Could we call it a…war on women?
Female employees in the Obama White House make considerably less than their male colleagues, records show.
According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).
The Obama campaign on Wednesday lashed out at presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney for his failure to immediately endorse the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, a controversial law enacted in 2009 that made it easier to file discrimination lawsuits…
It is not known whether any female employees at the White House have filed lawsuits under the Ledbetter Act.
Honestly, I don’t think the Obama administration is engaged in any sort of discrimination – wage or otherwise – against women. I suspect that the disparity in pay is entirely circumstantial, having to do with the experience, abilities, job histories and personal choices of the employees themselves rather than their genders.
Which is also, by the way, largely the explanation for the wage gap between the genders in the private sector as well. It’s not discrimination so much as men and women being different, and having different priorities. Men tend to be more career-driven then women, and value things like monetary compensation over time off and schedule flexibility, which are things more important to women.
But according to the left’s equal outcomes doctrine, where these sort of disparities are assumed to be the immediate result of discrimination, President Obama has a serious problem. If this were a Republican administration, you can bet we’d be hearing from the appropriate activists. But leftists don’t often hold themselves to their own standards.
It’s not about equal outcomes. Outcomes are determined individuals and the decisions they make. What we should be concerned with is equal opportunity. If women, afforded the same opportunities as men, wind up making less than men (or vice versa) so be it.