This is Interesting:
"After Tuesday's election, women now make up the majority of the New Hampshire State Senate. "
Glenn W. Bowen (mail):
The could rename the state "Broadsylvania".
11.6.2008 7:37pm
Too bad legislators' salaries are all at a set rate, and public knowledge. Imagine what a bundle the NH budget would save if the state was paying the majority of its state senate only about 70% of what it was paying the minority, and didn't have to make that information public so those 13 senators wouldn't find out! (Though apparently they're all making the same wage as their predecessors were making in 1975, anyway.)
11.6.2008 8:01pm
Looks like Rwanda beat NH by a few weeks.
11.6.2008 8:28pm
Glenn W. Bowen (mail):

Imagine what a bundle the NH budget would save if the state was paying the majority of its state senate only about 70% of what it was paying the minority

I've worked shoulder-to-shoulder with women in our trade and we've always been paid the same, unless we were working for a woman, in which case she made more than we do- what's everyone else been doing?
11.6.2008 8:44pm
Soronel Haetir (mail):
Seems like a good point to bring up if someone tries to claim that women are a suspect class.
11.6.2008 8:50pm
John Knox, please call the office!
11.6.2008 8:58pm
Tom Tildrum:
Query whether their cycles will synchronize?
11.6.2008 9:22pm
Dave N (mail):
I actually am old enough to remember 1978, when it was considered huge news that Nancy Landon Kassebaum had been elected to the Senate and was its first non-appointed member since Maureen Neuberger was elected in 1960 (Margaret Chase Smith served from 1949 to 1973).

Now there are 17 female Senators (4 Republican, 13 Democrats) and it wasn't even considered remarkable that a female challenger defeated a female incumbent for the first time (Kay Hagan defeating Elizabeth Dole).

By the way, the 70% statistic is one of those nice myths. The number is derived from all women who are old enough to be in the workforce, including those who are not. Since there is an appreciable percentage of "stay at home moms," the number gets skewed.
11.6.2008 11:21pm
EIDE_Interface (mail):
Only liberals would think this is a good thing. Another sad day for America.
11.7.2008 2:13am
Nikki (mail):
From The Senate Website:
"After more than 200 years, the New Hampshire General Court remains a "citizen legislature." As an example of true public service, senators are paid only $100 a year, plus mileage reimbursement for officially related travel."
11.7.2008 10:18am
Pitcherbill (mail):
Good, maybe they can figure it out.
11.7.2008 10:33am
Soronel: Provided that the someone is claiming that women are a suspect class among New Hampshire politicians.
11.7.2008 11:06am
Rich B. (mail):

By the way, the 70% statistic is one of those nice myths.

The wage gap between men and women -- and considering only those men and women who are employed full time -- is 77.8%.
11.7.2008 11:20am
Bedrock Principles:
Another sign of America's decline . . . .
11.7.2008 12:49pm
opq (mail):
very exciting for women. and reading the comments on this thread makes it so clear that sexism is on the decline . . .
11.7.2008 2:15pm
opq (mail):
Rich, women get paid less they have babies! Employers know that statistically women will work less time -- they can't be expected to pay women the same if the average woman takes 3 months off two times during her 40 years of working for maternity leave. and that doesn't count the times she's less productive because she's 8 months pregnant. or the time she spends breast-pumping at work so her kid can have breast milk instead of formula. or the times she has to stay home unexpectedly because her kid is sick. or all the times she leaves early because of parent-teacher meetings. or all the times she gets to work late because the bus was late picking up her kid - etc. ad nauseum. how can women expect to paid the same? too bad for women who don't have kids, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
11.7.2008 2:45pm
opq (mail):
Should be:

Rich, women get paid less BECAUSE they have babies!
11.7.2008 2:45pm
Jack Diederich (mail) (www):
This could be because being a NH Senator is an unpaid gig (unless you consider $100/year as pay). Men are still the breadwinners in most families so the pool of women that don't need a paycheck is larger.
11.9.2008 5:17pm