The oft-cited 78 cents earned by women for every dollar paid to a man is not only contrary to actual data, it’s also a political play that validates all the misogynist “weaker sex” tropes used by chauvinists. That, of course, is why Hillary Clinton loves it–she loves to simultaneously play the “strong woman” role, while citing her own marriage (“Stand By Your Man“) when it suits her.
A Harvard study shows there is no residual gender wage gap among women without children. But that would make the entire issue about a “children gap,” illuminating the real bee in the feminist bonnet. That would be their disdain for any woman who chooses family over career.
Acknowledging a “children gap” among women–all other things being equal–would assign actual value to being a housewife, or a working mother. It would validate a number of choices made by independent, liberated women who aren’t liberated enough or in the ways the feminist movement thinks they should be liberated.
Clinton claims she introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act (which she did as S.841 in 2005, but the same bill has been introduced in every Congress since 1997) “to give women the tools they need to fight discrimination in the workforce.”
Let’s unpack that. What tools do women need from the government to fight discrimination which largely doesn’t exist unless they make certain life choices which have value assigned to them? They already have the Equal Pay Act of 1963, after all. Why isn’t that enough?
First, it encourages women to share their salaries publicly, and strips companies of the right to keep individual salaries private. This is a terrible policy that will cause no end of problems in the job marketplace. Companies would rather not hire people than compromise their ability to attract the best employees through negotiation. It will depress salaries across the board and cause companies to find other non-salary compensation to compete (they already do this in Europe for tax and labor regulation reasons).
Of course, once adjusted for all the variables, the so-called gender gap will remain–but it’s really a children gap because it’s a lifestyle issue. I’ll acknowledge it’s not always a choice for everyone. Single mothers have no choice–but the feminist movement has an answer for that. Choose to abort your baby before it’s born and there’s no problem.
Second, the Paycheck Fairness Act makes it easier for women to sue for sex discrimination in pay. It would eliminate the value of life choices women make to raise families by forcing companies to pay those women the same as those without families. If anything, this is patently unfair to women who do choose careers over children, as they can’t get ahead no matter what.
Instead of breaking a glass ceiling, the bill would create an iron roof, as companies set policies to avoid lawsuits rather than to allow for individual achievement.
The biggest issue with all these “protections” for women is that they implicitly acknowledge that woman can’t handle their own issues. If the government has to protect 51 percent of our population from the other 49 percent, then certainly women must be inherently weaker, less able to negotiate on their own behalf, and less capable of defending their own positions.
If women have simply accepted and learned to live with a large pay gap because “that’s the way things are” then they must be unable to grasp the implications of their true political power. We all know that’s total garbage.
Women are free to choose their own paths in life. With Roe v. Wade, they can choose to have all the sex they want, get pregnant and take a Plan B pill or seek a surgical abortion, over and over again. Nobody is forcing them to have babies. Women can choose to to go college, gain experience and rise to the level of CEO like Carly Fiorina did. They can even run for president, like Hillary Clinton.
If Hillary Clinton becomes president, she will earn $400,000 a year, just like the man who currently occupies the White House. As a senator, Clinton made exactly what the other senators with similar tenure made. But as a senator, Clinton paid women staffers 28 percent less than men.
To be fair, some of this gap might have more to do with job selection and hours worked. As The Week notes:
“Women tend to work more part-time jobs, leave the workforce for child rearing more often, and favor jobs with higher flexibility but lower pay.”
How can we make pay equal without acknowledging that women choose jobs based on flexibility, women choose to have families, and women choose to work less because raising a family has value? We can’t unless we actually limit choice, or we shame women who make those choices by telling them they have no value.
Telling women that their choices have no value unless those choices fall in line with what radical feminists want is itself sexist (claiming that women need protection from themselves), and anti-woman. Every woman has value, and every woman is entitled to see the value in the choices she makes.
This is all typical Hillary: Equality for thee, but not for me.