If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Woman claims the GOP's "War on Women" is directly responsible for her earning $20,000 less than her male predecessor in the same position. Fark: That position is Chairwoman of the Washington state Republican Party   (rawstory.com) divider line 173
    More: Asinine, GOP, male predecessor, executive board  
•       •       •

2726 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Nov 2013 at 7:00 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



173 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-22 07:45:26 PM  
I don't think a bad fiction writer could pen something as tone deaf as the modern Republican Party.
 
2013-11-22 07:46:11 PM  

serial_crusher: Since I declined nearly $11,000 in medical benefits, the true dispute involves less than $10k to the WSRP! That is not worth all the time and effort - and ill-will it has engendered

Again with the math. You don't just get to trade in your medical benefits for cash. Does not work that way, lady. Maybe she should accept the $11,000 in medical benefits just to spite them.


Actually, I have to agree with her on that one. I feel that if you choose not to take advantage of medical benefits (maybe your spouse has a better plan through his/her work), you should at least half that amount back as salary, since you're saving the company money. If you enroll at some point, then you lose that salary boost. But health insurance is part of an employee's compensation, and so they should be completely compensated.
 
2013-11-22 07:47:19 PM  
In an interview Wednesday, Hutchison said she considered the matter closed. "I'm sure that as time goes on and as people become more confident in our ability to raise money and so forth, we'll all take a look at it again," she said.

You bet they will all look at it again. Next time they vote a man into the position. Now get me a sammich.
 
2013-11-22 07:47:41 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-11-22 07:52:32 PM  

Moodybastard: FTFA
"many within the party were upset that Hutchison even mentioned "the 'war on women' meme" in her memo.
"There is no war on women," once source told the Times."

Ok, so what is it then?
A Police Action on women?
A Counter-Insurgency on women?
A Riot Suppression on women?

Whatcha calling it?


The War of Feminine Aggression.
 
2013-11-22 07:55:42 PM  

Moodybastard: FTFA
"many within the party were upset that Hutchison even mentioned "the 'war on women' meme" in her memo.
"There is no war on women," once source told the Times."

Ok, so what is it then?
A Police Action on women?
A Counter-Insurgency on women?
A Riot Suppression on women?

Whatcha calling it?


An Occupation.

?because everyone knows women's occupation should be: Woman. What with teh sandwiches and the pregnants. Besides, I'd sure like to occupy a few ladies.
 
2013-11-22 07:57:21 PM  
"Pay me more or I'll reference Democratic tropes in an internal memo which I can plausibly deny that I leaked."
 
2013-11-22 07:57:26 PM  
i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2013-11-22 07:58:31 PM  

fusillade762: In sorta related news.

Limbaugh sees rape, nuclear option parallel


Well, as long as the Nuclear option wasn't rape rape. I mean, look at the Tea Party, they had it coming.
 
2013-11-22 07:59:29 PM  

BMulligan: Moodybastard: FTFA
"many within the party were upset that Hutchison even mentioned "the 'war on women' meme" in her memo.
"There is no war on women," once source told the Times."

Ok, so what is it then?
A Police Action on women?
A Counter-Insurgency on women?
A Riot Suppression on women?

Whatcha calling it?

The War of Feminine Aggression.


i1126.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-22 08:01:43 PM  

Mike_LowELL: I don't know how to respond to this thread.


We broke him guys! We finally broke him!
 
2013-11-22 08:05:05 PM  

impaler: Tigger: She presumably joined the Republican party voluntarily?

And only becomes upset at the results of Republican leadership after she is personally affected.


So......she is a normal Republican?
 
2013-11-22 08:08:20 PM  
I don't understand why any woman or minority would be a republican.  Or any poor person.  Or anybody who puts the good of the country above their own.  Or really, anybody but the few people who are uber uber wealthy and have much to gain from republicans remaining in power.

I'm glad I live in Washington State, though, where republicans don't have as much control as they do in other states... but damn, if Eastern Washington isn't too conservative for my liking.  It's gotten better over the last decade or so, but they're still too derpy over here for me.
 
2013-11-22 08:11:49 PM  

Captain Dan: "Pay me more

equally to my immediate predecessor or I'll reference Democratic tropes in an internal memo which I can plausibly deny that I leaked point out we really are as bad as the other side claims."
 
2013-11-22 08:14:15 PM  

Lord_Baull: For the "a little too late" Files:
"Please, for the sake of the Party, put this issue to rest and don't let it fester going forward," she wrote. "I particularly don't want persons outside the party to hear about the quibbling as it will undermine our fundraising efforts among major donors."

I also like their response, "There is no War on Women."


You mean BESIDES the Democrats' one, right?
 
2013-11-22 08:14:23 PM  
I've been poking around but I can't find anything that indicates why they thought she should be paid less than her male predecessor.  Anyone else?
 
2013-11-22 08:14:59 PM  
FTFA:"There is no war on women," once[sic] (Republican) source told the Times.

The GOP isn't having a "war on women". They just don't want anyone to infringe on their "god given" right to discriminate against women (or blacks, hispanics, islamics, liberals, homosexuals, or atheists).

/If I left out a group of people that you happen to belong to that Republicans discriminate against, it was unintentional and I'm sorry.
//I'm a little pressed for time.
///cooking dinner.
 
2013-11-22 08:21:27 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: I've been poking around but I can't find anything that indicates why they thought she should be paid less than her male predecessor.  Anyone else?


The linked article in TFA says "budget reasons."
And that her new salary was passed after she was elected (appointed? volunteered?) but before she took office.
 
2013-11-22 08:21:49 PM  

DeaH: As a fellow woman, I would like to tell her that, perhaps, supporting a party that pays a woman $20k/year less than her male predecessor is a sign that she is supporting the wrong party.


As a dude, I'ma just gonna to point to your comment and say... THIS!

Jaws_Victim: Waaaahhh I work with Satan and its too hot down here and he always pokes me in the bum with his pointy pitchfork!


That one got Funny'd. Cos I did LOL.
 
2013-11-22 08:22:55 PM  

Witty_Retort: And that her new salary was passed after she was elected (appointed? volunteered?) but before she took office.


So... after they found out it was going to be a woman...
 
2013-11-22 08:24:27 PM  

Mike_LowELL: I don't know how to respond to this thread.


"Farking shark week"?
 
2013-11-22 08:24:52 PM  

Witty_Retort: Captain Dan: "Pay me more equally to my immediate predecessor or I'll reference Democratic tropes in an internal memo which I can plausibly deny that I leaked point out we really are as bad as the other side claims."


Her job's pay cut was implemented before she was elected.  It would apply to a man or woman equally.

Please proceed with your War on Logic.
 
2013-11-22 08:27:21 PM  

crab66: It seems to be a trend with republican women that they only see how destructive their party is when it affects them personally.


Not just the women.
 
2013-11-22 08:27:22 PM  

Republican Catchphrase Cargo Cult: So unfortunate are the blind. The path here is clear: Cut taxes for the wealthy and increase military spending and eventually the wealth it generates will trickle down to her.


Well of course. Since she's a woman, she should be on the bottom anyway.
 
2013-11-22 08:27:33 PM  

Witty_Retort: And that her new salary was passed after she was elected (appointed? volunteered?) but before she took office.


That's not what the article says.  Quote: "The pay for the Republican chairman's position had been cut by GOP leaders - citing budget issues - at a meeting just prior to Hutchison's election in August."
 
2013-11-22 08:30:59 PM  

Arctic Phoenix: I don't understand why any woman or minority would be a republican.  Or any poor person.  Or anybody who puts the good of the country above their own.  Or really, anybody but the few people who are uber uber wealthy and have much to gain from republicans remaining in power.

I'm glad I live in Washington State, though, where republicans don't have as much control as they do in other states... but damn, if Eastern Washington isn't too conservative for my liking.  It's gotten better over the last decade or so, but they're still too derpy over here for me.


I find it so very bizzare how the Gay Republicans get denied entry to the convention each time, complain, finally get a spot in the back so everyone can give them the stinkeye while the speaker rails about how all gays should be executed, hiding behind their gay republican signs and looking charigned the whole time, before going off to vote for him EVERY SINGLE TIME?!

I still do not understand how you can vote for someone whose stated primary goal if elected is your genocide.
 
2013-11-22 08:34:25 PM  
The WA State GOP had a vote to lower the salary before Hutchinson was given the job.
 
2013-11-22 08:34:42 PM  

Sim Tree: I still do not understand how you can vote for someone whose stated primary goal if elected is your genocide.


Opposing gay marriage =/= genocide

To answer your other stupid question, they vote Republican because they make more money than you do.
 
2013-11-22 08:36:18 PM  
First you want people to cut the pay of top executives than you biatch when they do.
 
2013-11-22 08:37:15 PM  

Captain Dan: To answer your other stupid question, they vote Republican because they make more money than you do.


No they don't.
 
2013-11-22 08:38:03 PM  
Shouldn't they count her um red days as unpaid vacation?

Runs away
 
2013-11-22 08:41:27 PM  

impaler: Captain Dan: To answer your other stupid question, they vote Republican because they make more money than you do.

No they don't.


Yes, they do, and you aren't in a position to contradict me.  I've worked in the Republican Party and have more experience with Republicans than you do.  The vast majority of gay Republicans are fiscal conservatives, i.e. "keep my taxes low" Republicans.
 
2013-11-22 08:43:03 PM  
I am completely baffled as to why any woman would be a Republican. Unless they just really like the idea of the government sticking things in their vaginas. Maybe they're into it. I guess.
 
2013-11-22 08:43:56 PM  

JohnnyC: Witty_Retort: And that her new salary was passed after she was elected (appointed? volunteered?) but before she took office.

So... after they found out it was going to be a woman...


Captain Dan:
That's not what the article says.  Quote: "The pay for the Republican chairman's position had been cut by GOP leaders - citing budget issues - at a meeting just prior to Hutchison's election in August."

Cpt. Duh is correct in this one instance on this one point. I did misread the quote and formally apologize for that.
How he can rationalize that a woman should be paid 20% less than a man for the same job, I leave to him.
 
2013-11-22 08:47:15 PM  

Captain Dan: impaler: Captain Dan: To answer your other stupid question, they vote Republican because they make more money than you do.

No they don't.

Yes, they do, and you aren't in a position to contradict me.  I've worked in the Republican Party and have more experience with Republicans than you do.  The vast majority of gay Republicans are fiscal conservatives, i.e. "keep my taxes low" Republicans.


You mean they're economically illiterate. Also, you're in no position to tell me these idiots that can't figure out basic economic facts make more money than I do. They're just short-sighted and selfish idiots.
 
2013-11-22 08:48:27 PM  
So it turns out she was way overpaid?
 
2013-11-22 08:58:13 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: serial_crusher: Since I declined nearly $11,000 in medical benefits, the true dispute involves less than $10k to the WSRP! That is not worth all the time and effort - and ill-will it has engendered

Again with the math. You don't just get to trade in your medical benefits for cash. Does not work that way, lady. Maybe she should accept the $11,000 in medical benefits just to spite them.

Actually, I have to agree with her on that one. I feel that if you choose not to take advantage of medical benefits (maybe your spouse has a better plan through his/her work), you should at least half that amount back as salary, since you're saving the company money. If you enroll at some point, then you lose that salary boost. But health insurance is part of an employee's compensation, and so they should be completely compensated.


It is an offered part of the compensation package. If I don't accept tuition reimbursement I don't expect my company to give me a check.
 
2013-11-22 08:59:37 PM  

Witty_Retort: JohnnyC: Witty_Retort: And that her new salary was passed after she was elected (appointed? volunteered?) but before she took office.

So... after they found out it was going to be a woman...

Captain Dan:
That's not what the article says.  Quote: "The pay for the Republican chairman's position had been cut by GOP leaders - citing budget issues - at a meeting just prior to Hutchison's election in August."

Cpt. Duh is correct in this one instance on this one point. I did misread the quote and formally apologize for that.
How he can rationalize that a woman should be paid 20% less than a man for the same job, I leave to him.


They knew the winner was going to be a woman. The other serious contender was Luanne Van Werven, also a woman. So regardless of who won, a woman was taking the position. Two other candidates (both male) were nominated for the position but they were not considered serious contenders and were quickly eliminated from the running by the two female candidates.
 
2013-11-22 09:05:03 PM  

impaler: You mean they're economically illiterate.


No I don't.  I wrote what I meant.

Also, you're in no position to tell me these idiots that can't figure out basic economic facts make more money than I do.  They're just short-sighted and selfish idiots.

This isn't even an argument, just a sputtering ad hominem.  Based on the weakness of your written thoughts, I feel well-positioned to correct you.

Gay Republicans are, on average, affluent.  Even more so than straight Republicans, because the average straight Republican is more likely to be a social conservative/evangelical than a gay Republican is.
 
2013-11-22 09:10:50 PM  

Arachnophobe: sugardave: Moodybastard: FTFA
"many within the party were upset that Hutchison even mentioned "the 'war on women' meme" in her memo.
"There is no war on women," once source told the Times."

Ok, so what is it then?
A Police Action on women?
A Counter-Insurgency on women?
A Riot Suppression on women?

Whatcha calling it?

The Courtesan Conflict

And there's my Steampunk adventure novel title. Cheers!


I'm a fair man.  I only ask for 1% in royalties.
 
2013-11-22 09:16:50 PM  

Captain Dan: This isn't even an argument, just a sputtering ad hominem.  Based on the weakness of your written thoughts, I feel well-positioned to correct you.

Gay Republicans are, on average, affluent.  Even more so than straight Republicans, because the average straight Republican is more likely to be a social conservative/evangelical than a gay Republican is


If you vote for Republicans because you think their fiscally responsible, you're an idiot.

If you vote against your own personal rights, because you think Republicans are fiscally responsible, you're doubly stupid.
 
2013-11-22 09:17:39 PM  

JohnnyC: They knew the winner was going to be a woman. The other serious contender was Luanne Van Werven, also a woman. So regardless of who won, a woman was taking the position.


I didn't know this.  Do you live in Washington, or did you read this online?  If the latter, a link?

If the state GOP cut the salary only after they knew who the two finalists were, that would change the story.  I'd need to know if they cut the salaries of other positions before I formed any conclusions.
 
2013-11-22 09:19:47 PM  
Stockholm Syndrome.

So, so sad...
 
2013-11-22 09:20:00 PM  
I like people who speak with such strength in their convictions when they are making generalizations.
 
2013-11-22 09:24:42 PM  

Captain Dan: Gay Republicans are, on average, affluent.


I think a lot of gay Republicans are gay people from Republican families who found out that they could be gay *or* profess to be a Democrat but not both without losing most of their family's support.

Easier to fake being a Republican than to fake being straight.
 
2013-11-22 09:25:20 PM  

impaler: If you vote for Republicans because you think their fiscally responsible, you're an idiot.


Most affluent people vote Republican for pocketbook reasons, despite the risk of being subjected to misspelled insults on Fark.


If you vote against your own personal rights, because you think Republicans are fiscally responsible, you're doubly stupid.

IOW: You think that you know better than these gay Republicans how they should vote, because they're "stupid" and you're not.
 
2013-11-22 09:27:05 PM  

Captain Dan: impaler: If you vote for Republicans because you think their fiscally responsible, you're an idiot.

Most affluent people vote Republican for pocketbook reasons, despite the risk of being subjected to misspelled insults on Fark.


If you vote against your own personal rights, because you think Republicans are fiscally responsible, you're doubly stupid.

IOW: You think that you know better than these gay Republicans how they should vote, because they're "stupid" and you're not.


I think it's that the GOP-holes have proved beyond any shred of reasonable doubt that they are in no way fiscally responsible.  On any level.
 
2013-11-22 09:27:31 PM  
STOP THE PRESSES!  She knew months in advance that the position through freely available means would be cut in salary...never mind, I can't take this complaint seriously...
 
2013-11-22 09:32:46 PM  
Being a woman and working for the GOP is about as close as "she was asking for it" as it gets.
 
2013-11-22 09:33:07 PM  

quatchi: I think a lot of gay Republicans are gay people from Republican families who found out that they could be gay *or* profess to be a Democrat but not both without losing most of their family's support.

Easier to fake being a Republican than to fake being straight.


It's simpler than that.  Most gay Republicans are upper-middle-class professionals who like the GOP for various reasons (e.g. tax policies, deregulation, national defense) even though they support gay marriage.  The party's position on gay marriage is a stumbling block, but not a deal breaker.

Since it appears likely that the Supreme Court will take the gay marriage issue off the table next year, I'd expect relatively more gays to vote Republican in the future.
 
Displayed 50 of 173 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report