How women change men

Love this short post from the Atlantic that summarizes recent research on how women change men.  Some of the interesting points:

Men who have daughters also grow less attached to traditional gender roles: they become less likely to agree with the statement that “a woman’s place is in the home,” for instance, and more likely to agree that men should wash dishes and do other chores [2].

Having a sister, however, has the opposite effect, making men more supportive of traditional gender roles, more conservative politically, and less likely to perform housework [3].

Men with stay-at-home wives likewise favor a traditional division of labor. They tend to disapprove of women in the workplace, judge organizations with more female employees to be operating less smoothly, and show less interest in applying to companies led by female executives. They also more frequently deny promotions to qualified women [4].

Working with women, on the other hand, can encourage egalitarianism at home. Men take on more housework after switching from a male-dominated occupation, like construction or engineering, to a female-dominated one, like nursing or teaching, even after controlling for changes in income and hours [5].

And the implications for women summarized in a single sentence:

Evidently, the takeaway for women who want advancement at work and chore-sharing at home is this: work for a male CEO with lots of daughters, no sisters, and a working wife, and marry a man with plenty of female colleagues and a paycheck that’s bigger than yours.

Are corporations people too when it comes to religion?

Well, if conservatives have their way.  Looks like a case on this issue is headed for the Supreme Court as Hobby Lobby (and some federal appelate judges) feel it violates their religious freedom to cover contraceptives for their employees.  Who knew that corporations had religious freedom anyway?  Nice summary of the key issues in the NYT article.  Interestingly, the legal rationale borrows directly from Citizens United which so prominently gave corporations first amendment rights (in speech).

In Slate, Lorelei Lard explains just how problematic it is:

This ruling in Citizens United has been fodder for comics because, to state the obvious, corporations are not people with independent thoughts, feelings, and beliefs. That’s part of why the 3rd and 6th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals rejected the claims of corporations that don’t want to follow the contraception mandate in Obamacare. Those courts also ruled that the owners of those companies don’t have a freedom of religion claim of their own, because the mandate does not obligate them as individuals to do anything…

It’s not just the contraception mandate that’s at stake. Right now, civil rights law assures that your employer can’t legally fire you for practicing your religion or compel you to practice hers. But if corporations have religious rights, what happens if, as Rovner also suggested, a Southern Baptist employer declines to give the time off provided by the Family and Medical Leave Act to a gay male employee expecting the birth of a child by surrogacy? The company could claim that forcing it to recognize same-sex couples and their families—or pay substantial penalties in a lawsuit—violates its free-exercise rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. To respect the employer’s religious rights, the courts could decide that the way for an employee to preserve his rights is to quit his job…

This would eviscerate traditional civil rights laws and defang new ones, like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which just passed the Senate and would forbid discrimination nationwide on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. In the past, courts have not accepted religious-freedom arguments for firing a white employee over an interracial friendship or refusing to hire or promote non-Christians. If corporations have religious rights and the contraception mandate is a “substantial burden” on those rights, decades of decisions like these could be at risk. Workers with beliefs different from those of their employers would clearly be the losers.

As Rovner pointed out, the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom was written in part because Colonial Americans felt monarchs should not tell people how to worship. By giving religious rights to corporations, the Supreme Court could give that power to their owners instead. That can’t be right.

If the owners of Hobby Lobby don’t want to pay for people to have the Pill, I suggest they don’t use any of their personal funds to buy contraception for others.  But Hobby Lobby Inc., does not have a religion.

Photo of the day

From the National Geographic Tumblr.  Wow.

A man and his dog on the Overhanging Rock in Yosemite National Park, May 1924.Photograph by Educational-Bruce Photograph

A man and his dog on the Overhanging Rock in Yosemite National Park, May 1924.PHOTOGRAPH BY EDUCATIONAL-BRUCE PHOTOGRAPH

Even without the filibuster, the Senate is not the House

So tired of the argument that there’s really no difference between the House and the Senate if you take away the filibuster.  That, of course, is absurd.  Seth Masket lays out exactly why so:

But let’s say it [complete elimination of the filibuster] does happen. Would the Senate be just like the House?

No, it really wouldn’t, for reasons that have much to do with the way the Founders set up the two chambers in the first place. Senators are, of course, elected on six-year terms. Only a third of the Senate is up for re-election in any given cycle, automatically giving that chamber a different outlook on political accountability and vulnerability from its counterpart.

Similarly, representation is obviously very different across the two chambers. Senators represent entire states as opposed to individual districts. This gives them different perspectives from most House members’ and different incentives regarding representation. It also creates a notable representational skew toward smaller states. All House districts are of roughly equal size, while a Senator may represent as few as 500,000 people or as many as 38,000,000. A resident of Wyoming gets a lot more representation in the Senate than a Californian does…

The different sizes of the chambers are also relevant. The reason that the House has historically been a less individualistic chamber with stronger parties and committees and more stringent rules regarding legislative debates is because that’s what you have to do when you have a large deliberative chamber. Four hundred thirty five people simply can not all know each other well or conduct civilized debates without strict rules. This is a principal of large numbers rather than a commentary on declining civility. In a chamber of 100, however, where the membership is more stable, friendships, personalities, and reputations may become more relevant in organizing legislative business. The smaller chamber will always be the more collegial one and the one that allows more open debate…

For all these reasons, even a Senate run under uniform principles of majority rule would behave very differently and serve very different constituencies than the House would. Legislation would still receive a thorough airing prior to becoming law, and there would still be a bias against action in the federal government.

Yeah, that.  Somehow the Senate was quite a different body than the House before the modern abuse of the filibuster, and so it would be in a post-filibuster world.  And to suggest eliminating the filibuster only for federal judicial and executive branch nominations somehow makes the Senate “just like the House” is beyond ignorant.

%d bloggers like this: