What do feminists really want?
Throughout the election cycle, feminists have highlighted the importance of getting a woman on the ballot. They often said they wanted a woman, regardless of party affiliation. That was an easy argument when Hillary Clinton seemed like the most likely contender. John McCain has stolen their thunder by picking a Republican woman. It took the National Organization for Women (NOW) less than three hours to release a statement against Governor Palin. Part of the statement reads,
Does NOW think that women are not smart enough to recognize their own "self-interest?" What kind of view of women is this? This is a harsh statement from an organization that claims to represent the interests of women.
"Sen. John McCain's choice of Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his running mate is a cynical effort to appeal to disappointed Hillary Clinton voters and get them to vote, ultimately, against their own self-interest.
Gov. Palin may be the second woman vice-presidential candidate on a major party ticket, but she is not the right woman. Sadly, she is a woman who opposes women's rights, just like John McCain.
The fact that Palin is a mother of five who has a 4-month-old baby, a woman who is juggling work and family responsibilities, will speak to many women. But will Palin speak FOR women? Based on her record
and her stated positions, the answer is clearly No."
The fact that Palin is a mother of five who has a 4-month-old baby, a woman who is juggling work and family responsibilities, will speak to many women. But will Palin speak FOR women? Based on her record
and her stated positions, the answer is clearly No."
Does NOW think that women are not smart enough to recognize their own "self-interest?" What kind of view of women is this? This is a harsh statement from an organization that claims to represent the interests of women.
Trackbacks
-
8/31/2008 1:20 PM
Right Wing News wrote:
All because she doesn't support "women's issues", meaning she doesn't support abortion. Because, you know, all women care about is abortion. That's it. Only abortion. Nothing else. Sen. John McCain's choice of Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his running mate... -
8/31/2008 1:26 PM
Wizbang wrote:
All because she doesn't support "women's issues", meaning she doesn't support abortion. Because, you know, all women care about is abortion. That's it. Only abortion. Nothing else. Sen. John McCain's...
It seems to me that POW isn't for women either, or at least not ALL women. I'm a woman and offended by their disconcern for conservative women. Honestly, if they were FOR women's rights, they would be open and welcome to all individuals. As a woman with conservative values and morals, who would like to pursue both a family and career, POW doesn't seem to be very supportive. However, it seems as thought they feel that all men are out to get them (regarding their statement about McCain's "cynical" approach to grab hold of their vote). I'm a woman. I'm conservative. I'm voting for Palin based on her down to earth spirit, morals, and relation to people like me. I'm glad this is a historical moment and that the first woman running for VP doesn't have to be liberal and "all for women's rights (whatever that entails)."
Reply to this
and when I say POW...it's my own acronym for NOW...
Reply to this
Right on, Caitlin. I'm a conservative. I'm voting for McCain/Palin because they are conservatives. The fact that I'm a woman doesn't prevent me from thinking about issues, rather than having a knee-jerk response.
Reply to this
I am against Palin because she does not care about the enviornment or animals.
I do not want anyone pushing their morals on me. Where was she when her daughter was getting into trouble?
I am not a republican but my daughter did not get pregnant because I taught her about the consenquences early on and stuck with it.
I also can not understand why Palin would run with a man who will not support equal pay for women. Most women are raising their kids by themselves, as it seems that many men are absentees. Women need and deserve this pay equity if nothing else. So you see it is not just about pro choice.
Reply to this
Terri, what do you mean when you say, "Women need and deserve this pay equity..."
I completely agree that if a woman and a man have the same exact job in the same company, their starting pay should be the same (and if the company offers bonuses, those bonuses should be paid on the sole basis of the performance of the individual in that job for that particular year). But your view of this perceived wage gap does not take into consideration the very obvious fact the difference in wages between men and women results from a difference in job preferences and not some type of prejudice against women. As a general rule, women tend to fill jobs that are less demanding and dangerous and often times take jobs which offer more flexible working hours and/or more benefits. These very important considerations are left out of that very misleading "disproportionate wage" number. Had these other factors been included in the analysis, I'm confident this wage gap myth would be exposed as yet another fake figure used by the radical feminists today.
Reply to this
I will give you a first hand example. I worked with a single mother of 5. She was a head floral designer. She had been with the company about 5 years at the time. She found out that a single man who the co. had just hired was being paid double! This women had 5 children to support alone. She had 5 years experience with the co. What does this say? It says 1. Women do need to be more assertive asking for raises. 2. It means that women are still not valued, even though we contribute 30% of the gross national product,( children ). This figure may have changed. It means that women are our own worst enemies. We are not fighting hard enough for respect. We need to band together as men have to survive in this world. The most discriminated people in the world are women! It means that we all need to listen to one another and the plights of some women who truly have been abused by a man or discriminated against, I am one of them.
I think we need to face the truth: We are all humans male or female yes we are different but also the same we all need to eat!
Reply to this
My question to you: is your example an exception to the rule or do you see this kind of thing constantly? If it's constant, is it because of sexism or because of something a little more subtle. Your first explanation for the situation was not that blatant sexism was the issue but rather that the woman lacked the ability to effectively negotiate her salary (contrary, I expect, to the man in the example).
You also state that women "contribute 30% of the gross national product,(children)" Since it takes both a man and a woman to make a child, why do you attribute the responsibility of children entirely on women? Isn't that the mentality we are trying to discourage? We want the fathers and mothers to have a balanced role in the lives of their children. Numerous studies have shown that children growing up in a 2-parent environment are less apt to have behavioral problems and other psychological, physical and emotional issues later in life.
I agree, "women are our own worst enemies" especially when the mindset and culture says that women have to do everything single handedly. In reality, that is not the case and we cannot possibly succeed in our careers or in our family life if this is the way we choose to lead our lives.
Reply to this
Kathleen,
Clearly you have never read the study done by the American Association of University Women regarding the pay gap (http://www.aauw.org/research/behindPayGap.cfm). This non-political research shows that a pay gap exists when one controls for education, family choices, and field. Unfortunately it seems that you've just blindly accepted what NeW's talking heads tell you about this and other feminist issues.
By the way, do you know what "radical feminism" is? Because you would be hard-pressed to find many in the current (third) wave of feminism in our country. Radical feminists are feminists that want to change society from its root (hence "radical") and didn't believe in using the legal system or government to try to improve women's position in our culture (and many of them actually lived in the famous female-only communes of the 60s and 70s).
So anyway, I suggest doing some research (on the wage gap and on feminist history) before you go around claiming the well-documented wage gap is a myth perpetrated by a branch of feminism that doesn't even exist anymore.
Reply to this
THANK YOU, Agatha! Terri
Reply to this
Now that I have read that study, my opinion on the matter remains unchanged. The AAUW may be 'non-political' but one only need to look at under their "About" section to understand their inherent bias. For example, here's a direct quote for where their funding goes: "Each year the Foundation provides about $4 million in fellowships, grants, and awards for outstanding women around the globe and for community action projects." Community action projects? I am sure it is more than reasonable to assume they would not fund a right to life rally or march. What's more appropriate and less misleading is if they were to state "...community action projects that fall within the scope of liberal feminist thought. Women with fundamentally different ideological views need not apply."
And as for the radical feminist term I used in an earlier post, if you have spent any time on a college campus, you would understand that these radical feminists which I am referring to are all over the place. Many of the members of the feminist group on my campus quote Shirley Chisholm when she said, "The emotional, sexual, and psychological stereotyping of females begins when the doctor says, "It's a girl." In fact, it's on their blog! So, yes these people want to completely uproot society as we know it today. Their objective is to brainwash everyone to believe that men and women are the same, when in fact we should be celebrating our biological, emotional and intellectual differences.
I've done plenty of research to understand this perceived wage gap issue, as I have clearly stated in this and previous comments (which by the way, you and Terri have failed to refute). But I am glad to be directed to new resources and publications on the topic, no matter how flawed or inherently biased these reports may be.
Reply to this
To any one who cares about corruption in politics and politicians go to BenSmiths Blog: The Anti Palen e-mail-Politico.com This info appears to be true. Palen is no christian. She is a bully.
Reply to this
Kathleen,
To find that you are a college woman disappoints me greatly, because your logic is beyond flawed and you clearly lack the ability to think outside your OWN ideological bias.
The fact that the AAUW funds "community projects" in no way suggests that they are liberal feminists--none. There is not even a shred of exclusion towards women with different political views; it is painfully obvious that you are reading your own victimization into their statement. In fact, I'm pretty sure you and your cronies are the ones involved in brainwashing--and you seem to be a prime example!
What's more, a statement that patriarchy affects women from birth does not imply that whatever group that is believes that society is NOT FIXABLE through avenues that already exist. In fact, by virtue of the fact that they probably operate within the bounds of your school's student group rules and bylaws, then they are not "radical." There is a distinct difference between the idea that patriarchy is a pervasive force in our society that can be worked against using existing systems and the idea that patriarchy is inherent in our society and can only be fixed through mass reform (ie. overthrowing governments, re-structuring relationships to eradicate monogamy, etc). Please start reading information about different types of feminism with a more open mind, because I think what you will find is that this eeeevil radical feminism you perceive as your mortal enemy is not as prevalent as you've been told.
As for your comment that terri and failed to refute, are you referencing the idea that men and women pick different types of jobs so that's why there's a wage gap? Because the AAUW study CLEARLY shows that that is untrue; and shows it in a way that I'm pretty sure their so-called bias isn't responsible for. By the way, even if they WERE biased in a liberal way, how exactly would that change the fact that they controlled for nearly all factors (job choice, age, experience, position, family choices, education, I could go on) and still found a wage gap?
As a short P.S., I've attempted to post several comments on this blog that were critical but never inappropriate; they were moderated away. This has also happened to some of my colleagues, who are as interested as I in NeW's love/hate relationship with feminism (ie. hating on radical feminism without knowing what it is, then claiming a NeW kind of feminism, etc). I thought you ladies stood for intellectual diversity? Why the censorship?
Reply to this
I argue that the fact that these women are "radical feminists" is because of their obscure outlook they have on the relationship between men and women and society overall.
"In fact, by virtue of the fact that they probably operate within the bounds of your school's student group rules and bylaws, then they are not "radical." By saying that the group adheres to a set of rules automatically means their not radical is simply not accurate. The radical framework from which they operate asserts that men and women have no differences. This can be seen from the Shirley Chisholm quotation which I referred to earlier. The truth however, is that men and women are inherently different - biologically, emotionally and intellectually. These differences are what women in NeW celebrate.
The fundamental difference between feminists like me and radical feminists is our two different definitions of equality. I believe in equality of rights - where things like merit can differentiate certain individuals over others. On the other hand, radical feminists (and most liberals for that matter) believe in equality of outcomes. These 2 very different takes on the general issue of equality demonstrate our very different views and expectations on society.
I will address the study in the post below.
Reply to this
I read carefully through the 67-page document and found several issues with the study that make the outcomes of the study highly suspect. I have included several quotations from the study below which I take issue with:
“Discrimination cannot be measured directly…To uncover discrimination, regression analysis was conducted to control for the different choices women and men make…The regressions for earnings one year after college indicate that when all variables are included, about one quarter of the pay gap is attributable to gender. That is, after controlling for all the factors known to affect earnings, college-educated women earn about 5 percent less than college-educated men earn. Thus, while discrimination cannot be measured directly, it is reasonable to assume that this pay gap is the product of gender discrimination.” –From Chapters 2 & 3
“In estimating the regression equations, the dependent variable was defined as the natural log of average weekly earnings. Most variables from the analysis presented in the report were included in the regression analysis.” -From the Appendix
First, they show no tables or figures of their calculations. The only table they show relating to this is the coefficients they used in the regression analysis but they do not explain how they arrived at those numbers either. Second, they used a statistical sample to calculate the raw data and then performed regression analysis on the sample data. Therefore, margin of error should have been included, but nowhere in the piece do they say how far off their calculations could be. For all we know, they may have calculated a 5% difference in pay with a margin of error of 10%. They state in the appendix that they ESTIMATED the regression equations. So they absolutely need to include further explanation of their findings. In addition, if any sensitivity analysis was conducted, it was not included in this report. This analysis must be disclosed in order for the reader to have any understanding of the findings. Furthermore, the best explanation they can give to back their questionable findings is in the appendix. So you had to read the entire document and the appendix but you are still left with questions.
This study is clearly bogus. They do not report how their figures were obtained, what the margin of error is and they do not include any sensitivity analysis. As an engineer, I am trained to look for these kinds of things that tend to be overlooked. This is why I am glad you addressed this study again because people need to be aware that this study is not a credible source of information.
Reply to this
High profile politicians, including Barack Obama, are seeking to limit the American peoples’ access to on-demand, short term financial assistance. Some cities and towns are trying to impose restrictions on where these legitimate businesses can set up shop. Even worse, several states, including Georgia and North Carolina, have successfully imposed all-out bans on the industry, with several more attempting to follow suit. Citizens all across the nation are seeking to have their voices heard by fighting legislation that would obliterate the payday loan industry nationwide; Obama, and other misinformed political officials, are pushing for a complete ban in the name of personal political gain, regardless of the hundreds of thousands of potential lost jobs in an already turbulent economy.
Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/
Reply to this