Good news for WNBA fans: the league that has been seen as the less-cared-about stepsister of the NBA is actually on the up. Attendance for the games are up, TV ratings are up by 20 percent, and WNBA.com has seen a spike in traffic. Merchandise sales are up 36 percent an the league’s 14 teams have seen 46 games sold out this season, too.

Reports are chalking it up to a few key points:

- There’s less NBA control over the WNBA…which is probably a good thing, since the men’s league doesn’t seem to have it’s act together. WNBA leadership are adding more non-NBA team owners to its rosters. Here in LA, we have two women owners of the LA Sparks who are the first to independently purchase a sports team — one’s a teacher, the other’s an attorney.

- There are a lot of exciting, new players. I mean, when the WNBA started, there were a ton of great players… many of them are STILL PLAYING. Look at Candace Parker (of the LA Sparks, of course), who was the second player to dunk in a regular-season game (Lisa Leslie was the first, of course)… can’t you hear the crowd chanting, Rookie of the Year?:

Then some of you may remember the big old fight earlier this season that suspended 10 players and Detroit assistant coach Rick Mahorn… lots of people were paying attention (that’s basically why people watch hockey, right?).

- I personally think WNBA.com traffic is up because the mainstream sports media doesn’t give an eff about women’s basksetball. Right now, the WNBA is playing their post season. Not one of the major sports websites have any results on the top of the fold of the front page right now. Granted, this is the last week of the regular season in baseball, too, so it’s very baseball-centric. Also, there were no WNBA games tonight, but the playoffs begin tomorrow with the Sparks playing the San Antonio Silver Stars and the NY Liberty playing the Detroit Shock. In fact NBC sports has an NBA news section lower on the page with no WNBA news — the NBA is out of season. The LA Times mentions the Sparks tonight… waaaaay down below.  Check out screenshots of the top national sports sites below. Hopefully, the screenshots will be different tomorrow night after playoff games #1 for the east and the west.

NBC Sports

ESPN

Fox Sports

Sports Illustrated

Yahoo Sports

LA Times

Lead Photo by MJPeaceCorps

Virginia senators Jim Webb (D) and John Warner (R) introduced the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act on Monday, that would allot four weeks of paid leave for federal workers (fathers and mothers) for the birth or adoption of a child.

Can I just say that right off the bat, the fact that John Warner and Jim Webb introduced this bill is interesting it itself. Warner is a Republican, and providing discrimination protection tends to be a very non-Republican ideal. And 30 years ago, Webb wrote this very long essay in the Washingtonian about why women should not be in the military.

According to NOW, 1.8 million federal workers would be affected by this bill. The act would also let workers use up to 8 weeks of accrued sick time while they’re on leave trough the Family and Medical Leave Act (which is available to all workers in the U.S., and not just federal employees).

On a related note, the Lilly Ledbetter Act, introduced to Congress back in April, was written after a Ledbetter attempted to claim unequal pay at her company.

“Late in my career, someone left a note in my box at work showing my pay versus three males,” she told NPR in a report this morning. “We four were doing the exact same job, and their pay was drastically higher than mine.”

The Supreme Court ruled against her, that she passed the statute of limitations for when she filed the claim (which is 180 days after the unequal pay takes place). The argument, however, is that at most companies, employees aren’t allowed to talk about their salaries, so how would they necessarily know? This puts the responsibilities on managers who probably have a reason to pay some people less than others…

Here in California, our Legislature just passed a bill to ensure equal pay for equal work for both sexes (according to the census, women still only earn only 78 cents / dollar that men earn). Now we just need governor Schwarzenegger to sign it and *wham* us California ladies get equal pay… well, I guess that’s the hopeful version of what may come…

If you feel so inclined, contact your Senators (you get 2 of them, you know) and urge them  to vote.

Photo by Joguldi

If you haven’t heard, I’m extatic that lefty lady Rachel Maddow is getting her own show on MSNBC starting next week. But in preparation of her upcoming prime time newsy-talker, Maddow is rumored to be getting a few “suggestions” from the suits at the network. According to Page Six:

MSNBC loves the chatter of liberal pundit Rachel Maddow, but not her look. Maddow…is being subjected to a network makeover. A source says an entire “glam squad” has been hired for the openly gay Maddow, and she has been asked not to wear her Drew Carey-esque glasses again. There’s even talk of “putting her in a skirt.

Um, effing lame. Why does it matter what she’s wearing, as long as it’s fit for the air? Its not like she’s dressed like a bum, or a lumberjack. Do they really think people aren’t going to tune in because she’s not dressed like Katie Couric, who isn’t taken seriously as a journalist, anyway? Will making her wear a skirt help her think harder or something? Are pantyhose the magic key to getting “Middle America” to keep on watching a lesbian spout current events?

From what I know, people were pining for Maddow to get a show as she is (and as I hope she will remain to be). TV execs are lame, Maddow is gorgeous, so suck it, pants haters!

UPDATE: Maddow replied on TV Newser on Wednesday:

I think it’s hilarious that Page Six just runs stuff that they make up.   What a great job that must be!   Not intimidated — thanks for the question, Ron.

I reeeeally hope this is true!!

Hanna Seligson wrote an op-ed for the New York Times in relation to her latest book, “New Girl on the Job: Advice From the Trenches.” In it, she laments the girl-poweredness in school, from Kindergarten up through college. However, that power somehow diminishes for many women when they enter the workplace.

What was it, I wondered, that was making our first career steps so wobbly when we had been so accomplished and self-assured in school?

Every workplace is different, but certain patterns began to emerge. I experienced and heard of instances when some women, instead of helping a new female colleague, tried to undermine her. Rather than giving “the new girl” the tools to succeed, they might try to sabotage her advancement.

I saw some men, raised in a different era, who refused to take young women seriously, focused on their appearance and gave them the least desirable assignments. Even in this day and age, I saw women becoming “assistant-ized”— saddled with all the coffee runs and photocopying.

At the end of the essay, she talks to a male friend who says when he wants a raise, he just asks for it. And if he doesn’t get it initially, he keeps asking for it. Is that an acceptable way of doing things? Is it really a problem for women to be so forward, if a guy is going to be just as forward? I mean, persistence is a valued trait in most workplaces, but doesn’t that sometimes cross a line, when it goes from being persistent to being rude? I’m all for asking for raises and promotions when you deserve it, but how do you toe that line while maintaining integrity?

Does anyone have Hannah’s book? Is it worth reading? I’m intrigued.

Photo by Damek

Wow. Way to go, South Africa.

Article’s here.

Did you know that Gwen Ifill is the only woman moderating in the presidential debates (she’s moderating the Veep debate this fall) and has been the only woman doing it since 1992? I heart Gwen and all, but that’s kinda sad. For those of you who aren’t aware, Ifill works for PBS’s Washington Week and the Jim Lehrer News Hour. She’s reported for some of the top newspapers in the country including the NY Times, Baltimore Sun, Washington Post as well as NBC News. And she’s really cool bc she was born in Queens, N.Y. (What, I had to throw that in there). Maggie from Feminist Underground explains…

The first televised debates were in 1960, and, not surprisingly, had no female moderators or panelists. But when the next debates came in 1976, there was a significant amount of female involvement. All four debates had a female panelist or moderator. All four women from that year are excellent role models, the kind of women who entered journalism at a time when it was a heavily male-dominated industry but went on to become highly successful reporters.

And then look at this Wall Street Journal headline announcing the slate of presidential debate moderators (three in all):

Interesting that the WSJ left out Ifill in the headline…

You would think that with the broadening of cable television, (somewhat) more diversity in newsrooms, and other progress (kinda) made in the mainstream media, there would be more women in the mix, doing the three presidential debates this year… oh yeah, that topped with the fact that we had a woman running for office in the first place would make me think that there would be more lady involvement. There were soooo many primary debates in 2007 into 2008, many involving women, but what’s with the drop off now?

via Feministing