sure there are many men that would love to have a double tiered scale though.
What do you think? 0 0
John Henry

Apr. 29th, 2012 at 6:33 pm

I just can’t believe what a jerk that guy is. And he doesn’t even realize it.
What do you think? 0 0
- PBerg
  
  Apr. 29th, 2012 at 9:45 pm
  
  There are some men, with so little macho-ism, so small gonads themselves, that they must try and bring women down as low as they can so they feel better about themselves. Alex just proved he is one.
  What do you think? 0 0
- Margaret D. Blough
  
  Apr. 30th, 2012 at 12:20 am
  
  Oh, he realized it alright. He knew exactly what he was doing. He didn’t like what she had to say, so he did his damndest to make it impossible for her to make her point in an organized fashion. Gregory asked Maddow a question. Maddow was answering it when Castellanos breaks in and tries to hijack the discussion, disregarding even David Gregory’s efforts to stop him. Castellanos would have had his chance to present his view. He wanted to prevent Maddow from having hers. He was also insufferably condescending.
  What do you think? 0 0
Aine

Apr. 29th, 2012 at 6:35 pm

The pay gap is even there when you factor in job sector, so Castellano is pulling this out of his ass. Frankly, I’d like to see pay transparency… make them post publicly what wages and salaries they are paying men and women at each level of seniority. Then there would be no question which companies are discriminatory. As it is, how are women supposed to find out that information… dig in the accountant’s desk or safe or computer to look at pay stubs? Should we hack the company server?
What do you think? 0 0
Logical Intuit

Apr. 29th, 2012 at 6:39 pm

Brilliant focus on the actual behavior of AC, rather than trying to parse the words of his rhetoric. He not only behaved condescendingly toward ‘Dr. Maddow,’ he trotted out his “I married one” argument and every other one he could muster. First women are paid less because they don’t work as hard. Then women are NOT paid less than men. I esp. love the one about businessmen would hire only women to make more of a profit. Well, first of all, women have replaced men in many factory jobs because they are cheaper, although supposedly our healthcare costs more which is why the ACA has a so-called “slush fund” for women’s preventive healthcare to counter the requirement that women cannot be discriminated against in the cost of their insurance. Typical Republican shill, talking out of both sides of his mouth, throwing everything out there, just hoping something will stick in the minds of those who just listen to sound bites!
What do you think? 0 0
James Bowen

Apr. 29th, 2012 at 6:42 pm

Interruption is a long standing tactic of the right. The left has a tendency to be more polite. I wish talking heads like Gregory would make a better attempt to control their guest or maybe a produce or director could control the microphone.
What do you think? 0 0
- Irene Haralabatos
  
  Apr. 29th, 2012 at 7:46 pm
  
  Yeah, but Rachel did not let him run all over her. She refused to be intimidated but remained polite. (Likely, she knew that she was ten times as smart and ten times as informed as he was.. because that fact was obvious.)
  What do you think? 0 0
Moose100

Apr. 29th, 2012 at 6:54 pm

I’m a man and am sick of hearing the debate. Not b/c of the part where women CLEARLY deserve equal pay but b/c sexists rather keep the debate going as if “they don’t see why women need/want equal pay”. It’s like they want to keep this in a holding pattern. We all know why, just do it already! It’s more justifiable to give a women equal pay so if they do work less(i think it’s a bs stat), it’ll still be less mathwise. Secondly, how is it so bad to give women their extra 23 cents?? IT’s BS.
What do you think? 0 0
Jeremy

Apr. 29th, 2012 at 7:01 pm

Who is this Castellano guy? Do people really buy this kind of garbage?
What do you think? 0 0
Roger Becker

Apr. 29th, 2012 at 7:23 pm

Even this businessman’s rag “Forbes Magazine” says women are discriminated against shown by lower wages than men.

www.forbes.com/sites/free...
What do you think? 0 0
Ed Doyle

Apr. 29th, 2012 at 7:24 pm

Rachel is fantastic!: Castellanous owes Rachel an apology for treating her as if she was some nit wit. Rachel was able to push through the baloney the GOP calls facts and make their argument look very lame as to why women make 25% less than a man.
What do you think? 0 0
Tom 1

Apr. 29th, 2012 at 7:42 pm

His face with his slimy smile made me laugh. Loser! If the host cant get control of Alex he shouldn’t have him on again.
What do you think? 0 0
Irene Haralabatos

Apr. 29th, 2012 at 7:42 pm

It was so beautiful when she said that it was “weird” that he was interrupting her and when she said “That is SO condescending” She was SO right… She refused to be intimidated because she knew she had the facts on her side..(Also, she was likely the smartest person in the room at the time.)
What do you think? 0 0
rewinn

Apr. 29th, 2012 at 8:15 pm

First, kudos to Rachel for modelling effective action. I for one can learn from her example!
Second, the pompous argument “Women can’t be being paid less because if so everyone would hire women” is simply illogical. When an observed fact disagrees with a theory, the conclusion is not that the observation is wrong but that the theory is incomplete. In this case, the simplified economic theory is at odds with the observed fact because there is more to business that simple economics. For example, a culture that agrees to discriminate against women will punish organization that seek advantage by nondiscrimination, because the short-term advantage to the fair-minded organization is outweighed by the long-term advantage to that organization of playing by the discriminatory rules. This is an aspect of economics that “conservatives” pretend doesn’t exist, for obvious reasons.
What do you think? 0 0
- A Walkaway
  
  Apr. 30th, 2012 at 11:12 am
  
  Very accurate summation, and it goes for all forms of discrimination. The racial discrimination I observed (and experienced) was reinforced by underground business organizations and networks that ostracized those who didn’t go along and minority business owners DO face a far tougher time (regardless of gender, race, etc.).
  
  Those underground networks were promoting private by-invitation-only seminars on business back when I owned my small business and they were pushing me hard to participate. The seminars were (in less pro-business vernacular) “How to legally destroy unions and keep them away from your business, and how to spot and fire union sympathizers” and “How to discriminate against minorities and get away with it”. I have one of their seminar manuals (on the unions seminar), and for instance it says to never hire anyone with a doctorate… because they’ve learned to think critically and are more likely to insist on fair treatment for employees. I never attended, partially because they wanted more money than I could afford to expend, and mainly because although I never showed it, I opposed the things they promoted.
  
  The couple of women-owned and women-run businesses I was familiar with were excluded from the business networks, and the rhetoric I heard against them was hostile to put it mildly. The general attitude for 90% of my customers were that a woman was too emotional and tended to overreact and try to be too assertive and authoritarian (in their words, a real b*tch)… never mind that the woman was acting just like they did. (They were expecting more subservient behavior, which they would never do themselves.)
  
  I’ve always said that if I had my choice (not taking into consideration the punitive measures taken by the networks and organizations), I’d hire a minority first, because of the atmosphere found in most of the businesses in Florida. To achieve the same level of competence on paper, a woman or other minority has to deal with so much more and be so much more efficient that in essence, you’re getting a far more competent employee than at first glance.
  
  I have to admit I don’t and didn’t share the same values as the company owners I dealt with. In their own words and view, minorities of all types are inherently of less value and quality than straight white males. It’s a stupid attitude, but I learned that it doesn’t take intelligence to succeed in business (for the most part just greed and a smidgen of luck).
  What do you think? 0 0
Reynardine

Apr. 29th, 2012 at 8:18 pm

I have stated what I think of Presstitute Gregory and his anilingual deference to Republicans. Now we have him enabling the whole don’t-you-worry-your-pretty-little-head-little-lady thing. Do what I have done. Turn off Meet the Presstitute and tell NBC and the sponsors both it doesn’t get turned back on until there is a deal more of journalism, fairness, and common courtesy on it (I also feel Gregory has a rather tall closet).
What do you think? 0 0
Deborah Montesano

Apr. 29th, 2012 at 8:19 pm

This society and many others are absolutely sick with misogyny–and it’s so in our faces that it can only mean that the old,white power structure is totally threatened by women. Rachel Maddow is exquisitely capable of standing up for women, as we all need to become. Misogyny is embedded in our culture, reinforced by conservatives, but runs rampant through the major religions. See “Religion: If It Only Had a Brain” at thepoliticali.blogspot.co....
What do you think? 0 0
csavage

Apr. 29th, 2012 at 8:27 pm

Female physicians are one of those groups who make less than their male counterparts for some unclear reason-it was so unclear that a paper highlighting the discrepancy actually got printed in the Annals of Internal Medicine. But, I digress…conservatives believe in maintaining the social order. In 2012, that order is men first, preferably rich, white, older males. It’s not a “war”, it’s groups of people who apparently don’t know their place, at least according to conservatives. We are just being “uppity” and that’s what we should say when we call conservatives out.
What do you think? 0 0
Daleks

Apr. 29th, 2012 at 8:31 pm

Rachel always does a great job of handling Republican filth. And it isn’t just Castellanos, who has been doing this for years. Dirty Republicans always talk over and filibuster anyone with an opposing viewpoint. Just watch Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity.
What do you think? 0 0
Sugapea

Apr. 29th, 2012 at 8:40 pm

Rachel Maddow was brilliant!
This is the first time (I believe) she’s been on ‘Meet The Press’. Maddow was very excited about this interview…and she was excellent.

Please, would some of you write a brief comment to MTP…on how we want to see more Rachel Maddow on MTP & what an interesting interview:

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6872...
What do you think? 0 0
- ejpoeta
  
  Apr. 29th, 2012 at 9:56 pm
  
  Just an FYI… rachel maddow has been on MTP several times. I wish she were the host instead of that gregory. I don’t watch anyway…. but would watch rachel maddow. She is always so polite but doesn’t let anyone trample her. Sad thing is if she were the host she wouldn’t be able to get any republicans on. they are afraid of her.
  What do you think? 0 0
katie kintner

Apr. 29th, 2012 at 8:46 pm

What a condescending paternalistic asshole.
What do you think? 0 0
Debbie

Apr. 29th, 2012 at 8:49 pm

Bravo Rachel!!!
What do you think? 0 0
Bill Metcalf

Apr. 29th, 2012 at 8:51 pm

I would have asked the Republican on the panel if they thought Lilly Ledbetter was treated fair.
What do you think? 0 0
Lysana

Apr. 29th, 2012 at 9:02 pm

If hiring the people who make less on the dollar than white, cisgender men was the way to cheaper US employees, transgender women of color would have 100% employment. That 77 cents line is mutable, all right, but it requires averaging out the women who are closest (white cisgender women) with those who are furthest away (trans PoC). Men of color make less per dollar than white men and white women, too. And the disparity isn’t accountable fully by occupation of choice for them, either. So Castellanos was ironically accurate, and yet so, so wrong. And condescending. And sexist.
What do you think? 0 0
- Vernon L Landry Sr
  
  Apr. 29th, 2012 at 11:15 pm
  
  Those are traits that they think are appealing and charming. Shows just how out of touch the republicans are and the people who put them in office. I feel sorry for them if Romney is elected. they think Scott Walker and the other radical governors are bad, just give Romney the key to the executive wash room and see who hands he washes…one guess?
  What do you think? 0 0
sonoma madman

Apr. 29th, 2012 at 10:27 pm

when the dude said “i married one,” rachel should have said “so would i if you guys would give me the chance!” :)
What do you think? 0 0
Moongal6

Apr. 29th, 2012 at 10:43 pm

This message never gets old (unfortunately), even though the quote is from the 1700′s.

“Nature has given women so much power, that the law very wisely has given them little”………Samuel Johnson

Some things never change.
What do you think? 0 0
Michael

Apr. 29th, 2012 at 10:52 pm

“In 2008, single, childless women between ages 22 and 30 were earning more than their male counterparts in most U.S. cities, with incomes that were 8% greater on average, according to an analysis of Census Bureau data released Wednesday by Reach Advisors, a consumer-research firm in Slingerlands, N.Y.”

Sometimes a man gets paid more…sometimes a woman gets paid more. Almost all the time, it has nothing to do with gender – although I’m sure we can find exceptions at uncompetitive businesses.

Also, those who actually understand something about economics should realize Mr. Castellanos’ example is relevant. If a business could save 23 percent of its labor costs by hiring equally productive employees, it would do that and crush its competition…but nobody is doing that. Is it because every business is sexist? Or is it because hiring someone for 23 percent less often gets you an employee who works less or is less productive or spends more time taking care of children?

The words coming out of Mr. Castellanos’ mouth sound dumb because he is not a good communicator. But if you leave emotion out of this, his argument actually makes sense.
What do you think? 0 0
- Shiva (Moderator)
  
  Apr. 29th, 2012 at 11:23 pm
  
  Single childless women are usually professionals and creating careers for themselves. Its a strawman
  
  Go to work in general offices and you will find the truth. Women do get paid much less than men for doing the same jobs. I seen it for years and years.
  
  You are wrong that it has nothing to do with Gender
  What do you think? 0 0
  - Michael
    
    Apr. 29th, 2012 at 11:35 pm
    
    So that 8 percent is entirely made up of people who “are making careers for themselves?” And their male counterparts don’t “make careers for themselves” too? I don’t buy that and I doubt many others do.
    
    And again, if equally productive people are consistently paid much less (which isn’t the case; see statistics above), why wouldn’t a company:
    
    a) hire only these equally productive people for less;
    b) sell its product for less than the competition; and
    c) put every company which pays too much for productivity out of business?
    
    Or is every company too sexist/stubborn/stupid to maximize its profits?
    What do you think? 0 0
    - 0

Michael Dimwit: assembly line workers, nursing staff, teachers, secretaries, and tellers are all predominantly women exactly because their employers can pay them less. All that stuff used to be done by men (Bob Cratchett-remember?) Only men commanded higher salaries, because it was assumed they were supporting families (and not all were), while it was assumed women were not (but many were). Female labor has displaced male in many times, places, and occupations just because of that.

What do you think?

'http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/dddfe2024c5f9e48815b1a589fae12ce?s=40&d=monsterid&r=PG' class='avatar avatar-40 photo' height='40' width='40'/>style="display:none;visibility:hidden;" data-cfsrc='http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/ca16a6f0379b64479f4f734fc200bd07?s=40&d=monsterid&r=PG' class='avatar avatar-40 photo' height='40' width='40'/>

Michael

Apr. 30th, 2012 at 10:34 am

Reynardine – we’re getting closer. What are your thoughts on the statistic I provided (single, childless women aged 22-30 made 8 percent more than their male counterparts, on average, in 2008)?

But let’s move beyond the occupations you mentioned (since you admit these are filled predominantly by women already).

Let’s specifically look at an occupation which “commands higher salaries” – how about “Hollywood film directors.” Only 2.7 percent of the directors of the 100 top-grossing films of 2008 were directed by women – nothing inherently wrong with this (it’s entirely possible that fewer women want these jobs or that fewer women are qualified). Most likely, these women are also paid less (there are no women on the top 12 highest paid film directors) – nothing inherently wrong with that. But we would agree something would be wrong if film studios paid women less money or didn’t hire them all together, simply because they were women.

So I ask you again, which of the following is true?

a) all of the world’s greatest film companies are too sexist/stubborn/stupid to hire cheaper labor, which would maximize their profits;

b) film companies generally choose not to hire the cheaper labor, because it is less productive/chooses to spend more time on things like children; OR

c) there is a film company out there that crushes the competition because it simply hires only cheaper labor that is equally as productive and adept at churning out box office hits

“I’ve never in my entire career experienced sexism.” – Anne Fletcher, Director of the Proposal and 27 Dresses

What do you think?

I’m drattedly happy for Anne Fletcher. Meanwhile, you looking for chapter and verse on the film industry? They don’t want an end product that looks anything like a “chick flick”. They churn out endless “dick flicks” for stupid white Anglo males, full of biff, bang, blooey, murder, rape, violence, and conquest, and the last thing they want is anyone- script writer, producer, director – who might turn out a script or a character that is too nuanced or “touchy-feely” or a female character that is too human. Stupid and sexist? The film industry is even worse than you.

What do you think?

Reynardine – I wrote a response to you, but it seems non-liberal viewpoints seem to get “lost in space” on this website.

What do you think?

First of all there are no posts of yours in the trash or spam bins. Try to get a grip on yourself and your childish accusations

What do you think?

See the comment by rewinn and my reply. It WOULD be common sense to hire minorities, but because of the stupid and bigoted attitudes shown in the front office of most businesses (and the underground networks that support them), it’s not going to happen.

The fact is, it doesn’t take intelligence or great learning to own and run a business. Yeah, too much stupidity is counterproductive, but as I observed through 15 years of having my own business (which served other businesses), in most cases greed combined with a little luck is what is necessary to succeed. Indeed, I learned that inherent honesty was a major liability and I sometimes wished I wasn’t so honest (and fair). The only thing that kept us alive for 15 years was pure skill and knowledge, and it wasn’t easy because of the dishonesty I constantly dealt with. I could have been far better off if I’d been crooked (which I would argue is inherently stupid), but I refuse to go there.

Look to Rush Limbaugh as an example. He dropped out of school and most people would agree that he’s not the brightest candle on the altar (far from it), but he’s a millionaire. In his case, we can argue that his success is because he’s parroting the elite party line, combined with a lot of luck. Thus, the underground networks support and encourage him (and he’s probably very active in them… knowingly active). He’s a classic example of what I’m talking about.

The only good news is that people are starting to realize that their purchasing habits can produce a lot of power… and with boycotts and refusal to support the corporations that promote stupidity (such as not paying fair wages) we can reestablish some checks and balances in the system – something that has been lacking for many decades.

What do you think?

I appreciate your passion Rachel but that sandwich ain’t gonna make its fuckin’ self..

What do you think?

I amso proud of Rachel and how she just stoodher ground and didn`t let him take the conversation elsewhere. A common practice that republicans try to use, but they need to understand that not everyone is stupid. They are used to shoveling the garbage to their voters because they cater to the uneducated and the least informed in their party, and they are easliy manipulated with fear.

KUDOS TO YOU RACHEL AND I WILL BE WAITING FOR YOUR SHOW MONDAY AS ALWAYS. YOU REALLY ROCK MY FRIEND..SMILE.

What do you think?

This need to go viral to every person who tweet, email, and facebook… Because this is why people need to get registration and vote…

A inform person is a reliable voter, know the issues before you vote… Thank you, Rachel Maddow and Hillary Rosen…

What do you think?

I really would like to see David Gregory reassigned and give the MTP gig to Rachel at least until after the election in November

What do you think?

Exactly. This is why no GOP will come on Rachel’s show. They know damn well she is armed with FACTS and isn’t afraid to challenge their lies. Gregory clearly does not do his homework, and rarely calls out the BS.

What do you think?

That’s because he’s best friends with Karl Rove. Need I say more? Tim Russert used to take it to every guest, regardless of political persuasion. Remember how he used to do it? He’d ask a question,to which he’d invariably get a contradictory answer, then show the videotape of the past remark, and ask for an explanation. You’ll never see that from D.G. He never asks a follow-up or challenges anything. He totally lets Repubs get away with any lies they spout. Most of his guests are Repubs and hardly any women at all. Pathetic. We miss you Tim.

What do you think?

“The mainstream media, except for MSNBC, has mostly ignored the war on women.”

Note that MHP told us this weekend also that there is no war on woman, and to stop saying it.

I had high hopes for her show. :(

What do you think?

That you for your insight. I was both angered and frustrated by the discussion. After reading your column, in hindsight, perhaps it was good to have Alex Costellanos and his condescension on display for all to see. I hope there is a terrible backlash against the GOP and its operatives. I especially loved that Rachel called out Republicans for using a woman to front for their anti-women policies. There is DEFINITELY a #WarOnWomen, and the battle has been joined.

What do you think?

I’m wondering if there are other factors that are not being addressed here. I don’t know the answer to this but how aggressive are women in the work place in terms of pursuing higher wages? Personally, I’ve always made more than my counter parts both men and woman. This was because I would document every single value add I offered to the company would present them to my boss quarterly. Being proactive in this way got me raises earlier than anyone else and other bonuses. Are woman just to passive in the work place? Squeaky wheel and all that…

What do you think?

Alex kept trying to pivot but Rachel would not allow it. Republicans are cowards when it comes to facts. It is there downfall. You can’t pass hundreds of bills limiting women’s right sand then say that your focus is on the economy. People these days own television and computers and easily discover that you are in fact lying. Note to Republicans: The year is 2012. We’re not ignorant. Good luck in November. You’ll need it.

What do you think?

When Alex Costellanos starts twittering his mustache and turning red his only retort is to be condescending toward Rachael. I absolutely love her and how she is able to debate with the facts, which is something the repubs have no idea how to do. Rachael is very intelligent and has no problem debating anyone regardless of political party.

What do you think?

I quite like reading through a post that will make men and women think. Also, thanks for allowing for me to comment!

What do you think?

Rachel was strong, to the point, we would have loved to hear more from her instead of her being cut off by this condescending jerk. . . but she did so good. We were so proud of her. She is the most outstanding broadcaster and I use that loosely because she is so much more than that. She educates us and informs and arms us with facts….she is at the top of the game; I was so happy that the mainstream would be exposed to her today on Meet the Press, and boy were they…I hope all women get behind Rachel because she is behind or ahead of us…thank you, Rachel!! You are the best!! WE are so proud….

What do you think?

Brilliant writing, and what an astute observation of the Right Wing’s tactic of chosen ignorance to the issue. Thank you for writing this.

-James

What do you think?

The Republicans claim there is no gender gap in wages. So, then, why vote against fair pay legislation? If there is no problem, there will be no adverse result in passing it, it would simply put Congress and the Republican Party in a position of standing for fairness.

There is, of course, a gap, and that’s why they oppose it. But by their own logic, they should be proud to pass it.

What do you think?

The surrogate Rachel referred to was the Republican congresswoman from Washington state, a woma, who voted against the fair pay act. Just to clarify. Proud of Rachel. I know few journalists who can compare with her for depth of knowledge and brilliance of commentary. Maybe Cronkite or Murrow? Good night and good luck.

What do you think?

Did you responders read the same article and transcript I did? Personally, I think you’re coming across as a little sexist, or idealogical.

Rachel was just as condescending and rude in her responses to Alex and he was to her. But why aren’t you pointing that out? Because she’s female? Why are you protecting her? She needs it right? (sigh)

Her claim women get paid 77 cents for every 100 cents paid to men for equivalent work was an outright lie.

Infact, if you take into consideration what Alex was saying, the figure becomes 90 cents for every 100.

Not to mention the actual law deals with the period of time you have to file lawsuits and not the actual amount of pay itself. Republican opposition to the law doesn’t equate to a “War on women”, it equates to avoiding losses in litigation.

Lastly the law was changed to benefit anyone affected by pay discrimination, regardless of sex…

What do you think?

didn’t you love his condescending “you’re so cute when you’re angry” moment? what pieces of krap people like him are. they never learn because they refuse to acknowledge there’s any problem with white men holding all the cards

What do you think?

CASTELLANOS says that one reason men make more than women is that men work 44 hours a week and women 41 hours a week. That MIGHT explain a 7¢ difference if true. It does NOT explain a 23¢ difference.

But there is something else. There is a reason for the 40 hour work week. Decades ago it was discovered that productivity falls off after a 40 hour week. Someone who works 41 hours a week is LESS PRODUCTIVE than one who works 40 hours a week; 42 hour per week is LESS PRODUCTIVE than 41 hours per week. Productivity falls off after 40 hours per week. That is true for males; it is true for women.

So CASTELLANOS’s argument turns out to be that men are paid more for being less productive than women. That makes no sense whatever.

What do you think?

The fact that he was he felt comfortable enough to interrupt and not even have the common cutesy to let her finish her sentence says volumes.

If women think that republicans are going to stop here and now demolishing their rights, they are wrong.
They are going after our right to work and make a decent wage.
I’d bet my last 100 dollars on it.

Then we can all stay at home pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen with all our children.
The economy will be fine because there will be enough jobs for all the men and the ‘little’ women, till they get married.

Just like Mad Men.

What do you think?

Rachel was fantastic!! It is time women took the reigns in our Democracy! The arrogance and condescending attitude that women are stupid! And VOTE THEM OUT!! It is our truest revenge!

I am proud to say my Senator is Kirsten Gillibrand! She gets it!! End this nonsense – send women to run this show!! Than lets place men’s health care into the political fire! Take away their Viagra!

What do you think?

Totally agree with your comment.

You might want to change the word “reigns” (as in royalty reigning over a country) to “reins” (as in using reins to control a horse). I think you mean the latter.

What do you think?

Rachel Maddow is truly a patriot, she speaks truth to power, and she speaks it loud and clear!! The Republicans are scared of her so they must try to silence her, they will fail. Anyone she goes up against loses because she is way more intelligent and honorable than any Republican in elected office.

What do you think?

I agree with every word, except the assertion that “there are no men’s issues, or women’s issues”. In some far off utopian future, maybe, but right now? There most definitely ARE polarized “women’s” issues, like male violence and reproductive rights. Men are tangentially affected by these issues, but being that certain men perpetrate the hateful acts of rape and anti-woman legislation, we are not out of the woods to take the “we are all Americans” stance quite yet.

It is wonderful to see a man strong enough to speak out on this issue. If more men would take their heads out of the sand and become pro-active in gender equality/equity issues we could see some real progress.

What do you think?

Pam, I have to stand with Mr. Easley and his claim to be part of a society that suffers from the long-standing war on women. He was, in effect, saying that he stands in solidarity with women, that he has a fundamental stake in seeing equality come to pass. It’s almost as good as when I hear a man call himself a feminist and invite the wrath of his male peers.

What do you think?

I’m so sick and tired of these right wing extremists behaving so condescending to those who have the solid facts on their side. They are the ones running amuck on irrational emotional hysteria. They are desperate to hold on to power and are using irrational fear to trick others to believe what they are saying. All the FACTS are against them! Are there any rational people in the entire GOP? It seems not.

What do you think?

Oh how I long to smack Alex Castellanos upside the head! The smug condescending jerk needs to have his clock cleaned.

What do you think?

Thank God for Rachel Maddow, she is a force to be reckoned with! No more wimpy women!
“One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all’.” (Martin Luther King – Letter from Birmingham Prison, Alabama)
It’s truly a war on the common people and a plan to control us with an iron fist.
All the laws passed recently by republicans have been illegal, unjust, biased, racist, anti-women, anti-union, tyrantical, outdated, mean-spirited, anti-poor, and undemocratic! The new policy is “we pass laws subverting all rights” Push them thru the state legislatures and dare the people to object.

What do you think?

We need a strong weed killer – like a huge careless weed, the roots of the misogynist and chauvinistic views of Republican men are deep. and the number of Republican women who blindly follow “their’ men is simply astounding. Bloviating speech, following the talking points with a non thinking simple mindedness that is embarrassing to listen to as a woman.
It will take a concerted effort from all Americans who can see through their tactics this campaign season to continue to challenge them every time any Republican (friend or one posturing for national attention) on their views that are lies by omission, or simply not fact based. I applaud, once again, Ms. Maddow for hanging on and not withering in the face of a typical Republican attack.

Vote – Speak Up Speak out -

What do you think?

I think it would be very productive for Dr Maddow to have Castellanos as a guest to further speak on this
subject. However, like Cheney and others, I doubt that
he has the scones to appear.

No one, and I mean no one, can question her intellect
and research ability.

What do you think?

Scones?

What do you think?

I’m guessing it’s a nice way of saying cajones….

What do you think?

Ginn meant to say “STONES”.

What do you think?

I agree with this article. I was appalled by how Castellanos treated Dr. Maddow, and it did show his complete disrespect for her, as a profession and as a person. However, I am a little hesitant to make this one incident proof that the entire republican party is raging a war against women. Maybe I need to do a little more research, but having such a sweeping statement can lead to more misunderstand and hinder communication. I liked Rachel’s comment about how we need to debate about policy, and the best debates are about policy. This article leads people away from a policy debate, and into a realm where individuals feel the need to defend themselves, not compromise and communicate.

What do you think?

The policy war on women is a matter of record, much discussed on this site. Here’s a link to legislation proposed by Republicans on this issue. After reading this, no one can claim there is no policy war on women. Policy is everything, it trumps words:

www.politicususa.com/the-...

What do you think?

I believe that Rachel is the most prepared commentator in the business.She makes valid points that others , just wish would go away.Im happy to see her in prime time, even if she has to put up with right wing bores, and talking heads.The right just doesn’t handle facts well, this man is proof of that.Women are the majority is this country, we need more in elected positions to off set the old boy net works.

What do you think?

Who is Alex Castellanus fool anyway. What an ignorant misogynistic Douche Bag. Go back to your cave Mr man and bury your thick head back in the sand where its safe and warm. LOOSER!

What do you think?

Rachel is so on point with everything she speaks in this “debate”. The best comment she made was the following: ‘You’re supposed to make us feel better about it. You voted against the Fair Pay Act. It’s not about–whether or not you have a female surrogate. It’s about policy and whether or not you want to fix some of the structural discrimination that women really do face that Republicans don’t believe is happening.’ I smiled and applauded (on the inside…lol), when she said that. Republicans and sometimes the media play that game all the time. To moderate a group’s anger have a surrogate from that group speak for you. It happens in debates on gender, ethnicity, class, etc..all the time. It’s old and we can see right through the sham. We need more Rachels!

What do you think?

Hurray for Rachel. She stuck to her guns and made points that Castellanus was not able to challenge though he tried with his condescending attitude. The republicans take facts and turn them around to their way of thinking. They mostly don’t want women in the workplace unless it is secretarial positions.How old fashioned is their thinking, if you want to call that thinking. There is a huge gap between Democratic mind and Republican minds as evidenced in this conversation. Go Rachel.
Judith Crosley

What do you think?

Alex Castellano doesn’t want America to be divided; he just wants everyone to think just like him, and any other opinion is just dividing the country along the lines of honorable positions and his indefensible positions. He takes exactly his indefensible manipulations and claims that Obama is doing exactly what he is doing and thus make it “both sides accuse the other of manipulation”.

What do you think?

This is how the Republican party and the right in general tends to operate. There is no problem because we say there is not a problem. It is the same with gay rights, climate change, women’s rights, and the list goes on and on. Anytime we let corporations in the pockets of politicians this is the result.

What do you think?

Could not agree more with conclusion of this post. The GOP is orchestrating a war on equal rights. At every turn. Before it was just bluster. Now their actions seem designed to keep the poor and marginalized right where they are. Scary times. Action is required.

What do you think?

Perfect execution of facts driving Ms. Maddow’s point. Well done and may I say my only dissappointment is there was no mention of Union equality for Women. Was the intent to make public the Republican’s denial of the wage disparities between the genders in this country, or are moments like these the chance to breathe some clarity into the Parties’ conflict? So I score her the winner by far but only to lambaste the “other sides” stance. The issue itself has factions working hard to to eliminate the wage disparity and no mention of it by her.

What do you think?

I just plainly,simply dislike Liars and manipulators of facts.

If we could find the finishing school for them which is a top GOP Secret, kept by succeeding chief executives and party leaders for the last half of 20th C.up to present, I am in favor of utilizing the first domestic predator. (during unoccupied recess of course)

Also, we need to take a cue from GOP, plan for 2016 now with nominating Rachel Maddow for President.

What do you think?

Rachel Maddow for president-She would definitely get my vote!!

What do you think?

In my proud opinion, before Dr Maddow can even begin to think about a presidential run, with the spotlight she’s shone on the bullshit going down in Michigan and all, she should seriously consider moving to Michigan and run for Governor. Yeah.

What do you think?

In 2010, Women stepped up and voted for the republican party because the republican party said they were going to concentrate on Jobs… Yeah Jobs!.. It’s been 2 plus years and they passed one small business jobs bill in just recent weeks. They, however, let no time go to waste in screwing over all of the women who voted for them by passing hundreds of bills taking away their reproductive rights. Same type of thing happened in Wisconsin. They elected Scott Walker who said nothing about what he was going to do to the unions. Then he took away their collective bargaining rights and now he’s being recalled.

What do you think?

One very subtle aspect of this exchange which hasn’t recieved much focus is how Costellanos basically plays the emotional woman card. When he goes off about how passionate Rachel is and he just wishes she was as right as she is passionate… that’s a well used dog whistle in the war on women.

What do you think?

The exact same tactic was used by the exponentially loathsome, conceitedly stupid Senator James Inhofe, who, when he was a guest on TRMS, calculatedly took on the persona of the level-headed male and literally accused Rachel of hysteria. It was a breathtaking exchange.

What do you think?

“This means that when a man and a woman have the same background, are doing the same job, and are working the same hours, women still make less money than men.”

I think he was purposefully confusing the issue Rachel was talking about by comparing all women in every work situation with all men in every work situation and Rachel is talking about equal pay for equal work.

What do you think?

Right on the button. Everyone seems to be jumping through all of the same obvious “hoops”. The bottom line is x doesn’t equal x; any other element to this argument is superfluous.

What do you think?

Like Rachel says… it’s not a “math is hard” question. It’s simply: does X=X or not? It matters not if men work more hours or whatever the “marriage factor” is (what IS the “marriage factor” anyway?) Do women make the same pay for the same job?
No.

I wonder if Castellanos would make more than Cathy McMorris Rogers for pretending the war on women is just a made up political tool? Does he?

What do you think?

One of the many factors Mr. Castellanos refers to (with poor effect, admittedly) is that many women have children and tend to prefer to take care of their children. Nothing inherently wrong with this, whatsoever, obviously.

However, from the perspective of businesses, workers who work less or work less productively, should be paid less (paying people who work less the same amount as people who work more is unfair to the people who work more!). This is one factor which leads to some of the “facts” which seem to suggest there is a wage gap driven by sexism.

When you strip out the factor of children, the wage gap goes away…and even reverses! In 2008, women aged 22-30 earned 8 percent more than their male counterparts, on average. Won’t hear that from much of the media, though!

What do you think?

Your example is one very small part of the job force and is made up of educated career women

You have no point using that as an example

What do you think?

Why is that a bad example? It is a sample largely comprised of men and women with similar educational backgrounds, similar family responsibilities (none), similar work experience, etc. It just so happens the women in that sample made more money, on average.

Is the fact that the data contradicts your opinion the reason you think it is a bad example?

What do you think?

Becuase it represents a very small area of the work force for one year. You are using that to imagine that life is the same in every other area in the work place. The sample you gave does not represent the workforce comparing men to women’s pay. It is only true for the small number of people in that sample

Dump the contradicts my opinion stuff.

What do you think?

So do you have a more relevant sample? Because it seems to me people are pulling out of a hat the “observed fact” that equal work is receiving unequal pay…and then when I provide facts to the contrary, my sample size is suddenly too small (even though it’s huge and removes the impact of children – which nobody else seems to acknowledge is an important driver).

What do you think?

You provided a very specialized sample. You picked out people who were intent on their careers and do not represent that vastly larger workforce over the period of one year.

Have you been in the work force long? I got my first job in 1968 and have seen a lot of inequality both on the manufacturing floors and if office environments. I know the sampling you refer to and I know what % of the real work force that it is. Its small compared to the rest

What do you think?

So you are telling me the sample of “your career” is more reliable than the sample of single, childless people aged 22-30?

I’m sure that since yours and everyone’s thesis on equal work/unequal pay is so obvious, you can provide some data that points to its truth…

What do you think?

No thats not what I said. I said the segment that you refer to is a vastly smaller part of the workforce than you are saying. Your sample proves nothing except that a certain part of the female workforce earned more than men for one year

What do you think?

What I’m telling you is that the sample I provided is a better statistical representation of the pay women receive for equal work, than any other statistic I have seen. There is a second study by Queen’s college (in addition to the Census Bureau study I previously cited) which reaches the same conclusion for year 2007 as well – single, childless women earn more.

Do you have a better statistic, which removes the variable of children, and shows that men earn more? I would love to see it. Unfortunately for you, that statistic doesn’t exist.

The message I have is that everyone spouting off about women earning less for equal work, has nothing more statistically relevant than what I have provided suggesting the opposite.

What do you think?

If you are willing to say that one segment that is smaller than the rest of the work force defines the rest of thew work force I say run with it. Of coruse partents or femails with children dont count, I should have seen that sooner

What do you think?

I am not saying one segment of the work force represents the rest of the work force…

Again, what I’m telling you is that the sample I provided is a better statistical representation of the pay women receive for equal work, than any other statistic I have seen. Do you have a better sample? If it were out there, someone would have provided it by now.

What do you think?

Im not going to look up any statistics for you. Again, if you want to focus on one segment that doesnt represent the workforce go for it

What do you think?

Michael, there’s really no way to find anything real or relevant in Castellano’s fuzzy math. There are so many inequalities that have been built in to the current system there’s no way to sift out an argument for the “numbers”. For example, I have worked for many companies, small and large and it has always been an observable fact that women are expected to work many hours off the clock. So the argument that women “work fewer hours” is predicated on fuzzy math which only compounds the insults. For another thing, how completely lame-brained is the implication that women properly work less than men (so should earn less than men) because they prioritize their children, the sainted sisters…. Do you get the double twist there? He tries to make his screwball point by attempting to elevate women to the high honor of their “true calling”.. being mothers. Men, of course, don’t have children… their women have the children.

What do you think?

Patricia – How is my math fuzzy? I just gave you a fact about earning power for men and women, in the prime of their lives, working more or less the same number of hours (because neither are taking care of kids). And of that enormous sample, the women made 8 percent more on average. What’s fuzzy?

Also, you call it “lame-brained” to think that people who work less should generally be paid less (and then go off on some rant). I call that common sense.

Speaking generally, women work fewer hours than men (as Castellanos suggested). After a family has children, fewer women than men continue working (only 60 percent of women with children under six work). There is nothing wrong or right about these decisions. These are simply the choices families in America tend to make…but from the perspective of businesses, it makes no sense to pay someone who works less the same as a person who works more. That is unfair to the person who works more! And gives the person who works more an incentive to do less work!

What do you think?

Wow where are you getting these facts from ? There’s that “funny math” again.

What do you think?

These statistics are coming from the Census Bureau, Time Magazine, and Queens College…what’s fuzzy about my statistics?

What do you think?

Great job, Rachel Maddow.

The score: Maddow:100. Castellanos:0.

There’s nothing imaginary about the Republicans’ War on Women. Indeed, it is wildly out of control. We can see that right across America, from the Republicans in Congress blocking the renewal of the laws against domestic violence; to Scott Walker and his cronies repealing Wisconsin’s “equal pay for equal work” law; to Republicans weakening the laws against rape in many of the State legislatures.

Re-electing President Obama, and comprehensively defeating Republican candidates for Congress and the State legislatures, is the only way to stop this Taliban-ization of America — for women, and for the fathers, brothers, husbands and sons who respect them and do not want their legal rights to be shredded, or to see them vilified or brutalized.

What do you think?

Now there’s a real man.

What do you think?

Alex Castellanos is a professional liar. He has made a career out of carefully crafting messages that misrepresent reality and convey the exact opposite of whatever the truth is. He also specializes in embedding subliminal coded messages in his already deceptive content.

In 2000, Castellanos produced an ad for the Republican National Committee designed to discredit the prescription drug plan policy offered by Vice President Al Gore. Alongside images of Gore, the ad showed the word “RATS” for a split second, before the complete word “bureaucrats” appeared on-screen. During the ensuing uproar, Castellanos claimed that the inclusion was “purely accidental.” It wasn’t. It is a pattern that can be found in all his political work.

Near the end of the 1990 U.S. Senate race in North Carolina, Castellanos produced an advertisement for Republican Senator Jesse Helms, who was then trailing Democratic challenger and Charlotte mayor Harvey Gantt. The ad depicts a middle-aged, working class married white man receiving and crumpling a job application rejection notice sent because the job had been “given to a minority.” The ad then referenced Gantt’s supposed support for racial quotas and Helms’s opposition.

Two of the subliminal messages of racial fear encoded into this advertisement were a screen transition showing the hand’s crumpling of the image of Gantt’s head and a black mark on the rejection notice in the shape of an African-American hand holding a handgun. Again, Castellanos denied any such messaging, calling them a pure coincidence.

What do you think?

Can not stand Rachel,or her liberal agenda.That”s why I watch the number one rated news program…FOX.

What do you think?

Rachel is presenting facts, not opinion. So if sharing facts can be considered “an agenda” then the fact that you object to it is pretty hilarious.

What do you think?

The fact that you watch Fox makes the rest of your comment unnecessary – You probably like Glen Beck and the ‘good old boy’ Rush….

What do you think?

Well said Iris……..Fox, then the word NEWS, just don’t fit!!!!!!!

What do you think?

Kind of sad, Donna. Women who don’t support women’s issues…wow. unfortunately there are women like you who do not care about facts, and there is nothing we can do to convince you. Hopefully you will never be in a position where you need some of that ” liberal” stuff you are so against.

What do you think?

Sad, sad. What good little Republican wife you are, you must get your information from your husband. Oh that’s right you said you watch Fox news. There was an actual study that showed people who watch Fox news are less informed on the issues, than people who watch no news at all. Just sayin’. Donna is a woman’s name isn’t it? How can any woman not get what is going on here. Your, our rights are being bleeped with, taken away, turned back.

What do you think?

Donna probably watches FOX because her husband doesn’t let her hold the remote control.

What do you think?

And at the end of the video we get his actual objective, “the obama objective”, which is basically vote against everything Obama wants and get him out, no matter who replaces him…hmmm. Very grown up.

What do you think?

Kudos, Rachel…keep up all the good work that you do for all American women and the enlightened men who support our views and lives.
M. Ross

What do you think?

I watched the entire show yesterday. The video segment shown above ends before Maddow herself rudely interrupted and talked over the female Republican guest on the show.

What do you think?

I bet I know what SB stands for, and I doubt it’s antimony.

What do you think?

If only the issue of equal pay for equal work was as simple as male-female. In fact, minority men on average make less than white women, and the affluent and well-educated white debaters frame the issue as though they represent everyone affected. They do not. The networks all fail to be inclusive enough to paint an accurate portrait of the issue.

What do you think?

The war on women is Obama’s created cover to try divert attention and discussion from the topic of the economy and the actions he has taken which overstep his authority.

What do you think?

Only one word fits your comment: Bullshit!

President Obama has never overstepped his authority. Unlike Bush (remember him), he has detailed knowledge and understanding of that authority and not strayed one iota over the line.

Let’s see… according to what I’ve read, Bush has a MBA. That degree has a horrible reputation for encouraging a bottom line only, “forget ethics or decency in the pursuit of profit” mindset and doesn’t include the detailed information on staying within the bounds of constitutional law (from what I’ve heard, the closest they get is “How to screw people and not go to jail”). All of Bush’s behaviors… his lies, his violating the constitution (remember separation of church and state and his “faith-based initiative”?), his starting of a war for bogus reasons come from his lack of knowledge or CARING about the constitution and reflects the reality I’ve learned to associate with that degree. (It’s pretty well established that Iraq was invaded not for valid reasons, but to increase the profits of certain parties.)

President Obama, on the other hand, has a PhD involving constitutional law and has taught it. Who do you think would know what the law actually says and what it doesn’t?

Who do you think would care more about staying within the law… someone motivated by greed like Bush or someone who has shown throughout his life that he’s motivated by an understanding of the law and caring about people like President Obama?

What do you think?

Reading some remarks leads me to believe that people will pick anything apart to satisfy their own agenda. Listen to the “facts”. No one can hold a candle when it comes to Rachel Maddow knowing her facts. You go girl.

What do you think?

If women are being paid the exact same wage for the exact same work, then the Fair Pay Act accomplishes nothing and there is no harm with keeping it on the books. The only reason for getting rid of Fair Pay is if a) women really are getting paid less for the same work, and b) you want to keep it that way.

What do you think?

I would like to kick Castellanos in the toosh!! What an idiot liar!!!!!!
I admire Rachel for her knowledge. I appreciate her being on the female side against the most disgusting Republicans. Please Rachel know that millions of the people appreciate you and your efforts.

What do you think?

Bad ratings and this show will be canceled shortly.

What do you think?

Which show?

What do you think?

Well, if there is no equal pay problem, the GOP should have no problem in voting for the act. It wouldn’t affect anything because there is no problem, right? I have to say…is there something that these GOPers are drinking that is making them stupider by the day? they can argue they think women should NOT be paid the same, but to just ignore the nonpartisan data that confirms the FACT that women get paid less for doing the same job….well they are either stupid or are conniving liars…hmmm, which could it be?

What do you think?

It is a war on all American workers and has been sense corporations closed down factories in USA for cheap labor in other countries.All you have to do is look at the small mill towns around the south that have lost tax base .Repubs has war on women, public workers ,teachers and poor people that have lost jobs by its policies.It appears they want to distroy the middle class.

What do you think?

Great article Jason Easly !

What do you think?

I watched this exchange on Meet the Press as Castellanos embarrassed himself on national TV. There were parts of the exchange that were so painful to watch, I had to leave the room. On the upside, Castellanos took the spotlight off Boehner

What do you think?

Transcript note: Where you have, “Listen, this is not a math is hard type of conversation,” I believe what Maddow actually said is, “Listen, this is not a ‘Math-Is-Hard Barbie’ conversation.” :-)

What do you think?

Thank you Ms. Maddow for tirelessly standing up against the arrogance of the Republican party. As a woman, I appreciate it. As an American woman, I appreciate it even more. I really wish they could see how stupid they look with their heads buried in the BS they manufacture. Just on logic alone, they appear ill equipped for any type of battle, let alone one of wit. They don’t do their homework, they just believe their own lies – over and over and over again.

What do you think?

BOOM!

What do you think?

Admittedly, I’m a pro-Maddow advocate. I think she’s smart, does her homework, and is focused on important issues with a bent toward generating relevant discourse.

That being said, I’d be interested in getting a quick fact-check on this- do women 40-64 actually earn more than men in the same age group? I’ve never heard this, and if it’s true it’s really big news.

What do you think?

“In a rare move, CNN aired a fact-checking package on Maddow and Castellanos’ clash on Monday. Reporter Lisa Sylvester used data from the U.S. Census Bureau and confirmed that Maddow was right—men do earn more than women.

Not surprisingly, Maddow dedicated a large portion of her Monday night show to defending her initial argument. She addressed Castellanos’ major claim that men get paid more than women for doing different work. Maddow used statistics from the Department of Labor that demonstrated that men earn more money than women for doing the exact same work.”

Huffington Post

I think that really sums it up, for those of you who still don’t believe in the pay gap between men and women.

What do you think?

A unique opportunity has presented itself in the 2012 Presidential election for women to use their political power. This opportunity has never been available before and may never be available again.
Americans Elect has acquired a spot on the national ballot for the November election and yet they have as of to date not been able to qualify a single candidate according to their own requirements. With the organization and network of the various women’s groups and Pac’s working together they could easily inform and activate their memberships in the span of days or at most weeks and qualify a woman candidate. 1000 women or supporters of woman from only 10 state going out to www.americanselect.org and giving support is an incredibly small number. Why would NOW and other woman’s organization and networks want to do this?
How many states have put laws on the books that flat out take away personal liberties from women, gays, and others who do not agree with faith in government movements agenda? These dangerous and unconstitutional laws are hurting all civil rights and are even re-defining the first amendment of our very constitution. How many times has faith crossed the line by being used to make civil laws on states books? The seriousness of addressing this now in 2012 is because the wars are on a track to be lost as well on the national level. If we were looking down the road at the next 4 years in states government within our country women should be saying OH MY! Unless we find a solution we are going to see even more and worse laws get passed until they will be strong enough to be done on a national level. Let two thirds of these states get these kinds of laws on the books, and then you are looking at a very real possible successful national referendum on those same laws. After the election it won’t matter who is in the White House Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton but it does matter who is running for President before the election.
Why does it really matter if either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is the President because both are women friendly democrats? Here is why. The difference maker has to do with who can best help take back or get more state offices; those very offices where the wars are being fought and right now lost. More of these kinds of laws have been able to be passed since President Obama’s election then was done before his election. This is because the Obama party within the Democratic Party can only focusing on federal offices. It does not have a down ticket network in place to be able to do anything else. In order to have a network that helps down ticket offices on the state level takes decades of hard work and none in the Obama Party have done that however the Clinton party of the Democratic Party does have that network in place now with three Presidential campaigns behind them and over 40 years of hard work
The fact is the Clinton party is the only political team with enough punch to help end the war on women. The positive proof effects were just witnessed by all in the PA elections. If Bill or Hillary endorses then that candidate has a reasonable expectation of a win. They have the backers, supporters and know how to win The 18 million votes for a candidate in a Party Primary has never been done until Hillary Clinton. Beyond that all 18 million are still upset about the 08 Democratic Party primary and feel she really was the winner of the 08 Party primary. The day Hillary Clinton becomes the candidate at either Americans Elect or for the Democratic Party is the day a lot of state Democratic candidates have a great chance of winning. It will be like the starting point will be 18 million votes for her and whoever she endorses.

What do you think?

Y’all must have been watching a different show. Rachel got her buttons pushed by the TeaGOP pay disparity talking points, and was unable to refute Alex’s claim that there is no pay disparity. That was the purpose of his presence on the show, to hammer that meme and shut her down, and it unfortunately worked.

It’s also the reason why MTP pitted two intelligent Dem policy wonks with two TeaGOP campaign strategists — to promote the TeaGOP point of view and derail any intelligent discussion about policy. We Dems never learn, and by spinning this as some sort of victory for our side, we continue not to learn.

What do you think?

I think it got Rachel’s ire up when he was going down the men are better at math than women road. How dare he!
Jodi Edington
www.edingtonmath.com

What do you think?

I think Rachel Maddow is a phony and does not exemplify how a woman behaves. She was taken to school by her opposition. Women like her is destroying the moral fabric of this country and like Castellanos said when manipulating the public becomes so obvious you lose your credibility. What do you expect, MSNBC has lost its credibility since they first started. THAT’S ALL!

What do you think?

Do you agree with the dominionists who want to make this a country based on biblical law that trumps the constitution?

What do you think?

They are not trumping the constitution so that’s not a question to be asked. With that being said, it is unfair for Madcow and everybody else that pimped the minds of the American public into normalizing class war, race war and gender war tactics.

What do you think?

They are making every effort to trump the constitution and would if they had their own candidate which they have ina round about way in Romney.

I asked if you approved of their wanting to trump the consitution with biblical law. This was in regards to your statement about moral fabric

The class warfare is giving to the rich and taking from the poor. That is the full on intent of the GOP house.

The race war is the restrictions put on minoritys to vote by the GOP

Gay people want to have the rights that the constitution provides for them. That is not a gender warfare. However the GOIP in insitutiting laws such as invasive procedures for women that want an abortion or agaisnt women that miscarry and get arrested is most certainly gender warfare. You just have the perpetrators turned around

What do you think?

I’m not certain if you’re trying to say that the reason for class warfare is because capitalism has destroyed America.

What are you talking about. If race war is the restrictions put on minorities, you think that civil disobedience such as riots and destroy property is the answer. You don’t think the democrats are also sparking race war just like the GOP.

What do you think?

Widgetized Section

Related Posts :

177 Responses to Rachel Maddow Makes History and Triumphs over the War On Women

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

Our Latest on Facebook

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Shop our 4 More for 44 store

Public Service Advertisements

Our Sponsors

Widgetized Section

<img src="http://ww1.politicususa.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/polusa-logo-360x86.png" alt="PoliticusUSA" title="PoliticusUSA" width="360" height="86"/>

Related Posts :

177 Responses to Rachel Maddow Makes History and Triumphs over the War On Women

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

Our Latest on Facebook

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Shop our 4 More for 44 store

Public Service Advertisements

Our Sponsors