Well, according to Catherine Rampell's New York Times article today, it might well make the U.S. labor market majority-female for the first time ever.

Women are poised to surpass men on the nation's payrolls, taking the majority for the first time in American history.

The reason has less to do with gender equality than with where the ax is falling.The proportion of women who are working has changed very little since the recession started. But a full 82 percent of the job losses have befallen men, who are heavily represented in distressed industries like manufacturing and construction. Women tend to be employed in areas like education and health care, which are less sensitive to economic ups and downs, and in jobs that allow more time for child care and other domestic work.

With more and more men losing their jobs, women are becoming majority- or sole-breadwinners in even two-adult households. The question that remains, though, is who is washing the dishes these days.

While women appear to be sole breadwinners in greater numbers, they are likely to remain responsible for most domestic responsibilities at home.

On average, employed women devote much more time to child care and housework than employed men do, according to recent data from the government's American Time Use Survey analyzed by two economists, Alan B. Krueger and Andreas Mueller.

When women are unemployed and looking for a job, the time they spend daily taking care of children nearly doubles. Unemployed men's child care duties, by contrast, are virtually identical to those of their working counterparts, and they instead spend more time sleeping, watching TV and looking for a job, along with other domestic activities.

I guess more the things change, the more they stay the same!

Of course, there remain questions about the gender equity of the stimulus plan, which is intended to create jobs in industries that are shedding them — which, as Rampell points out, are most male-dominated. Jennifer Barrett at Slate thinks, like Linda Hirshman, that this could be a bad thing, but there aren't easy solutions. Barrett says:

The stimulus plan being considered by the Senate, as it's written now, may make up for some of those losses, gender division aside. But it will do little to close the 20 percent wage gap between men and women or to address the sex segregation in the labor market that accounts for much of it.

And if you thought it was expensive before, just wait until the stimulus plan tries to fix thousands of years of labor market sex segregation. Barrett notes that, while 49 percent of the jobs set to be created by the stimulus plan are expected to go to women despite the current wide disparity in job losses, most of those jobs will be in fields in which women already work (which is sort of the point of the stimulus, to get people back to working as quickly as possible). She says:

Why not require some of the estimated $800-plus billion to go toward creating more high-paying jobs in traditionally female fields rather than just any old jobs? Or specify that employers in sectors dominated by either women or men who get federal contracts make demonstrable efforts to fill 10 percent or 20 percent of the jobs with the opposite sex? Toward that end, the bill could direct more funds toward retraining women for traditionally male-dominated sectors and vice versa.

Not that re-training programs put people to work quickly, or Barrett's example of forcing women who supposedly previous worked in health care or nail salons to take construction jobs are actually desired outcomes. But it might reduce the wage gap! So it must be good, apparently.

It does make me wonder, however, if this isn't accepting a basic premise about the wage gap that men apparently already believe:

In a new Rasmussen poll, 78 percent of American women said that "men and women do not receive equal pay for equal work in the United States." Only 53 percent of men agreed. In the same poll, 49 percent of women attributed the unequal pay to discrimination while only 20 percent of men believe discrimination is the problem.

First, that it doesn't really exist — that it's about the choices women make, on average, and there's certainly some of that — and that it's not due to discrimination. I can't speak for all women, but I know that, in at least two jobs in which I replaced men in the same capacity, I made on average about 20% less than my predecessors after a similar period of time in the position while significantly expanding the scope and responsibility of the position. And I left both jobs because of it. But, technically, now I make less doing something I enjoy more. So I've been on both ends of that spectrum, and while I may have one of the most female-dominated jobs around (know many male bloggers who write for women's websites?), I can certainly tell you that I wouldn't trade it for a construction job with better pay and benefits. There are some wage gaps I don't ever care about making up.

Slowdown In Male Earnings Leads To Smaller Gender Wage Gap [Economic Policy Institute]
As Layoffs Surge, Women May Pass Men in Job Force [New York Times]
More Stimulating [Slate]
78 Percent Of Women Say Men And Women Do Not Receive Equal Pay For Equal Work [ThinkProgress]

Earlier: No, Barack Obama's Economic Plan Is Not Discriminating Against Women

As if. But reporters have this compulsion to "tell both sides" of the story, even if one side is not so fact-based and full of unrealistic hyperbole in order to "prove" a point. Take Liz Wolgemuth's recent post entitled "Why Lily [sic] Ledbetter is Controversial" in which she states:

But the merits of the law are actually fairly controversial. After all, President Bush didn't support it.

Oh, that's a good one. Bush, he of the wire-tapping-est, civil-rights-trampling-est anti-abortion-iest Administration in recent times that spend so much time thinking about discrimination against women, people of color and the LGBT community, doesn't like the bill and that makes it controversial? At this point, I think things that Bush didn't like are actually the least controversial things among most Americans.

Wolgemuth then cites a Wall Street Journal OpEd — not exactly known for being an even-handed editorial page — from earlier this year opposing the bill, which argues that protecting current stockholders and employees is more important than allowing women to enforce their legal rights against their employers for (potentially) decades of illegal behavior. Well, hey, as I'm given to understand, that's how the legal system works. If you do wrong things, you have to right those wrongs financially (in the civil system) or forfeit your freedom as punishment (the criminal system). You don't get to say, "Hey, I know I nearly killed a guy 20 years ago but I have a family to support now and I'm totes a good guy these days, so I don't deserve punishment."

Oh, if they want hyperbole, I can do hyperbole.

Dealey says:

Say a woman was hired five, 10 or 15 years ago at a discriminatory pay level. She worked just as hard as her male colleagues, but received paltry raises or bonuses. But then her company underwent some sort of restructuring—a change of ownership, a new board, a new supervisor. Since then, the company has treated all employees the same, giving raises and bonuses where merited. The woman is a good worker and now her salary rises by 8- or 10-percent a year, well above many of her male colleagues. The company should be exempt from any possible lawsuit, right?

Um, no, wrong. I mean, let's put it another way: Say a woman got married to a guy that beat the shit out of her and raped her for 5, 10 or 15 years, putting her in the hospital over and over again. Then, he finds Jesus and changes his way, and stops raping her and beating her and instead treats her with the love and respect she deserved all along, even better than any of the mistresses he took in the midst of his abuse of her. That guy should be exempt from prosecution, right? Right?

Exactly. Just because now she's being treated equitably doesn't excuse her husband from years of criminal behavior any more than it should excuse the company from years of criminal behavior. The woman in Dealey's scenario isn't earning the same as she would have had she not been discriminated against all along any more than the one in my scenario is better off than if she hadn't been beaten and raped all along. The rights of women to equity shouldn't be trumped by the supposed needs of supposed shareholders who might see their stock prices tumble. The stock prices — and the profits of the companies — in companies that pursued patterns of wage discrimination over decades were artificially inflated by that discrimination. You don't get to keep the money you make selling drugs; you shouldn't get to keep the profits you make from discrimination. That's how the legal system is supposed to work, and now it will, at least in part.

Why Lily Ledbetter Is Controversial [US News & World Report]
Ledbetter Law Makes Sex Discrimination Suits Worse [US News & World Report]

While some members of the GOP are running around spreading good cheer to other Republicans through the dissemination of that seminal musical work "Barack the Magic Negro" — Saltsman's dropped out of the race to helm the GOP, by the way — or voting against everything Barack Obama wants passed because Nancy Pelosi isn't nice enough to them, others are actually trying to figure out ways to help the party stop hemorrhaging voters and power. What's surprising is that one of those people in Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, not exactly the brightest bulb on the GE sign (Schenectady, represent!), who noticed that maybe being the party of white people who like guns, hate immigrants and are all Up With Jesus isn't the best strategy for wielding power in the future.

"We’re all concerned about the fact that the very wealthy and the very poor, the most and least educated, and a majority of minority voters, seem to have more or less stopped paying attention to us,” McConnell said in a speech at the Republican National Committee’s winter meeting. “And we should be concerned that, as a result of all this, the Republican Party seems to be slipping into a position of being more of a regional party than a national one.” In stark terms, the Kentucky Republican added: “In politics, there’s a name for a regional party: It’s called a minority party. ... As Republicans, we know that common-sense conservative principles aren’t regional. But I think we have to admit that our sales job has been. And in my view, that needs to change” .

See, they aren't all stupid, which I think pretty much means that McConnell might not be the biggest fan of incumbent Republican National Committee chair Mike Duncan, who is running for reelection but denies that the GOP has had a problem harnessing technology to make its point.

"I do not Twitter," replied Mr. Duncan, who explained that he doesn't like to be distracted by Twitter while talking to people. Many like to use the tool during conferences or other events. "But we have the capability here in the building — a lot of the guys here do it." He added that he does carry two BlackBerrys and enjoys using a Kindle, the handheld device for downloading digital books.

So you heard it here first. The Kindle will save the GOP.

Things that probably aren't helping the GOP right now, though, include the news of how much the financial services industry paid out in bonuses last year once they got their mitts on your bailout money ($18 billion, since you asked) or the fact that they're all bitchy about the passage of the children's health insurance bill because it doesn't make the children of PERFECTLY LEGAL IMMIGRANTS wait 5 years for health coverage. You know, because people immigrate to the U.S. for our stellar health care system. But, shh, don't worry too much about that, the Blago show continued apace with his impeachment yesterday and Caroline Kennedy might appear on Saturday Night Live and the GOP would far rather you pay attention to that.

Obama, on the other hand, might rather you pay attention to those two things while he works out some kinks in the relationship between Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Joe Biden, who've had kind of a disagreement about Chinese currency manipulation and little Timmy found out that the whole rumor that this VP won't have that much power is kind of completely untrue. China's probably manipulating their currency, though, but I think the plan is for Hillary Clinton to have just a tetch more control over China policy, being as she's the Secretary of State, than Condi did when the Chinese people's BFF Hank Paulson was over at Treasury. Just a guess.

Oh, and the woman who called Hillary Clinton "a monster" won't be headed to the State Department (big surprise) but she will be headed to the White House, as Samantha Power will be taking a job with the National Security Council. He'd probably prefer a few people not notice that, too.

Elsewhere in China policy, House Adminstration Committee Chair Bob Brady has told the Capitol Visitor's Center to stop selling Capitol tchotchkes made in China and start sourcing from American tchotchke manufacturers, what with the recession here and the loss of manufacturing jobs and the fact that demand for tchotchkes is probably inelastic so visitors probably will pay $1 more for their paperweight and like it just as much.

Anyway, for all the Change that is supposedly coming, one thing that has not and apparently will never change is the fact that "Single Ladies (Put A Ring On It)" has become the song that will be inextricably linked with (one hopes only) the first 100 days of the Obama Administration. I cannot escape it and, thus, you will not either. Don't resist, it'll hurt less if you don't.

[Washington, DC, January 29. Image via Associated Press]

Surrounded by members of Congress President Barack Obama signs the Lilly Ledbetter Bill with Lilly Ledbetter, at center behind Obama, Thursday, Jan. 29, 2009, in the East Room at the White House in Washington. Others standing from left, are House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Me., Ledbetter, D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, and Senate Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)

The text of President Obama's statements:

It is fitting that with the very first bill I sign - the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act - we are upholding one of this nation's first principles: that we are all created equal and each deserve a chance to pursue our own version of happiness.

It is also fitting that we are joined today by the woman after whom this bill is named - someone Michelle and I have had the privilege of getting to know for ourselves. Lilly Ledbetter didn't set out to be a trailblazer or a household name. She was just a good hard worker who did her job - and did it well - for nearly two decades before discovering that for years, she was paid less than her male colleagues for the very same work. Over the course of her career, she lost more than $200,000 in salary, and even more in pension and Social Security benefits - losses she still feels today.

Now, Lilly could have accepted her lot and moved on. She could have decided that it wasn't worth the hassle and harassment that would inevitably come with speaking up for what she deserved. But instead, she decided that there was a principle at stake, something worth fighting for. So she set out on a journey that would take more than ten years, take her all the way to the Supreme Court, and lead to this bill which will help others get the justice she was denied.

Because while this bill bears her name, Lilly knows this story isn't just about her. It's the story of women across this country still earning just 78 cents for every dollar men earn - women of color even less - which means that today, in the year 2009, countless women are still losing thousands of dollars in salary, income and retirement savings over the course of a lifetime.

But equal pay is by no means just a women's issue - it's a family issue. It's about parents who find themselves with less money for tuition or child care; couples who wind up with less to retire on; households where, when one breadwinner is paid less than she deserves, that's the difference between affording the mortgage - or not; between keeping the heat on, or paying the doctor's bills - or not. And in this economy, when so many folks are already working harder for less and struggling to get by, the last thing they can afford is losing part of each month's paycheck to simple discrimination.

So in signing this bill today, I intend to send a clear message: That making our economy work means making sure it works for everyone. That there are no second class citizens in our workplaces, and that it's not just unfair and illegal - but bad for business - to pay someone less because of their gender, age, race, ethnicity, religion or disability. And that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory, or footnote in a casebook - it's about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives: their ability to make a living and care for their families and achieve their goals.

Ultimately, though, equal pay isn't just an economic issue for millions of Americans and their families, it's a question of who we are - and whether we're truly living up to our fundamental ideals. Whether we'll do our part, as generations before us, to ensure those words put to paper more than 200 years ago really mean something - to breathe new life into them with the more enlightened understandings of our time.

That is what Lilly Ledbetter challenged us to do. And today, I sign this bill not just in her honor, but in honor of those who came before her. Women like my grandmother who worked in a bank all her life, and even after she hit that glass ceiling, kept getting up and giving her best every day, without complaint, because she wanted something better for me and my sister.

And I sign this bill for my daughters, and all those who will come after us, because I want them to grow up in a nation that values their contributions, where there are no limits to their dreams and they have opportunities their mothers and grandmothers never could have imagined.

In the end, that's why Lilly stayed the course. She knew it was too late for her - that this bill wouldn't undo the years of injustice she faced or restore the earnings she was denied. But this grandmother from Alabama kept on fighting, because she was thinking about the next generation. It's what we've always done in America - set our sights high for ourselves, but even higher for our children and grandchildren.

Now it's up to us to continue this work. This bill is an important step - a simple fix to ensure fundamental fairness to American workers - and I want to thank this remarkable and bi-partisan group of legislators who worked so hard to get it passed. And this is only the beginning. I know that if we stay focused, as Lilly did - and keep standing for what's right, as Lilly did - we will close that pay gap and ensure that our daughters have the same rights, the same chances, and the same freedom to pursue their dreams as our sons.

Thank you.

Obama Signs Lilly Ledbetter Act [Washington Post]

The toll of these responsibilities is echoed by a report released last week by The Center for American Progress about women in poverty. You can read the entire report here, but blogger Feminist Finance pulled out most of the pertinent details: women are still paid less than men, even when they have the same qualifications and hours; occupations dominated by women are low paid; women spend more time providing unpaid caregiving than men; and women are more likely to bear the cost of raising children.

John McCain spent a lot of time discussing the plight of small business owner Joe Wurzelbacher, so let's talk about Joe. It does not surprise me that the new poster child for the McCain campaign is white, male, middle American, and middle class. So maybe Senator McCain cares deeply about Joe the Plumber owning his own business, but he doesn't seem to care particularly for women getting equal pay. Barack Obama brought up Lilly Ledbetter, the Goodyear Tire employee who was systematically getting paid far less than her coworkers because of her gender. Senator Obama voted in favor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act when it came through the Senate. Mr. McCain didn't even show up to vote. In all of McCain's rhetoric last night, there was barely a mention of the American woman — unless he was talking about his deep pro-life convictions or mothering children with autism.

The Worry Factor [Newsweek]
Women In Poverty [Feminist Finance]
The Straight Facts on Women in Poverty [American Progress]

Earlier: Meet Lilly Ledbetter. She's A Good Reason To Vote Against John McCain

But, in that absence of a record — and as the Vice President on a ticket headed by John McCain — his stances are now basically her stances, or at least the policies she'll be called upon to defend. And, like her position on abortion, his stances on a range of issues important to women are not exactly progressive.

Abortion Rights: On abortion, they're clearly alike (now). McCain used to support an exception in cases of rape, incest or risk to the life of the mother but reversed himself this year. Glamour reports that he didn't support overturning Roe V. Wade in 1999, then he did and that he was kind of a dick when the magazine's editors asked for further clarification. He's definitely all excited about the 2-3 Supreme Court vacancies expected "by the people who decide these things," since that'll give him a chance to appoint justices that will see Roe v. Wade as a "bad decision" the way that he does.

Equal Pay For Equal Work: Moving onto pay equity, something else that Sarah Palin's said nary a word on. McCain's said plenty, including that he's "all for pay equity" but not for the Ledbetter bill because it would lead to, you know, women using the courts to enforce said equity. Of course, he's also said that we could solve pay equity by giving women better job training, which sort of pisses Lilly Ledbetter off. Nonetheless, the official position of a McCain-Palin administration would be "no" to any bill that attempted to resolve the issues in the law that allowed the Supreme Court to fuck over Lilly Ledbetter.

Women At War: McCain's somewhat more progressive on women in combat, telling Glamour:

I think this policy needs to be reevaluated constantly.... We have more and more evidence of greater abilities of women in combat. Also...this conflict is everywhere; we have had a large number of women wounded and killed in Iraq and in Afghanistan. I'm for integrating women as much as possible—with one exception: For example, in Baghdad today, a male combat infantryman puts on 50 pounds of body armor, then another 40 or 50 pounds of military equipment. I want to make sure that women are able to also do that. Now, I'm not saying women are physically weak. Some of the strongest [people] I have ever known in my life are women.... I just want to make sure that they're able to carry out these missions in the most effective fashion.... Women have proven to [everyone's] satisfaction as pilots, as combat medics, in any other role they've been in, that they're perfectly capable, and in some ways not only capable but superior.

Of course, that's a little bit different than what he said back in 1991, but even old dogs can learn new tricks. Is flip-flopping a doggie trick? Anyway, he'd "reevaluate" constantly, sort of like he already has, but I would say it's iffy whether he and Palin would reverse the women in combat decision; I doubt they'd be spearheading any women-in-combat initiatives — let alone any reversal of don't ask, don't tell, despite its disproportionate effects on feamles.

Sex Education: While, as I've previously mentioned, Sarah Palin's record on abstinence-only education is sketchy at best, McCain's positions are more robust. He supports teaching abstinence in schools and is less supportive of birth control education. In fact, he's said that he opposes eliminating the proved-ineffective abstinence-only education programs currently on the books, while leaving wiggle room on giving teenagers some information that there are ways to avoid pregnancy if you ignore the abstinence thing. He did vote against an 2005 family planning bill and, when asked to explain by Glamour first said it was because it have provisions on funding abortion (it didn't) and then clarified that it was because it had provisions relating to Plan B, which doesn't exactly make it better.

In the end, when it comes to women's issues, there may not be a ton of information out there on where Sarah Palin stands, but — like every Vice President before her — she's not going to have any choice but to stand by her man... who hardly stands by many of the women in this country on the issues outlined above. McCain thinks women should nonetheless vote for him because he wants to keep taxes low (not that he's actually correct about that) and make sure that when his plan goes through Congress, the (magical) markets will keep prices low.

Interestingly, McCain's economic adviser, Carly Fiorina thinks women shouldn't be voting just based on abortion, and that issues likes taxes and health insurance are important to women too — issues on which, as I've just noted, McCain is actually worse on. So tell me again how is McCain's candidacy is supposed to be about the issues?

For these reasons and undoubtedly many others, the National Organization for Women Political Action Committee today endorsed Barack Obama and Joe Biden for the Presidency and Vice Presidency — one of the very few times the organization has ever made a general election endorsement. But even NOW's President, Kim Gandy, admitted on NPR that this would be controversial among some of their members despite the significant differences between Obama-Biden and McCain-Palin on the issues supposedly of importance to women. Bethesda, MD psychologist Lynette Long, a lifetime Democrat, probably knows a little about why — she's not voting on the issues, just on the gender that she shares with Sarah Palin. For all Fiorina's (and McCain's, and Palin's) posturing about the elections being about the issues (and about issues other than abortion), the McCain camp wants a lot of women like Long to completely ignore the issues, not choose between them.

Palin's Record on Women's Issues Questions [UPI]
Palin: Unserious About Sex Crimes and Domestic Violence [Shakesville]
Palin On Abortion: I'd Oppose Even If My Own Daughter Was Raped [Huffington Post]
McCain Poised to Flip on GOP Abortion Platform [ABC News]
Is McCain the Nostradamus of the Supreme Court? [CBS News]
McCain Opposes Equal Pay Bill In The Senate [Huffington Post]
John McCain [Glamour]
Women's Combat Roles Likely To Be On Next President's Agenda [LA Times]
McCain: Gay Troops "Intolerable Risk" [Gay.com]
John McCain Campaign to Brody File: Eliminating "Abstinence Only" Programs is Wrong [CBN News]
Health Insurance And the Single Girl [Glamocracy]
Tax Plans And the Single Girl [Glamocracy]
National Organization for Women PAC Endorses Obama-Biden [NOW]
National Organization For Women Endorses Obama [NPR]
In This Election, Putting Gender First [Baltimore Sun]

She spoke at the DNC not because she's an old political hand, but because she's the poster woman for the unfairness of pay equity. Lilly was paid less than her male colleagues for 19 years while working for Goodyear and only found out near the end of her career from an anonymous tipster how badly she'd been screwed. She sued and won, but the Supreme Court ruled last year that, since she hadn't filed her case within 180 days from when Goodyear started discriminating against her, she wasn't entitled to a dime. Legislation that would reverse that ruling is pending in Congress, but John McCain has said that he doesn't support the bill and the bill is being subjected to a Republican filibuster to keep it from passing.

MEGAN: Is this your first convention? Were you politically active before your case?

LILLY: This is my first convention. Being politically active is a more recent thing. Recently, with my experiences, it's gotten very personal for me. Because it really does make a difference.

MEGAN: Why did those experiences make you politically active?

LILLY: When I found out [that she'd been discriminated against by Goodyear], I thought about just moving on, letting it go, retiring, but I just couldn't. So I went to court, to federal court with the lawsuit and I won $3.8 million which the court immediately reduced to $300,000. Then Goodyear took it all the way to the Supreme Court and they ruled against me 5-4. And so I lost my case at the Supreme Court. And what they said to me was, basically, those 5, they changed the law. So what I'm fighting for now is to change the law back to how it was before so that when people find that they are discriminated against they can do something about it.

MEGAN: What would your advice me to young women to avoid what happened to you, besides being politically active?

LILLY: Be very knowledgable about the companies you work for, their pay scales and their treatment. If it's a young person inside a corporation, it's good to pick up a mentor from within the company or even someone outside the company that's aware of the company's operations.

MEGAN: When John McCain said that he was opposed to the legislation that would change the law back, the bill that's known as the Lilly Ledbetter bill, and he said that we could fix sexism in the workplace and pay equality by giving women better training, how did that make you feel?

LILLY: That proved to me, without a shadow of a doubt, that John McCain was out of touch with reality. Because, I've met a lot of women that have been discriminated against, but one stands out to me. She was a medical doctor in New York and she ran the pediatric wing at the hospital but she was paid less than the two male doctors that worked under her. And when she complained to the hospital, they cut her title and they cut her opportunities to work outside the hospital. Now, John McCain's not right because, in that case, you can't get much more education than being a pediatric doctor. John McCain is out of touch with reality.

Related: TAP Talks with Lilly Ledbetter [The American Prospect]
Lilly Ledbetter [Matthew Yglesias]
McCain Dismisses Equal Pay Legislation, Says Women Need More 'Training And Education.' [Think Progress]
ACLU Disappointed in Senate’s Failure to Consider Fair Pay Legislation [ACLU]

• If this whole Jezebel thing doesn't work out, we now know how to become an internet "escort."
  
• Lilly Ledbetter is a stand-up lady. Maybe someday women will get equal pay for equal work, but not today.
  
• But look! Babies and puppies!
  
• We became certified Tina Feynatics.
  
• We talked about moms! You can't live with them, can't shed their DNA.

• Spitzer? I don't even know 'er!
• We were not that into the Sex and the City-branded lingerie. Shudder.
• The Real Housewives of New York City reunion was possibly the best 60 minutes of television we've ever seen. Thank GOD it's been picked up for a second season! We can't wait to hang with Ramoarawn again.
• So throw on that muumuu, and remember: VD is for Everybody.

As a result of that patent unfairness, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was put before the Senate yesterday. And it was voted down, 56-42. By a Republican filibuster. And John McCain didn't even bother to show up to vote.

The Ledbetter Act would have allowed people more than 180 days to file claims against their employers, and, according to U.S. News and World Report, "It would have each discriminatory paycheck trigger a new claim-filing period, that is, another 180-day window in which to file a case with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission." McCain, however, is against it because, according to the Daily Kos, McCain is "all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation, as is typical of what's being proposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle, opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems...This is government playing a much, much greater role in the business of a private enterprise system."

As Kos points out, "Pay discrimination is already illegal. This legislation would have fixed a bad [Supreme Court] decision that severely limited the ability of workers to hold their employers accountable for breaking the law." Both Obama and Clinton voted in favor of the Ledbetter Act.

The fact that this Act was voted down in the first place makes me want to vomit, but it's especially depressing if you read Ruth Bader Ginsberg's dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court case. Ginsberg, of course, was one of four judges who voted in favor of Ledbetter, and she wrote, "The jury also heard testimony that another supervisor—who evaluated Ledbetter in 1997 and whose evaluation led to her most recent raise denial—was openly biased against women...And two women who had previously worked as managers at the plant told the jury they had been subject to pervasive discrimination and were paid less than their male counterparts. One was paid less than the men she supervised...Ledbetter herself testified about the discriminatory animus conveyed to her by plant officials. Toward the end of her career, for instance, the plant manager told Ledbetter that the 'plant did not need women, that [women] didn't help it, [and] caused problems.'"

What the fuck. On a micro level, Lilly Ledbetter got completely fucked over. On a macro one, Republicans don't give a shit about anyone but CEOs. I'm just as baffled about this as Nevada Senator Harry Reid, who said, "I don't know how anyone would oppose something like this. It just makes sense that people should be treated fairly."

Equal Work, Unequal Pay [US News And World Report]
Republicans Defeat Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act [Daily Kos]
Lilly Ledbetter v. The Goodyear Tire And Rubber Company [Cornell]
Equal Pay Isn't A Partisan Issue. Is it? [Time]