Sunday, June 17, 2012


The Week Before Father's Day, Obama Escalates the War on Men

Making another attempt to garner votes from the minority so large it makes up a majority, Obama began pushing the "Fair Pay Act". According to Obama, although we have all sorts of laws on the books against discriminating based on gender, and other things, we need more. Because, as we all know, certain groups can't succeed without Big Brother government there helping.

Currently, there is no salary gap between men and women until after age 30. I wonder if the salary gap will close as this under 30 group ages. Probably not, as Thomas Sowell says,
Not content with dividing classes and races, the Obama campaign is now seeking to divide the sexes by declaring that women are being paid less than men, as part of a "war on women" conducted by villains, from whom Obama and company will protect the women — and, not incidentally, expect to receive their votes this November. The old — and repeatedly discredited — game of citing women's incomes as some percentage of men's incomes is being played once again, as part of the "war on women" theme. Since women average fewer hours of work per year, and fewer years of consecutive full-time employment than men, among other differences, comparisons of male and female annual earnings are comparisons of apples and oranges, as various female economists have pointed out. Read Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Hudson Institute or Professor Claudia Goldin of Harvard, for example. When you compare women and men in the same occupations with the same skills, education, hours of work, and many other factors that go into determining pay, the differences in incomes shrink to the vanishing point — and, in some cases, the women earn more than comparable men.
Maybe part of the wage gap is due to women not pursuing raises like men. (I suppose this would justify government programs teaching women how to negotiate or providing negotiators for them.)

As a prototypical sociopath, Obama made the choice to suck up to the largest single constituency to get votes. white Women enjoy the lowest unemployment rate of any demographic group, 7.4%. Obama ignores the plight of teenagers and blacks, with 24.6% and 13.6% unemployment respectively.

There has never been a more coddled group than the modern women in the U.S. today. Thousands of laws and program set up to meet their needs as they are too frail to meet the world head-on. Go to any website for colleges, universities, elected officials, local, state, federal government agencies, or corporations. See how many programs for "woman's issues" you find and compare it to "men's issues." Unless you're lucky, it'll be an 0-fer. How many colleges offer a Men's Studies program? I've never seen one. Although women make up the majority of undergraduates, graduates, law school students and medical school students, I've never heard of a program to get more men in college except at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

The company I work at falls all over itself catering to women. Out of approximately 200 full-time employees, about 30 have "non-traditional" schedules. 100% of them women. Over the years, myself and several other males in my department asked for non-traditional schedules. All rejected for no other, unspoken, reason than being male. Thanks to the Internet, we can do our work, programming surveys, anywhere in the world. I'm more productive working at home as I have fewer distractions than at work.

Men now suffer a huge disadvantage on the home front. In this NYT column, Wendy Parks discusses divorcing her husband because she yearns "for a deeply united, soul-mate-style connection, he wants something looser, more independent, less enmeshed." I call bullshit on all soul mate connections. Try living in the real world. But the real catcher is this:
The next day, driving around the North Fork, my husband said: “I met a guy last night with a great custody arrangement. He takes his daughter to school and plays with her afterward until the mom gets home. It made me feel hopeful.” I looked at him, driving responsibly, hands at 10 and 2, as always. I felt hopeful, too. I want my husband in my life, and certainly in our son’s. But I did not see why this meant we had to remain married.
Her husband is resigned to defeat. Like most men, he's so beat down he assumes she'll get custody. It's obviously not a scheduling issues as he's talking about bringing the kid so school and playing with him afterwards. Parks assumes with no doubts what so ever that she will have custody and control of their child.

Favoritism and paternalism towards women has reached the stage of allowing them to murder their husbands for nearly any reason. In Tennessee, <a href="" target="_blank">Mary Winkler took a shotgun and blasted her sleeping husband in the back</a> claiming he was verbally and emotionally abusive. A claim her own daughter denied. Winkler produced a pair of clogs in court describing the horror and humiliation of being made to wear them. A claim her husband failed to dispute, due to his untimely death.

Early in their marriage, my middle sister began forbidding her husband of wearing jeans when they went out in public in case they ran into someone who could potentially advance his career. To this day, I wonder why he hasn't killed her for that. This is the sister who, despite her having a college degree and her husband not, rode his coattails for all she could. She quit jobs at her whimsy because he made enough for them to live comfortably. Any wonder why his income outstripped hers?

Propelling the situation ever further into the ridiculous, we now see a study "that suggests men who have stay-at-home wives are 'harming women in the workplace'" Imagine the reaction to any sort of study that suggested any sort of woman, short of a full-blown Alex Forrest?, would harm men in the workplace.

Then we have the women who eagerly anticipate the day men become extinct. (Not the human race, just male homo sapiens.)

One of the ironies of the proposal of the Fair Pay Act is that some high ranking female and male Democrats pay women less than men .
Of the five senators who participated in Wednesday’s press conference—Barbara Mikulski (D., Md.), Patty Murray (D., Wash.), Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.)—three pay their female staff members significantly less than male staffers.

Murray, who has repeatedly accused Republicans of waging a “war a women,” is one of the worst offenders. Female members of Murray’s staff made about $21,000 less per year than male staffers in 2011, a difference of 33.8 percent.


Other notable Senators whose “gender pay gap” was larger than 23 percent:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.)—47.6 percent Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D., N.M.)—40 percent Sen. Jon Tester (D., Mont.)—34.2 percent Sen. Ben Cardin (D., Md.)—31.5 percent Sen. Tom Carper (D., Del.)—30.4 percent Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.)–29.7 percent Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.)–29.2 percent Sen. Bill Nelson (D., Fla.)—26.5 percent Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore)—26.4 percent Sen. Tom Harkin (D., Iowa)—23.2 percent
As Sowell points out:
Among the people who are disappointed with President Barack Obama, none has more reason to be disappointed than those who thought he was going to be "a uniter, rather than a divider" and that he would "bring us all together."
Obama's a sociopath in a suit. As such, he cares not the harm he causes. He'll help women about as much as liberal social policies have helped blacks over the past 50 years. (How'd that Great Society work out?)

But, one things for sure, the War on Women continues and escalates the Democratic War on Men. I wonder a far down men have to be pushed, how down trodden and abused by society, how much they have to blamed for every ill in society before they cry out, "Enough!!" and fight back.

Comments: Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]