So much for an inclusive vision of feminism, one that includes women of very different views and backgrounds. Here we see feminism narrowly presented as a special interest of wealthy, well-educated liberal women - and thus irrelevant to all other women.

Hey, any thoughts on Oprah not wanting Palin on her show?

she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska;

Perhaps because the "fair pay act" isn't going to heat a single home nor lead to "fair pay"?

She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools

No, she does not.

but disbelieves global warming

Well, since the globe isn't "warming" why would she?

she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling

Proving this woman is not at all informed.
"Lesser evil" because, er, um, yeah. You get the picture.

Does she think that biology classes should spend an hour on Bigfoot?

If not, why not?

Steinham is old fashioned and she has never been elected to anything. What matters is that Palin's viewpoints were agreed by a majority of Alaskan voters to get elected Governor. She maintains a high approval rating of 80-85%. I doubt if Steinham has that rating.

I am tired of the incessant ranting by looney leftists that we all agree with them News Flash- WE DON'T.

Eugene,

I respectfully disagree with your analysis. I'd argue that Steinem's views, in Steinem's own view, really is inclusive. Her assumptions about proper or correct womens' issues, and her assessment that women who don't sign up for the full plate of policies she espouses are traitors to their sex, is a conventional leftist plank, deriving from the Marxist "false consciousness" theories (originally used to explain how workers somehow failed to support Marxist programs). The theory simply concludes that those who do not sign up for the correct slate of policies are imbued with "false consciousness" - that is, they have either been insufficiently educated as to their proper interests, or they are incurably blinded to their proper interests by competing (but false, because unimportant) cultural teachings (i.e. the much-hated "superstructure"). "False consciousness" is vital to radical movements for at least 2 essential reasons: (1) it provides an easy explanation to fellow radicals as to why they are not achieving the kind of success among targeted constituents that their theories tell them to expect, and (2) it assuages their egos because they - the enlightened elite - expect to remain in the "vanguard" even after the revolution (after all, there is no point in espousing radical revolution if you don't expect to rise in station or, worse, if you expect to be among the first placed against the wall).

No, I am not accusing Steinem of being Marxist in a formalistic sense. I am merely noting that leftist organizations in the US have long been influenced by Marxist theorists, at least in part because the Marxists (particularly the Leninists) have created an intellectual framework for radicalism and revolution. To the extent that American leftists read these Marxist revolutionary tracts (or other revolutionary tracts influenced by the Marxists), it should not be surprising that they would find themselves aping (even if unconsciously) the same theories and, sometimes, even vocabulary.

I think the clearest modern example of this sort of thing is Thomas Frank's work - after all, "What's the Matter with Kansas" is entirely predicated on the notions that (1) leftists, including Frank, know what's best for the working class, (2) but the working class fails to adopt or embrace these policies, and so (3) ergo, the working class is blinded by "false consciousness" (i.e. Republican Cultural Wedge Issues) and the vanguard should do its best to combat these "cultural" issues, educate the working class as to their correct interests, and, if necessary, adopt government policies to protect the working class from its blindness and inability to recognize its true interests by forcing them to do so.

A similar sort of thing generally occurs in the Democratic Party - repeatedly accusing the GOP of winning through false cultural issues and blaming the voters for failing to realize it.

Thus, this false consciousness/superstructure mode of thinking is really a way of asserting that there exist objective, meta-policies (maybe better called "substantial" policies and interests, as opposed to the "accidental" variety), and the radicals have convinced themselves that they, and unfortunately they alone, have access to the keys of the kingdom. In this manner they become self-aware Cassandras, warning targeted groups of the dangers ahead but always ignored, and this causes them to take action to force their targeted groups back onto the path of righteousness.

Thus, to return to Steinem, from her perspective it really and simply doesn't matter what polls of women say about their policy interests - correctness is not a matter of (small-d) democratic opinion, which may be infected with blindness and "false consciousness"; instead, correctness applies to the policy positions adopted by Steinem and her fellow members of the feminist vanguard - they are award of the correct policy positions that are in womens' interest, and to the extent that women disagree, it can only be because they are ignorant, blinded by "false consciousness", or morally corrupt. Consequently, if the polls simply don't matter to Steinem &Co., then relying on the polls to contradict her fails to grasp the nettle (if indeed we are seeking to debate her). On her terms, (though her ideas surely cannot be debated, in her own mind at least), the only way to even try to contradict her is to argue that her positions are not actually in the real or substantial interest of women. Unfortunately this is a frustrating way to debate, for it forces us to fight on their chosen battlefields, and on their own terms, but their beliefs are such that it is simply impossible to contradict them (in their minds) unless we do just that. Incidentally, that's where Hayek was invaluable: by focusing on the epistemological issue (societies and markets represent information-exchange mechanisms, and groups smaller than the whole cannot accurately identify the decisions of the whole), Hayek was able to challenge the radicals' self-annointed omniscience, and we found that to be their Achilles Heel.

Steinem says, "[Palin] opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality."

I guess women weren't well represented in this poll: According to the latest Rasmussen survey, Sarah Palin is now more popular than Barack Obama or John McCain:

The new data also shows significant increases in the number who say McCain made the right choice and the number who say Palin is ready to be President. Generally, John McCain’s choice of Palin earns slightly better reviews than Barack Obama’s choice of Joe Biden.

Perhaps most stunning is the fact that Palin’s favorable ratings are now a point higher than either man at the top of the Presidential tickets this year. As of Friday morning, Obama and McCain are each viewed favorably by 57% of voters. Biden is viewed favorably by 48%.

At this point, we know Palin's opinions on some issues, but for others, we are only guessing. Perhaps its educated guessing, based on statements in the past, such as on creationism, but we don't really know for certain.

Handling the media will be just as important as the debate with Biden, because at least some in the media won't let candidates get away with the subject changing and deflection that is so frustrating in most debates. At this point, the GOP handlers aren't letting her anywhere near the media for interviews. Given the circumstances, they are smart to do this for a little while, to get her up to speed on all the issues and how to respond. If they let her loose with reporters from MSNBC or Meet the Press in the next few weeks, it would show McCain's people have confidence in her. You have to respect Obama going on O'Reilly, for example. If they keep Palin away from the press for more than a week or two, other than a tongue bath from Hannity or someone like that, it will make it look like they have something to hide.

ergo, the working class is blinded by "false consciousness" (i.e. Republican Cultural Wedge Issues) and the vanguard should do its best to combat these "cultural" issues

Remember, no longer will Obama permit you to go about your lives "uninvolved, uninformed".

On global warming, the poll you cited is old and an outlier. Most polling shows that the public is split on the issue and doesn't really know what to think. When asked if climate change is caused by humans or natural cycles, the most popular answer by far is "both."

Partially because of this confusion, this issue is WAY down on the public's list of concerns. Polling clearly shows that the public is unwilling to do much of anything to try and combat the "problem," so I seriously doubt most people really care that Gov. Palin rejects the anthropogenic theory, and many will roundly applaud her for it. The ones who get upset by it wouldn't vote for her anyway.

In other words, this issue is nothing but a net positive for Palin. And since the science is slowing coming around to the side of Inhofe &Co., Palin will soon be able to trumpet her discernment on the issue. Bonus.

I, for one, would like to know just what bets are being hedged with

[Palin] opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality.

Which are the "plurality" issues in Steinem's list? Even simple "support/don't support" questions are hugely vulnerable to bias one direction or the other depending on the wording of the question; obviously questions where there are more than two choices (which is what the "plurality" caveat suggests to me) are much more so.

On multiple counts, Steinem's claims show that she is either a liar, or shamefully ignorant of facts.

She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming

Not only is the first statement incorrect (as Eugene documented), but the second statement is also, in a manner that seems to slip past people. The question of anthropogenic (man-made) causes of global warming is separate from the question of whether global warming exists.

Even this environmentally-focussed site that makes the same error about Palin's creationism-teaching belief says the following about her belief on global warming:

Palin acknowledges the reality of climate change and its potential catastrophic effects on Alaska and other parts of the world, but she remains skeptical about any link between human-caused greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

If that statement of her belief is accurate (I don't know), then Palin is far from a disbeliever in global warming.

From my perspective, the question of human contribution to global warming is only of partial interest, in that it might help determine ways to change the situation if we wish to do so. But if global warming is serious enough that we should do something about it, then that is true regardless of whether there are human contributions to it, and the solutions we engage in may or may not have much to do with how the warming was generated in the first place.

Nothing about Palin's apparent beliefs about global warming would seem to prevent her from being able to support measures to change the situation if warranted.

The abortion stats reported above are highly selective. Palin would ban abortion in cases of rape and incest. The number of women who reject that view (according to the poll Volokh cites): 81%.

No majority of that size rejects any of Obama's claims about abortion. At least you couldn't know that from the poll Volokh cites. It isn't specific enough. Volokh says Obama disagrees with most women. But the polls are not sensitive to the timing of abortions. How many women think abortion should be illegal in the first four weeks regardless of the reason? The poll doesn't say. How many women think partial-birth abortion should be illegal when the mother's life is at risk. The poll doesn't say.

On the clear results from the poll, Palin's position diverges dramatically from the vast, overwhelming majority of American women. Obama's is either directly in line with the majority (for abortions during the first trimester), or, at best, only partially divergent.

When the positions are clearly spelled out, this is a losing issue for McCain/Palin.

Gloria Steinem has delusions of relevance.

Fair point, notaclue. Steinem vaguely refers to "majority or plurality support" for her preferred positions, but I am not entirely convinced that she was necessarily referring to empirical polling data, and I have no doubt that she does and would continue to assert that certain policy positions enjoy womens' "support" even if the polling data suggests otherwise, based solely on her own analysis of womens' "preferences". That is, I don't think that pointing out that she is empirically wrong about the existence of "majority or plurality" support would matter much at all to her, and I have no doubt that she thinks she's right about womens' interests and womens' support no matter how much contrary evidence is piled up.

Thus, while it's fun to point out her howlers, I'm not sure that's the way to convince her that she's wrong.

Only in America do the "elite" media trop to the observations of a woman best known for (a) once working as a Playboy Bunny and (b)founding a magazine for lonely feminist librarians that finally went under even after she slept with a financier to fund it.

I'd rather read MoDo or Rosa Brooks, the West Coast's ponderous and predictable "MoDo wanna be." I mean really--Steinem? "Delusions of relevance" is right.

Eugene,

Here's another factual error in Steinem's article:



The most in-depth study on the issue found no difference between abstinence-only programs and other sex-ed programs on the rate of unwanted pregancies or STD's.

But other than that, the article is accurate!

The Ace wrote "the 'fair pay act' isn't going to heat a single home nor lead to 'fair pay'."

That would be the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007, H.R. 2831, which passed the House July 31, 2007, by a vote of 225 to 199 with 8 not voting.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was a legislative response to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire &Rubber Co. Lilly Ledbetter had worked for Goodyear for over 20 years without knowing that her salary was not commensurate with that of her male colleagues. She sued claiming pay discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963. The Supreme Court 5-to-4 majority decision was that the 180-day period in the law following the discriminatory act (different salary levels) was binding, even though Ledbetter didn't find out about the differential pay levels until years later. Congress acted to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under existing legislation occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice.

The bill has not passed the Senate because there were only 56 votes for cloture. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton found time on April 23, 2008, to show up on the Senate floor and vote for cloture, but John McCain was one of just two who did not vote.

By assuring that America's workers, including women, are paid in a non-discriminatory manner, the Lilly Ledbedder Fair Pay Act would go a long way to help struggling families pay for food, clothing, shelter, and other needs of life, including heating their homes.

Respectfully submitted,

By assuring that America's workers, including women, are paid in a non-discriminatory manner

That is a good one!

So all female workers are "struggling"?

Er, hell's bells, you don't know and can't say.
It doesn't matter, your whole post is hyperbole.

That's all we need to know about The Ace's awareness of the global climate crisis that is happening right now.

Prove me wrong.

I dare you.

Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them

Another,

Global warming is a hoax.

"I am of the opinion that this is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people," he says when I visit him in his office on a sunny spring afternoon.

Another,

Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Some "crisis" huh?

Lilly Ledbetter had worked for Goodyear for over 20 years without knowing that her salary was not commensurate with that of her male colleagues

eyesay, that's blatantly false. Her pay was based on her evaluations. Ditto for her male colleagues. Some males were paid more than her, and some were paid less. If you're going to cut and paste Leftist sound-bites at least get the facts straight.

Does she think that biology classes should spend an hour on Bigfoot?

and

On global warming, the poll you cited is old and an outlier. Most polling shows that the public is split on the issue and doesn't really know what to think

I think spending an hour, or several hours, discussing Bigfoot could be a great use of class time. What's the evidence that Bigfoot exists? How is it studied? How are conclusions drawn? If you (the student) were in charge of mounting an expedition to prove once and for all if Bigfoot (or Nessie, or the Skunk Ape) exists, how would you go about it? How would you handle (and here we connect with the AGW issue) hoaxes and fabricated data, which we know happens?

I think we teach science as too much received wisdom instead of inquiry and tests. A bunch of people in lab coats called scientists say something is true and therefor it is. But controversy in science is normal. Actually, for any given day, the controversial subjects are usually the most important ones. For instance, AGW. Both sides of that debate claim the other side is cooking the books, and I don't think the formal science education we give our kids equips them well enough to deal with that.

So, yes! Let's teach Bigfoot.

How many decades has it been since anyone cared what Steinem had to say? Shouldn't the headline just read "Bitter Old Bitte Hates Younger Prettier Woman".

To bookend a good science education would involve a statistics class so you could dig into a study and confirm rigor. Then you'd have a critical thinking class that makes you ask "why is this person writing about this topic? What is their desired goal in educating you about this idea?" And you could go from there.

I think you could do the same with your history classes; teach them about Dewey defeating Truman, or Holocaust deniers.

In my chemistry high school course, we did actually study "Bigfoot" - the cold fusion researchers - as an example of what to recognize when looking at reported facts and assumed conclusions. It was useful to teach.

By assuring that America's workers, including women, are paid in a non-discriminatory manner, the Lilly Ledbedder Fair Pay Act would go a long way to help struggling families pay for food, clothing, shelter, and other needs of life, including heating their homes

eyesay,

Only if they are attorneys. Heaven only knows how much time and money a business would have to invest in lawsuits and how many jobs this diversion of capital would cost.

It should be called the Lawyer Full Employment Act. Also, the Chinese Full Employment Act. (No offense to lawyers.)

Oops. Sorry, don't know what happened there.

So much for an inclusive vision of feminism, one that includes women of very different views and backgrounds.

"Feminism" doesn't mean "whatever women believe". It is a political and social philosophy that involves attention to the primary needs and desires of women and their status in society and, generally, a belief that such needs and desires are to be treated equally to those of men.

There are plenty of women whose political beliefs are not feminist, and plenty of men who are. And there are a diversity of beliefs that can be considered feminist.

feminism, as understood by steinem, is the inclusive, holistic diverse philosophy that abortion should be legal up until about the age of 2-1/2. it isn't any deeper or more nuanced than that.

"81%... No majority of that size rejects any of Obama's claims about abortion."

Really? I bet if you polled the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, more than 81% would support it.

Does Palin opposes "stem cell research"?

Or does she oppose "embryonic stem cell research"?

And by oppose does that mean she opposes federal or state funding of embryonic stem cell research but will allow private research?

My guess is that she both supports federal/state funded "stem cell research" and "embryonic cell stem cell research" but without state funding of the latter.

Houston Lawyer wrote, "How many decades has it been since anyone cared what Steinem had to say? Shouldn't the headline just read 'Bitter Old Bitte Hates Younger Prettier Woman'.

I believe this comment is in violation of the Comment Policy. In answer to your question, "zero decades." Gloria Steinem's latest book, Doing Sixty and Seventy was published in 2006, and two years later, still ranks #61,495 in Books on Amazon.com. In contrast, just at random, The Right Man by David Frum was published in 2005 and ranks #378,147. In short, people still care in the 2000s decade what Gloria Steinem has to say, and your ad feminem attack is out of tune with the dignity of the Volokh Conspiracy.

JackDeWalt wrote, "it is simply bad policy for government bureaucrats to be in the business of determining what pay is 'fair.'"

I agree, but that's a straw man. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007 doesn't put government bureaucrats in the business of determining what pay is "fair." It is already illegal to discriminate salaries on the basis of sex. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007 clarifies that the 180-day clock re-starts with each salary payment.

NOW changed its name to the National Association of Women?? Who knew? All I can say is that an advocacy organization is exactly where I go when I want unbiased information. Thanks for the link.

I believe this comment is in violation of the Comment Policy.

Well, THAT'S the way to show that feminists aren't just a bunch of uptight, humorless nags. Congrats.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007

The silly thing about that is that it is unnecessary. We already have the Equal Pay Act, and Lilly Ledbetter lost her case because her lawyers waived her claims under the EPA to make claims under Title VII instead.

Here's some more info about the bill:

What’s missing from the debate about the bill, unfortunately, is a discussion about what the bill is about and should be about. It’s not really about pay equity — after all, we already have the Equal Pay Act for that. It’s really about allowing indivdiuals to recover much more in the way of damages than they could otherwise recover (though you’d be hard-pressed to make heads or tails of it from the seemingly technical language used). And frankly, there’s nothing wrong with advancing that goal if there was a fair debate on the merits.

But unfortunately, the public debate on the bill seems to fall into the classic stereotypes that each side rolls out with a piece of new legislation.

link

The fact is that even if McCain is elected, he will likely have little to no impact on abortions. In the last 28 years, we have had strongly pro-life Presidents for 22 years. Yet I see little real movement towards restricting abortions.
Even if McCain appoints several conservative Justices and even if this results in a reversal of Roe v. Wade, the effect would be to return the question to state legislatures, few of which would enact complete bans on abortion.
So it would not surprise me a bit if many pro-choice voters choose McCain because they agree with him on other issues that he is more likely to effect.

eyesay wrote:

The fact that her pay was based on her evaluations does not mean that she knew that her salary was not commensurate with that of her male colleagues."

I agree. Read what I wrote; I have no claim as to what she knew or knows.

What I'm saying is this: if she was being paid more than certain male colleagues at her same level of employment -- which she was -- it's false to claim that her pay was not "commensurate" with her male coworkers. Furthermore, it's disingenuous to conclude, as you have, that since she was paid less than certain cherry-picked highly-evaluated males, her pay was based on sexism.

Although I'm opposed to teaching creationsim in schools, what's the big deal? Creationsism can be explained in 2-4 sentences. It's not like a teacher is going to give a sermon on the whole of Genesis.

Sorry. NOW is still National Organization for Women, not National Association of Women as I carelessly posted earlier.

BP and Royal Dutch Shell don't know any more about the climate than anyone else. The reason they're making these acknowledgments is 1) so if AGW is actually real nobody can accuse them twenty years from now (in court, presumably) of misleading the public about dangers their products posed and 2) because it builds support for all kinds of subsidies they're well positioned to take advantage of. Should we be surprised oil companies are happy to take tax money for dead-end technologies like corn-based ethanol?

The others are right. The earth hasn't been warming for a decade or so. The climatologists have adjusted their models to say it's a temporary pause before the temperature starts rising again, but then again they were stridently confident of the old models, the models that failed to predict the temperatures we're experiencing now. So color me skeptical when people who had to make gross adjustments to five-year-old models claim to know what the temperature will be in a century.

... for anyone to suggest that a 17-year-old high school girl hasn't had any sexual education I think is ridiculous.

I think it's clear that Bristol has mastered the topic at this point.

The Greenland Ice Sheet has experienced record melting in recent years and is likely to contribute substantially to sea level rise as well as to possible changes in ocean circulation in the future. The area of melting in 2002 broke all previous records.

eyesay,

And, just how long do you think we've been keeping records?

During the Miid-evil warming period, Greenland, was well, green. I tend to think it has more ice on it now than then. Also, a lot of the ice is already underwater, so when and if it does melt, it will actually occupy less space than it does now.

And, in science, it doesn't matter how many people believe something to be true. It only matters if even one proves something to be true. If you want to accept things by consensus, then at least 90% of the world thinks that God or Allah or God by another name, created the Earth and ourselves. So, we should definitely include Creationism and Intelligent Design in our curriculum, no?

PS Why has Mars been warming and it's polar ice caps shrinking?

Can't find the source, but the Artic added 500,000 miles of ice this year. Good news for Polar bears. I''ll try to find the source for that. In the news the other day. Or, buried in the news the other day, I should say.

"I think it's clear that Bristol has mastered the topic at this point."

Well, I think, given that she's pregnant, that it's still not unlikely that she was using contraceptives. According to about.com, 53% of unplanned pregnancies occur when a woman is using contraceptives. So, uh, it looks like it's less than 1 in 2 that she wasn't using contraception given that she's pregnant.

Now, am I mistaken, or is the "abstinence only" a program that they run for pre-teens and young teens? Am I mistaken in believing that students still get the standard talk about STD's and pregnancy and contraception in their standard health class?

I think parents have a legitimate complain if the public school system is encouraging their 12-year-old kids to use contraceptives. But for anyone to suggest that a 17-year-old high school girl hasn't had any sexual education I think is ridiculous. So I think that, if I am correct in the circumstances about pre-high school sex education and high school sex education, I support "abstinence only" education in principle.

Dan M.,

You are mistaken. There is no "standard talk" about pregnancy and STDs in high school. It's up to the school to set the curriculum. Abstinence-only sex education includes all grade levels, not just pre-teens. It is difficult to believe, but true, that students in districts that support an "abstinence-only" approach do NOT get any standard health class that includes contraception, birth control, and STD information (although obviously they may get that information from other sources). It is entirely possible that a 17 year old girl in a district that supports "abstinence only" education would NOT have gotten accurate information about pregnancy, STDs, and contraception. What's scarier is that a teen that does not get this information at school or at home is likely to get snippets of information from less-than-reliable sources (her friends, TV, magazines) that may or may not help her.

This is why supporting abstinence-only education, as Sarah Palin does, is ridiculous.

Abortion is constitutionally valid and shall not pass from our midst! A penumbra told me. Well, it didn't really TELL me, more like it eminated from it..

All references to polls should include a link to allow people to view the questions asked and info on the demographics of the polled population.

I like a good statistic as much as the next person, but you can find numbers to support nearly any view. It's easy to find them and common to use them, so I can't fault Steinem or the prof for using numbers selectively. I just keep hoping for people to try stop being unconciously or consciously deceptive in their use of numbers.

Personally:
The numbers cited on evolution vs. creationism/ID seem off to me. Abstinence only education, while lofty in its moral justification, is largely ineffective (by most statistics I've seen) regardless of how many people agree with it. As far as abortion, well see my original comments.

"But never mind the facts! We make our own reality around here! Just as the tobacco companies found a few doctors to say that the health effects of cigarettes uncertain, the defenders of the unsustainable status quo have found a few scientists to deny the scientific reality of global warming. 'Move along folks, nothing to see here.'"

For better or worse, its more than a few. I think we'd make more headway in achieving precautionary action via astute risk-management arguments based on sound science than shaming and truth-stretching. Not that science itself is innocent of such tactics (pace Khun, et. al.), just that its hard-earned credibility arose from scientists who aimed at something better. Consensus built on truth is both longer lasting and more productive than consensus built on fear. See, for instance, Iraq.

LtDan and Scary but True,

Please see Wallace's post above. I doubt if Mathematica has a political ax to grind. Repeated, in part, below.

The most in-depth study on the issue found no difference between abstinence-only programs and other sex-ed programs on the rate of unwanted pregnancies or STD's

.
Also, hang out with some young people. I know a number of girls who have gotten pregnant as they are my daughter's friends or acquaintances and to a woman, ALL have had sex-ed.

If you won't deal in facts, why not go ahead and teach creationism? If nothing else, this shows that current sex ed programs need a lot of help and are not doing the job. Either that or both sex ed and abstinence only are doing as well as they can, given a teen's maturity and ability to comprehend.

David M. Nieporent asked, "Is there any reason to believe that a significant number of struggling families are victims of sex discrimination?"

National Association of Women has a Women Deserve Equal Pay fact sheet that sheds some light on that question. I found that by Googling "pay equity" (with quotes) and clicking on the 7th hit. There are about 502,000 hits, so there is plenty of information on the Internet on this topic, if you care too look.

Eyesay, NOW's page has absolutely nothing to do with sex discrimination. It has to do with "wage gaps," which would not in any way be affected by the Ledbetter law.