Sexism alive and well in Wisconsin

[goddess40]

I have searched all morning for a link for the story that appears on page A5 of the Wausau Daily Herald but have been unsuccessful so far. I can't believe that it didn't make the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on-line since it happened there. So I'll have to quote it here for everyone to read and be disgusted.

Appearing in todays paper 'Protest Creates 24 "brides"' The VP of Human Resources at Aurora Health Care, Gene Krauklis, told nurses who are negotiating their contract " if you want better pensions, you should just marry well".
The CEO of that company earns 3 million a year and recently had $1.3 million put in his pension.
24 nurses in protest put on wedding gowns and asked the CEO to marry them.
Aurora's response was stellar their statement about the protest "We are serious about negotiating a new contract with the union in Burlington, and this silly display of street theater today does not move us closer to agreement." Sounds like a non-to cleverly veiled threat to me.

[Pharlo]

1. Here's a link

http://www.jsonline.com/bym/news/jun05/335734.asp

snip...

"They probably also are the only ones who could stage a protest, aimed at G. Edwin Howe, Aurora's president, titled "Will you marry me, Ed Howe?"

The union contends that during the negotiations, an Aurora representative said that if the nurses and other workers wanted better pensions, they should marry well. That purported comment is behind a planned protest at Aurora's headquarters today that includes several workers dressed as brides."

snip...

"Jeff Squire, an Aurora spokesman, said the Aurora representative did not make the comment attributed to him, but only made a passing comment to the effect that it pays to marry well. The comment was not made at the bargaining table, he added, and had no reference to pensions or the contract negotiations."

Good article. Describes exactly how they're attempting to install an 11% pension decrease on their workers.

Thanks for the heads up goddess. Live in WI and hadn't heard about it.

[FizzFuzz]

3. only a passing comment. You hysterical women. You silly, trivial creatures

"Jeff Squire, an Aurora spokesman, said the Aurora representative did not make the comment attributed to him, but only made a passing comment to the effect that it pays to marry well. The comment was not made at the bargaining table, he added, and had no reference to pensions or the contract negotiations."

Is there any career more despiccable than Spokesperson? They are nothing more than stooges paid to lie in polite words with a smile.

the word should be changed to "spokesSHILL"

[goddess40]

8. Thanks

I don't know why I couldn't find it, maybe it was the paint fumes from the low odor paint I was using. If it was low odor I wonder what the regular version would be?

[FizzFuzz]

2. that rich pig openly states women have no right to earn a living

then blames those women, smears them as "silly" (oh, slander beloved by sexists everywhere), and issues subtle threats when they highlight HIS unprofessional and hostile actions.

This guy has got to be a RWer.

[Pharlo]

4. That's not ENTIRELY accurate,

my understanding of the article is that while Howe is an asshole, he's an Equal Opportunity Asshole.

The entire thing is not so much anti-woman as it is anti-worker.

Another snip from the article:

"The nurses and technicians, who work at Aurora Burlington Memorial Hospital, are represented by Federation of Nurses and Healthcare Professionals. The change in Aurora's pension went into effect last year for employees under age 55. But it has become an issue in the current contract negotiations.

"We are the only people who can say no," said Candice Owley, the state president of the Federation of Nurses and Health Professionals, whose union represents the only organized nurses in the Aurora system."

(Bold emphasis a self edit).

The involved nurses belong to the only unionized group of employees at the facility. They were the only group of employees who felt they could protest.

They were representing ALL employees, under the age of 55, who work at the facily .

As presented here, Howe's statement was not targeted at women specifically. In fact, I am sure he would be just as pleased if some of his male employees were to marry sufficiently wealthy women that they need not worry about a pension - Especially the outrageous sum that is Howe's pension.

If you haven't linked to the article, I suggest you do so if for no other reason than the photo of Howe. If it doesn't scream RWer, nothing does...

[FizzFuzz]

5. Yeah, he is anti all slave wage workers---but he did choose a misogynistic

smear. It would be like telling a Union of Black workers that they shouldn't worry, they can save money by eating watermelon and chitlins.

So he compounds his assholery by being both a rich elitist AND a sexist.

Just because he IS clearly against all workers does not exonerate the woman-focused hate. I doubt that he would actually say a racist remark, but only because most assholes know that THAT kind of thing would get them in trouble. But if its sexism, most people are quick to rationalize it.

I haven't had a chance yet to look at the photo...but it IS weird isn't it, how the mega RWers tend to really LOOK like the pigs they are?

(actually, the only one who doesn't have that typical Puke look, that I can think of at the moment, is Bolton. Weird how he looks like he could be a nice sane guy. How deceiving!)

Just checked the pic...yeah he looks like he would be right at home in a top hat and daimond cufflinks. And a cigarrette in an ivory holder.

[Eloriel]

6. Oh, please.

WHY would you want to trivialize and minimize and basically deny the sexism inherent in the part originally quoted, which had nothing to do with Howe himself, btw? (You DID read the article closely enough to note that the sexist remark wasn't attributed to Howe, didn't you?)

Why is it so important to you to deny the inherent sexism in the remark made?

As presented here, Howe's statement was not targeted at women specifically.

Again, Howe isn't the one who purportedly made that comment. From the article:

The union contends that during the negotiations, an Aurora representative said that if the nurses and other workers wanted better pensions, they should marry well.

Now, perhaps you know something I don't about the nursing field -- have men now achieved parity in the ranks of nurses? Are there equal numbers of men who are nurses now? Yes, this DOES apply to "other workers" which are covered by the term "technicians" in the union -- and no doubt there ARE some men included. But the vast majority of these workers, nurses and technicians, are going to be women.

THIS WAS A SEXIST REMARK BY A COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE. Why are you denying that, and denying its importance as well? Edited to add: that dismissiveness is sexist too, and one of the several classic ways women's concerns and demands, needs and interests have been ignored and put down for as long as women have been asking for equality. You might as well have said, "Now, now, don't worry your pretty little head about it. There are much bigger issues to be concerned about."

In fact, now that I have said it aloud, so to speak, you DID say that. Your whole argument was that it was of little (or no) consequence given the pension issue. CLUE FOR YA: There is no either/or here; they're BOTH important, and the evidence of systemic discrimination against women inherent in the remark made makes it part and parcel of the pension dispute and in all probability an EEOC matter. "Oh, it's only (mostly) women; they don't count, we can adjust their pensions downward. And if they don't like it, well, they can just marry someone with a GOOD pension."

Blech.

[Pharlo]

7. Right now,

I think the most important issue is making certain that there is a pension for ANYONE to collect - particularly in light of recent court rulings concerning corporate bankruptcy and the state of pensions in many large corporations.

Corporate executives have found a new way to 'decrease costs' at the expense of workers.

Is there a sexist attitude implied in the remark?

Yes, it is a statistical fact that:

1) Nursing is a female dominated profession.

2) Single income (non-married) households, in general, have less income than dual income households.

3) Single income households with children are, in general, more likely to be headed by females. (This consumes more of the income for living expenses and decreases the amount which can be put aside for retirement.)

In addition, it is a cultural expectation that women are more likely to marry a 'man to take care of them'.

I agree with all of these points.

On the other hand, by allowing Aurora to incorporate a male/female schism between 'us practical folk' and the 'feminazis' on the pension issue rather than maintaining the focus on 'worker/laborer' and 'corporation/common man' dichotomies, we are allowing them to frame the issue and divide like-minded individuals.

To be perfectly honest, in this instance, the nurses are the lucky ones. They have a skilled profession in great demand and can voice their protest. My sympathies lies with the janitorial staff or clerks who are denied the right to protest without fear of losing their jobs.

Do I see sexism implied in this statement? Oh, God YES!

But the real crime in any pension issue is the manner in which these bastards are stealing the retirements and futures away from their workers. And this applies to employees of both genders.

And, that is where the primary focus should be. CORPORATE THEFT.

I'm a female and work in manufacturing. If I let every 'implied' sexist remark bother me, I'd be an unemployed basket case. I can't tell you how many times I've been in a meeting of ten or more people representing 2 - sometimes 3 - companies, and I was the only female in the room (salaried personnel). Yet, if I walk out onto the floor, there are actually more females working for hourly wages than males. (I fall into the gray middle category of skilled hourly wage.) Guess which group earns more?

I learned very early on not to imply sexism.

In order to do every little bit to level the playing field, you need to phrase it in such a fashion as to maximize potential support. First, get a financial picture - cost/benefit analyses are wonderful tools. If that's not a logistical option, garner support from as many sides as possible - don't make it a gender issue. (Believe me, I learned that long ago - about the tenth time you get hit with the rolled eyes and the "It must be her time of the month..." you just want to deck somebody.)

No, in my experience, the most effective weapon to use against a sexist bigot - using implied sexism - is to rearrange the issue to make it appear as if the attacker is attacking EVERYONE.