The gender wage gap
Recently, the Perspective section front was all about the gender wage gap: the disparity of pay between women and men. The "con" article was written by Hadley Heath Manning, a senior policy analyst at the Independent Women's Forum. A search for more information about this group found its Web page. Check it out to see what kind of women are in this group that purports to be seeking practical solutions.
The "con" opinion was replete with just that: opinion. For instance, "Employers would have to demonstrate a business necessity for pay disparities, even if employees are happy [my emphasis] with their existing compensation." How interesting that Ms. Manning can know that employees are happy with their pay. Another example: "Men are simply more likely to value higher pay, while women--particularly mothers--are more willing to trade high pay for other benefits like flexibility." Again, women, especially women with children, don't want higher pay?
I contend that more in a paycheck can lead to that same valued flexibility like after-school care or live-in nannies. But no, give women flexibility and they will be happy with their lower pay. If you want to read facts, check out aauw.org, the Web page of the American Association of University Women. Closing the gender pay gap is a major issue for this organization. Get facts to go with your load of opinions.
NELL MATTHEWS
Little Rock
The wrong direction
Anti-abortion legislation has occasioned this letter. New laws in several states, most recently Alabama and Missouri, would make abortion a felony for the performing doctor, and do not make exceptions for cases of rape or incest. Ironies abound, but I'll point out two.
First, that the Republicans--the party who says it wants to get government off your back--apparently have no problem getting it into your womb. The second is that, at least in Alabama, the doctor who performs the abortion can be sentenced to up to 99 years for what might be considered a compassionate act to the rape victim. That's very likely much more time than the rapist, who committed a violent act against the woman, will get.
The pols who enacted these laws openly admit they are doing this in hopes of getting court challenges, one of which will eventually make its way to the Supreme Court, hopefully to overturn Roe v. Wade now that there is a conservative majority. Sure, they pay lip service to the sanctity of life, but this is nothing short of a calculated move to advance their agenda.
The cynicism and cravenness are stunning.
The lack of exceptions for rape and incest shows an appalling lack of compassion for women--and girls, who are more often victims of incest--who have been victims of a heinous violent crime. Making them carry the babies of their attackers victimizes them twice. Forcing them to do so by law is barbaric. Where will the state be when these children are born? Like a deadbeat dad, nowhere to be found.
Bill Clinton said abortion should be legal but rare. These laws are a step in the wrong direction.
THOMAS BECKETT
Siloam Springs
Will miss print paper
I just read the letter to subscribers in the May 18 edition of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. In it, Mr. Hussman gives a good explanation of what economic challenges newspapers are facing these days. He makes a clear case for why electronic distribution of his/my newspaper is inevitable. I have no argument that would counter his reasoning; however, I just wanted to express a few points for why I would miss the feel of the "paper" in my hands.
I'm 68 years old, and I have no discomfort with technology. I make daily use of a smartphone, a laptop and a Kindle. These technological gadgets provide several conveniences, and they connect me with the world in ways that were not available when I first started reading the Democrat-Gazette decades ago. But they don't allow me to indulge myself in my morning ritual in the way the printed version of the paper currently does. There's just something special about holding the flimsy pages of the paper in my hands, in my home office, after a good workout and shower, with a cup of coffee. Heck, even my dog understands the ritual. She heads to my office before me and proceeds to jump up on the couch instead of my lap, which is her preferred place to lounge.
Yeah, Mr. Hussman, I understand times, "they are a-changing," and you're running a business. When all is said and done, I would prefer an iPad edition of the Democrat-Gazette versus none. I think a 68-year-old fella can make a minor adjustment in his morning ritual that has brought him comfort for quite some time.
Thanks for the letter!
HOSEA LONG
Little Rock
Against will of voters
There was an unsettling amount of disrespect for Arkansas voters this past legislative session. One troubling issue in particular was the assaults on the minimum-wage law proposed by Sen. Bob Ballinger and Rep. Robin Lundstrum. After pressure from the governor and the Arkansas GOP, Ballinger wised up and decided not to run his bill in committee. However, despite these pressures, Lundstrum ran her bills through, after which they lingered on the House floor for a couple weeks, supposedly so she could whip up the two-thirds majority needed to alter Issue 5, passed by 68 percent of Arkansans in November. Knowing she did not have the votes, she decided to run the bills on the floor anyway, where they failed miserably.
Will Ballinger and Lundstrum face recourse for these actions? Probably not; both these legislators live in strongly conservative districts. However, there are some representatives who voted for Lundstrum's bills who could be held accountable. Three Pulaski County representatives who faced close races--Rep. Jim Sorvillo, Rep. Mark Lowery, and Rep. Karilyn Brown--all live in districts whose voters voted strongly for Issue 5. Any and all campaigns against these candidates should focus on the fact that these representatives were OK with undoing the will of 68 percent of Arkansans. Hopefully these representatives will face true political consequences in 2020.
HENRY EDWARDS
Little Rock
Editorial on 05/23/2019