I have spent enough hours in public and private institutions to have become intimately familiar with radical feminists. I distinctly recall reading one feminist piece openly advocating for the dissolution of all traditional sexual bonds between men and women so that women might truly get to know one another—in more than one way, if ya know what I mean. If I had ready access to the text, I’d cite it properly. Essentially, the reading played a small contribution to a language theory class of mine at an unnamed, local public university—the same place where professors extolled the virtues of Palestine’s war against innocent Israel, decried the United States as some demonic colonial power, celebrated pornography as nominally intellectual text for legitimate academic study, and lauded the value of seeing more children without their clothing.
At any rate, the other night a neighbor visited for dinner, all the while decrying the discriminatory practices of employers who, she claimed, pay men unfairly far better than women. The first few moments of the dialogue sounded something like this:
“It is a fact women are discriminated against in the workplace, as attested to by the wage gap,” she said.
“No. That’s a myth,” I said.
“It’s a fact.”
“No, it’s a myth.”
“No, it’s a fact.”
In the back of my mind, thoughts about the Marxist critique posited by the ravenous racialist wolves raced like bullets. Admittedly, I flushed with righteous indignation (anger). Alas, she continued. “Explain why women in the private business arena make less than men.”
I replied, “Women tend to choose college majors and, resultantly, careers that pay less, while men tend to choose careers in engineering, science, and economics.”
She retorted—and I paraphrase, “I’m not comparing apples to oranges. I want to know why women in a given career earn less than men!”
I explained briefly my experiences as a soldier in the Army/Guard, as a police officer, and finally, as a teacher: Women often receive special protections under the law because of the anti-discrimination policies of the federal, state, and local government. I shared an anecdotal experience involving a police supervisor hired mid-way through my tenure who proved almost entirely incompetent—and worse, so sympathetic with ornery members of the public, including criminals, that even when assaulted, she would take inappropriate actions that put judges, clerks, and other officials at risk—who had fewer years of police experience (she came from a corrections setting), and who became so myopic in her quest to keep my desk clean that she would lose all focus on the primary responsibilities of the job. I further explained that the department had obviously placed her in her position as a supervisor not because of her skills in doing police work, but because of her status as a female minority. When I attempted to address this concern with the next highest supervisor—a man of the same race, granted—he took me aside and made implicit threats that if I didn’t back down, he’d see to it that I did. The same supervisor—a married man whom I had completed a report for when his wife called in a fraud complaint– incidentally, held regular meetings with female co-workers where, it was reported, he sexually harassed them.
Following our brief contention, I practiced my combat breathing and went to work reviewing the wage gap myth. Christina Hoff Sommers (2012) and Ashe Schow (2015) aided my study by parsing the data of the 2009 Department of Labor study on the alleged wage gap and on the study performed by the American Association of University Women (AAUW), headed by Lisa Maatz. For sake of brevity, I list the facts below:
- AAUW found, when controlling variables, there is only about a six cent gap.
- Lisa Maatz admitted AAUW cannot account for the cause behind the (miniscule) gap.
- In 2009 the Department of Labor found what AAUW also found: Almost no gap exists at all when controlling variables.
- Part of the gap, said AAUW, lies with women’s inferior bargaining skills.
- AAUW’s classification of some jobs, such as social jobs, appears biased; lumps, for example, sociology, social work, and economics together.
- Economics (and, for that matter, engineering and science) majors, dominated by men, land jobs paying some $30,000 more a year than sociology or social work, dominated by women.
- Feminists presume women remain too stupid and weak to break out of societal impositions.
- Women have special protections under anti-discriminatory and affirmative action attitudes and policies, especially in public sector jobs.
- Women choose, voluntarily, lower paying jobs.
- Many mothers choose to work fewer hours to increase time with children and family.
- Men account for most fatalities on the job, which indicates men’s greater willingness to take higher risk jobs for greater pay.
- Politicians, like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who push the wage gap conspiracy pay women on their staff lower wages than the men and therefore have little wiggle room to pontificate.
- Ashe Schow echoed James Madison who wrote Federalist 10 over 228 years ago: The only way to close disparities is to force lower paid persons to choose higher paying jobs, college majors that lead to higher paying jobs, and work longer hours.
If the feminists have their way, they’ll continue joining the ranks of the inane racialists who also, in the words of Tal Fortgang (2014), claim to be oppressed by racist and sexist conspiracies (a.k.a., systemic bias). And, like war scenes straight out of the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, they’ll carry on with their mob justice in places like Baltimore, Ferguson, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and elsewhere until public officials, like the state attorney in Baltimore or the Department of Justice, cow to the mob and make the innocent pay dearly for a nonexistent problem.
Powered by Facebook Comments