Hello you guys, sorry I'm a day late, but here I am, and let's talk:
Another huge controversy in politics today is whether or not the minimum wage should be raised federally, or kept where it is. The left feels as though we should #raisethewage, but the right feels as though the minimum wage is fine where it is. So, who's right and who's wrong? Well, it depends on how you look at it. The federal minimum wage is at $7.25/hour, although many other states have much higher state minimum wages, such as New York, which is where I live, has a minimum wage of $8.75/hour, effective in 2015. So, is $7.25/hour fit for adults with families that they need to support? Of course not. But that isn't the argument here. The argument isn't that this mere $7.25/hour, or a mere roundabout figure of $15,080/year is suitable for workers with dependents. The argument is that the minimum wage is not meant for this demographic of people.
Yes, it's easy for you to say that a 16 year old white boy sitting in his bedroom on a snowy monday afternoon on his macbook computer typing away on his blog simply doesn't know the struggles of workers who are simply trying to supply for their families. So, let's look at the facts:
Last year, over 3.3 million people worked at or below the minimum wage. Considering the United States has a population of 316.1 million people, and roughly less than 298.4 million people working (considering the unemployment percentage), that means that 1.2% of workers in the United States were working off of this minimum amount of pay. This may not seem like a lot of people, but considering the huge amount of working population in the United States, this number is gargantuan. What do we have to do to stop this? Well, for starters, jobs. Creating more jobs for skilled people will lower this number significantly. We can't just do this at a drop of a hat, but it's something to work towards. However, are there jobs out there that at least some of these people working at minimum wage employment can take? Absolutely. The myth that this country is just simply fresh out of qualified workers to fulfill skilled labor jobs has gone on long enough. We're not out of jobs, we're just out of people who are willing to take them. Why? Because as long as we live in a socialized healthcare state, there will always be people not willing to work hard enough to get to the point where they're off the ground. Are all people like this? Of course not. But it would be ignorant to assume that people like that don't exist. The fact is that there are always going to be people who would rather flip burgers at McDonald's or sweep floors at a retail store, and collect welfare to satisfy their needs a little bit than aid in the development of a worthwhile corporation and fulfill their potential to society. Again, to stress, some people have had some unfortunate things occur in their lives, so, no I don't believe that "every minimum wage receiving, welfare collecting lower class citizen" is lazy, but I know that at least some of them are.
The problem with fiscal liberalism is that it's socialized. No one likes to hear that word, but it's true. Giving to the bottom to sustain them instead of forcing them to work their way to the top. I've always said that capitalism is the best cascenario because it's encouraging. It encourages those at the bottom to get to the top, and those already at the top to stay up there. Socialism does the opposite. Although a terrific idea in theory, socialism is flawed. It's flawed because it encourages people to stay at the bottom. Why would you wanna work hard when you can do nothing and get the same results as the guy standing next to you? It's human nature. People only want to do the work that gets them their fair results. So why am I talking about this? Because fiscal liberalism resembles this theory so much. As radical as that sounds, it's true. From the minimum wage to their policy on welfare and healthcare, to Obama's new free community college plan, it's socialized, and it doesn't work. The best way to get people to pick themselves off the bottom, is to show them that hard work rewards you. How do we do that? By encouraging them to get to that point. And, finally, how do we do that? Not by encouraging people to stay at their minimum pay for minimum work job and just increasing the pay, but by keeping these jobs at a low rate, and encouraging them to reach for higher. That's how you encourage people to be the best that they can be. Not by increasing pay rates at McDonald's to this outrageous $15/hour, but by keeping them low and showing them to strive for more if that's what they want.
Finally, the issue here is quite plain. Minimum wage workers are typically the least useful people in the company. They are meant to consist of teenagers or college students just trying to get by school or trying to save up for that car they've always wanted. It's not fit for a parent trying to supply for their kids because that's not what it's meant to be used for. If the minimum wage was meant to be suitable for adults with dependents, it wouldn't be a tiny $7.25/hour. Equal pay for equal work. The fact is that most companies can function without these workers, and if the wage were to increase any further, then the companies would be forced to let people go, just to satisfy a small amount of people's financial needs. You'd see unemployment skyrocket, and jobs go way down.
Let's put this into perspective. You're walking down the street and you see 10 starving homeless people, and you only have $50. Do you give each person $5, to give each of them another fighting chance to go get a small meal for the night, or do you give one person all $50 so they can eat in luxury, but the other 9 starve? Just something to think about.
Thanks so much to all of you for reading this post and I will see you all next week! See ya!
Monday, February 9, 2015
Sunday, February 1, 2015
Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice
Okay guys, let's talk.
One of the biggest controversies since Roe vs. Wade has been abortion. The constant back and forth battle between Pro-Choicers and Pro-Lifers has been prevalent. So, today, we're gonna talk about the main contrasts and comparisons between the two movements. Why do they exist? What do they stand for? Let's find out.
This is an issue that I am extremely passionate about (although I am going to do my best not to provide a personal stance in this post), so I have done a lot of research. But, for this post, I have decided to get a deeper insight into both sides. To do this, I constructed my own survey. I surveyed 26 different people; 13 Pro-Choice, and 13 Pro-Life. I have learned so much about the opposing movement, and even things about the movement that I associate myself with. And today, we're gonna talk about what each of these movements truly mean to these people. So let's get started, shall we?
Pro-Life:
An important thing to realize about the Pro-Life movement is exactly that. The Pro-Life movement is supposed to be focused on all life. Although this movement constantly contradicts that notion by being against all abortions under any circumstances including rape, incest, and the health of the mother, or being pro-death penalty (being a mainly right-wing Republican movement), the movement is supposed to follow this policy of life. A common misconception by the Pro-Choice movement is that Pro-Lifers are out to get women, and deny their right to choose. Is this really the case? Well let's take a look: In my surveys one common thing showed up in almost all of the questions when asked what was the most important thing to them about their movement: Sex education. A major aspect of the Pro-Life movement is informing and educating women to make the right decision about sex, and if they make a mistake, that there are other options other than abortion. In fact, two Pro-Lifers (who I shall remain nameless for their own privacy) said it perfectly, "Ultimately, If you are not willing to suffer the consequences of pregnancy knowing there are failure possibilities in birth control, don't have sex simple as that." and "I want women to understand that there are other options besides abortion." The Pro-Life movement is not a movement that wants to deny women their "right to choose" because it is filled with "empowered white men", because a lot of women are Pro-Life, including the two people who gave me the quotes mentioned above. Yes Pro-Lifers are mainly concerned with abortions, but they are also concerned with informing women of their other less mentally traumatizing options, such as adoption or abstinence. Another hugely misconceived notion about the Pro-Life movement is their view on abortions in cases of rape, incest or when the Mother of the fetus' health is at risk. This may come as a shock to you Pro-Choicers so brace yourselves: Most Pro-Lifers support the decision made by 15 states to allow abortion in the case of rape, incest, or the health of the Mother or the fetus. So why is it thought that Pro-Lifers don't share these views? Well most legislation presented by members of Congress or state officials have proposed bans on abortions or funding of abortions at any cost. But these pieces of legislation have either been poorly written or not representative of the views of the people. The fact here is that the Pro-Life movement is meant to represent all life. However, politicians such as former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and, yes, ultra-conservative former President George W. Bush, are constantly ignored as being responsible for the backing of the piece of legislation that would allow abortions in the circumstances of rape, incest or the health of the Mother/fetus. The life of the fetus is the most prevalent, mainly because most abortions take place not because of these situations aforementioned, but the life of the Mother is vital also. The life of the Mother is important because she is, overall, a life too. Someone might wanna drop this piece of news to these Pro-Lifers who don't seem to see that.
Pro-Choice:
The Pro-Life movement seems to misunderstand this notion: The key word in "Pro-Choice" is choice. In fact, of the 13 Pro-Choicers that I surveyed, 8 of them mentioned the word "choice" when asked what was the most important aspect of their movement, and 11 of them stated that they would not actually have an abortion themselves. One Pro-Choicer even went as far to say that abortion was the least important aspect of the movement. So why the hype? Well, Pro-Lifers constantly view Pro-Choicers as being "Pro-Abortion" because they believe that women should have access to this kind of procedure under any circumstances. But it's not about being able to have an abortion, it's about having control over your own body. Some Pro-Choicers wouldn't even ever have an abortion themselves, they just want women to be able to make such a decision if they choose to do so. One Pro-Choicer, who is actually just a friend of mine and I did not survey said it best. She said, "I'm Pro-Choice, but I don't believe that abortion is the right choice." Profound. Pro-Lifers blow up the movement as being a bunch of "baby hating murders", where it actually depends on what your own personal beliefs of what definition of when life begins is. Are some Pro-Choicers also extremely Pro-Abortion? Absolutely. But the contrast between "Pro-Abortioners" and "Pro-Choicers" is one wants the right to have an abortion, and the other wants women to be able to take back their bodies. So what do Pro-Choicers really want? They want to empower women to make their own decisions. They want to provide sex education so that abortion wouldn't be an option, but if it is, that it is readily available to them. Sound familiar? That's because Pro-Lifers want the same thing, minus the whole "abortion being readily available" part.
Now that you all, hopefully, learned a little bit more of an insight to the opposing argument, let's discuss. Why do we attack. Pro-Lifers attack Pro-Choicers for being "baby killing monsters" and Pro-Choicers attack Pro-Lifers for being "misogynistic choice deniers". So what's the reality here? The reality is that we both want the same thing. We both want to educate young women so that abortion is not the option. The only contrast here is that Lifers never want it to be the option, and Choicers want it to be available. Let's stop arguing over who's right, who's wrong, and who's going to pay for the abortion. Let's start arguing over how we can get our women to realize the repercussions of their actions, and educate them to make the right decision for themselves and their child based upon their beliefs. Trying to get women to understand that their sexual decisions are imperative to the rest of their lives is important. But how they choose to deal with it is determined by whether or not she believes in Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. But, let's stick together so when the time comes to make her decision, whether that would be whether to have sex or not to have sex, to abort, or not to abort, or to put that child up for adoption or not is educated, and it's our jobs to do so.
One of the biggest controversies since Roe vs. Wade has been abortion. The constant back and forth battle between Pro-Choicers and Pro-Lifers has been prevalent. So, today, we're gonna talk about the main contrasts and comparisons between the two movements. Why do they exist? What do they stand for? Let's find out.
This is an issue that I am extremely passionate about (although I am going to do my best not to provide a personal stance in this post), so I have done a lot of research. But, for this post, I have decided to get a deeper insight into both sides. To do this, I constructed my own survey. I surveyed 26 different people; 13 Pro-Choice, and 13 Pro-Life. I have learned so much about the opposing movement, and even things about the movement that I associate myself with. And today, we're gonna talk about what each of these movements truly mean to these people. So let's get started, shall we?
Pro-Life:
An important thing to realize about the Pro-Life movement is exactly that. The Pro-Life movement is supposed to be focused on all life. Although this movement constantly contradicts that notion by being against all abortions under any circumstances including rape, incest, and the health of the mother, or being pro-death penalty (being a mainly right-wing Republican movement), the movement is supposed to follow this policy of life. A common misconception by the Pro-Choice movement is that Pro-Lifers are out to get women, and deny their right to choose. Is this really the case? Well let's take a look: In my surveys one common thing showed up in almost all of the questions when asked what was the most important thing to them about their movement: Sex education. A major aspect of the Pro-Life movement is informing and educating women to make the right decision about sex, and if they make a mistake, that there are other options other than abortion. In fact, two Pro-Lifers (who I shall remain nameless for their own privacy) said it perfectly, "Ultimately, If you are not willing to suffer the consequences of pregnancy knowing there are failure possibilities in birth control, don't have sex simple as that." and "I want women to understand that there are other options besides abortion." The Pro-Life movement is not a movement that wants to deny women their "right to choose" because it is filled with "empowered white men", because a lot of women are Pro-Life, including the two people who gave me the quotes mentioned above. Yes Pro-Lifers are mainly concerned with abortions, but they are also concerned with informing women of their other less mentally traumatizing options, such as adoption or abstinence. Another hugely misconceived notion about the Pro-Life movement is their view on abortions in cases of rape, incest or when the Mother of the fetus' health is at risk. This may come as a shock to you Pro-Choicers so brace yourselves: Most Pro-Lifers support the decision made by 15 states to allow abortion in the case of rape, incest, or the health of the Mother or the fetus. So why is it thought that Pro-Lifers don't share these views? Well most legislation presented by members of Congress or state officials have proposed bans on abortions or funding of abortions at any cost. But these pieces of legislation have either been poorly written or not representative of the views of the people. The fact here is that the Pro-Life movement is meant to represent all life. However, politicians such as former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and, yes, ultra-conservative former President George W. Bush, are constantly ignored as being responsible for the backing of the piece of legislation that would allow abortions in the circumstances of rape, incest or the health of the Mother/fetus. The life of the fetus is the most prevalent, mainly because most abortions take place not because of these situations aforementioned, but the life of the Mother is vital also. The life of the Mother is important because she is, overall, a life too. Someone might wanna drop this piece of news to these Pro-Lifers who don't seem to see that.
Pro-Choice:
The Pro-Life movement seems to misunderstand this notion: The key word in "Pro-Choice" is choice. In fact, of the 13 Pro-Choicers that I surveyed, 8 of them mentioned the word "choice" when asked what was the most important aspect of their movement, and 11 of them stated that they would not actually have an abortion themselves. One Pro-Choicer even went as far to say that abortion was the least important aspect of the movement. So why the hype? Well, Pro-Lifers constantly view Pro-Choicers as being "Pro-Abortion" because they believe that women should have access to this kind of procedure under any circumstances. But it's not about being able to have an abortion, it's about having control over your own body. Some Pro-Choicers wouldn't even ever have an abortion themselves, they just want women to be able to make such a decision if they choose to do so. One Pro-Choicer, who is actually just a friend of mine and I did not survey said it best. She said, "I'm Pro-Choice, but I don't believe that abortion is the right choice." Profound. Pro-Lifers blow up the movement as being a bunch of "baby hating murders", where it actually depends on what your own personal beliefs of what definition of when life begins is. Are some Pro-Choicers also extremely Pro-Abortion? Absolutely. But the contrast between "Pro-Abortioners" and "Pro-Choicers" is one wants the right to have an abortion, and the other wants women to be able to take back their bodies. So what do Pro-Choicers really want? They want to empower women to make their own decisions. They want to provide sex education so that abortion wouldn't be an option, but if it is, that it is readily available to them. Sound familiar? That's because Pro-Lifers want the same thing, minus the whole "abortion being readily available" part.
Now that you all, hopefully, learned a little bit more of an insight to the opposing argument, let's discuss. Why do we attack. Pro-Lifers attack Pro-Choicers for being "baby killing monsters" and Pro-Choicers attack Pro-Lifers for being "misogynistic choice deniers". So what's the reality here? The reality is that we both want the same thing. We both want to educate young women so that abortion is not the option. The only contrast here is that Lifers never want it to be the option, and Choicers want it to be available. Let's stop arguing over who's right, who's wrong, and who's going to pay for the abortion. Let's start arguing over how we can get our women to realize the repercussions of their actions, and educate them to make the right decision for themselves and their child based upon their beliefs. Trying to get women to understand that their sexual decisions are imperative to the rest of their lives is important. But how they choose to deal with it is determined by whether or not she believes in Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. But, let's stick together so when the time comes to make her decision, whether that would be whether to have sex or not to have sex, to abort, or not to abort, or to put that child up for adoption or not is educated, and it's our jobs to do so.
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Feminism
Okay guys, let's talk:
First, let me start off by saying that I do NOT hate women, and I DO support equal rights between genders and "a woman's right to choose." I just do not believe that feminism is an accurate representation of this equality it claims to strive for.
Let's look at the facts
First wave feminism was a 19th century movement to promote the political equality of women and to gain the right to vote, right for property, etc. Okay, much needed! You go girls!
Second wave feminism was a 20th century movement to promote equality of women to men in the workplace, such as equal pay. Okay, much needed! You go girls!
HOWEVER, third wave feminism is a much different story. Third wave feminism constantly credits themselves, as feminists, to the work of first and second wave feminists such as Susan B. Anthony. Modern day feminism, in the opinion of many including those who feminism is supposed to be supporting, as a hypocritical organization filled with victim breeders and gender card pullers, which, in my opinion, is extremely similar to other 21st century "progressive movements".
Hi, I am a cis white male, I am anti-feminism and I DO support equality for women to men socially, economically, and politically.
So, if you're a feminist supporter, you're probably wondering why I identify myself to the anti-feminist movement, or that I actually don't know what feminism is or what it stands for, right?
Wrong.
I have had much experience with the feminist movement, and have seen the hypocrisy within it first hand.
Let's take a much more in depth look at the 3 basic categories of the feminist movement, shall we?
Socially- I would be an ignorant, sexist idiot to say that women are socially equal to men. Women are oppressed socially. This includes both of the other 2 categories of what feminism stands for. Women aren't respected enough as people to be respected in politics or in the workplace to have an equal chance to men to get elected or to be guaranteed equal pay, no questions asked, no "wage gap", and no Equal Pay Act necessary. From comments like "you throw like a girl" to just simply not being fully recognized as a powerful forced in the business and education world, women are constantly pushed below men in social terms. If feminism ran to squash these notions just like that, somehow, I'd be a huge feminist supporter. However, feminists all blame men and the all powerful "patriarchy" for these issues. Blaming all men for the problems faced by women and feminists alike have gone as far as proclaiming that they "drink male tears", which is somehow not supposed to be interpreted as oppressive towards men. Men are not he issue. Perpetrators of the "weak, damsel in distress" stereotype forced upon women are the issue. This includes women. In addition, women are not the issue for problem faced by men, which are constantly shut down by feminist groups, famously the "Big Red Feminist" on youtube. The problem with feminists in the social spectrum is that they blame all "cis white males" for their problems, and condemn those proclaim that they're wrong, or challenge them, as though their word is law. I am a cis white male, I am an anti-feminist, and I break this stereotype. I do not provoke these oppressions, in fact, I do my best to put an end to them and show the world just how great and powerful women can be, and in so many cases, are.
Economically- I hate to break it to you ladies, but the wage gap and the "77 cant phenomenon" doesn't exist. In fact, it was outlawed by modern day feminists' predecessors, 2nd wave feminists and by President John F. Kennedy in the Equal Pay Act of 1963. That's right, it's been 52 years since women have been legally required to be paid for their equal work. There's no misinterpretation here. The problem with the wage gap, besides the fact that it's significantly smaller than feminists blow it up to be. Due to their scientifically proven more compassionate maternal nature, women choose jobs in social areas, which are famous for being underpaid, and gender studies, which are simply not worth the time or money in college as there is not enough jobs in this field. Since you can't all be Jessica Valenti and write a book and become twitter famous by "drinking male tears", the odds of being a professional feminist are very slim. This greatly contributes to this wage gap because the career and educational choices made by all women, not just feminists, lead to an overall decrease in average pay by the female gender. In addition to that, women tend to take more time off to spend time with and raise a family. Is that a good enough reason to underpay women? Heck no. But that's why, again, underpaying women for doing the same job as men was made illegal 52 years ago. But this also leads to a dramatic decrease in the average pay for women overall. Why would someone pay the same amount of money to someone who is constantly taking time off or not working consistent hours, regardless of what it's for, as someone who is constantly working and taking normal vacation time off, which does lead to a large increase in productivity and providing a legitimate asset to the company? They wouldn't. (Most) companies want to pay their workers the best way that benefits themselves and their employees, fairly. If you're working less hours, you're less of an asset to someone who isn't. Period. The final issue in the wage gap is that, although unequal pay is illegal, it still happens. The same with anything that's illegal, it still happens. But, when feminists find themselves in a position of unequal pay, they resort to making it into a political statement or drawing on the victim card, instead of spilling the beans, and trying to resolve the problem, or at least trying to find the reasonable excuse as to why they're not getting paid justly. Taking all of these factors into account, the wage gap is greatly reduced to 99 cents. So, yes, to answer your question, I know that sexism exists, and that unequal pay happens, and I agree it needs to end, but there are certain factors that reduce this way past the point that feminists exaggerate it to, and that there are things that women need to do to reduce this, instead of blaming it on the "patriarchy".
Politically- Here's where my whole theory of "feminism does not equal equality" comes into true light. I do strongly believe, as I stated before, that women need to be taken more seriously in politics. However, I do not agree, as so many feminists do, that women need to hold every major position possible over men. If feminism is supposed to equal equality, then why is female domination so prevalent in the field of government in feminist beliefs? Then we have famous female politicians such as Hillary Clinton or Debbie Wasserman-Schultz who simply want to change everything from abortion to Congress to accommodate women. Women deserve to be recognized in government, but men deserve to keep their equal recognition in politics, instead of feminist government officials being elected simply because their women. The problem I find with left politics is that they want to accommodate the oppressed by seeing things as a scale. With things like sexual and racial oppression, things were so unbalanced for so long, that now all of a sudden they feel like they need to tip the scale in their favor to make up for lost time. I don't think so. How is this true equality? Blaming cis white men for the oppressions of modern day women and African Americans and oppressing them in the process does not make an equal society. And, no I am not saying this simply because I am a "cis white male", and if that is what you believe then you can leave this post right now, because you are not worth trying to reach out to. I am saying this because I believe in true social justice, and I don't think that oppressing and attacking cis white males is how our current society is going to reach it. You can't create an equal society by punishing the "non-oppressed" (which there is no such creature) and tipping the scale against them, you need to create an equal society by making things equal NOW, not in 100 years.
There's so much more to be said about modern day 3rd wave feminism, and how it seriously needs to be improved. However, there is nothing more to be said in this particular post. I encourage discussion, but I dismiss attacks or any allegations of sexism in this post because there is none, and simply because I, along with several members of the female gender, do not agree with feminism, does not make me a misogynist. Thank you for reading this post and I'll see you next time!
First, let me start off by saying that I do NOT hate women, and I DO support equal rights between genders and "a woman's right to choose." I just do not believe that feminism is an accurate representation of this equality it claims to strive for.
Let's look at the facts
First wave feminism was a 19th century movement to promote the political equality of women and to gain the right to vote, right for property, etc. Okay, much needed! You go girls!
Second wave feminism was a 20th century movement to promote equality of women to men in the workplace, such as equal pay. Okay, much needed! You go girls!
HOWEVER, third wave feminism is a much different story. Third wave feminism constantly credits themselves, as feminists, to the work of first and second wave feminists such as Susan B. Anthony. Modern day feminism, in the opinion of many including those who feminism is supposed to be supporting, as a hypocritical organization filled with victim breeders and gender card pullers, which, in my opinion, is extremely similar to other 21st century "progressive movements".
Hi, I am a cis white male, I am anti-feminism and I DO support equality for women to men socially, economically, and politically.
So, if you're a feminist supporter, you're probably wondering why I identify myself to the anti-feminist movement, or that I actually don't know what feminism is or what it stands for, right?
Wrong.
I have had much experience with the feminist movement, and have seen the hypocrisy within it first hand.
Let's take a much more in depth look at the 3 basic categories of the feminist movement, shall we?
Socially- I would be an ignorant, sexist idiot to say that women are socially equal to men. Women are oppressed socially. This includes both of the other 2 categories of what feminism stands for. Women aren't respected enough as people to be respected in politics or in the workplace to have an equal chance to men to get elected or to be guaranteed equal pay, no questions asked, no "wage gap", and no Equal Pay Act necessary. From comments like "you throw like a girl" to just simply not being fully recognized as a powerful forced in the business and education world, women are constantly pushed below men in social terms. If feminism ran to squash these notions just like that, somehow, I'd be a huge feminist supporter. However, feminists all blame men and the all powerful "patriarchy" for these issues. Blaming all men for the problems faced by women and feminists alike have gone as far as proclaiming that they "drink male tears", which is somehow not supposed to be interpreted as oppressive towards men. Men are not he issue. Perpetrators of the "weak, damsel in distress" stereotype forced upon women are the issue. This includes women. In addition, women are not the issue for problem faced by men, which are constantly shut down by feminist groups, famously the "Big Red Feminist" on youtube. The problem with feminists in the social spectrum is that they blame all "cis white males" for their problems, and condemn those proclaim that they're wrong, or challenge them, as though their word is law. I am a cis white male, I am an anti-feminist, and I break this stereotype. I do not provoke these oppressions, in fact, I do my best to put an end to them and show the world just how great and powerful women can be, and in so many cases, are.
Economically- I hate to break it to you ladies, but the wage gap and the "77 cant phenomenon" doesn't exist. In fact, it was outlawed by modern day feminists' predecessors, 2nd wave feminists and by President John F. Kennedy in the Equal Pay Act of 1963. That's right, it's been 52 years since women have been legally required to be paid for their equal work. There's no misinterpretation here. The problem with the wage gap, besides the fact that it's significantly smaller than feminists blow it up to be. Due to their scientifically proven more compassionate maternal nature, women choose jobs in social areas, which are famous for being underpaid, and gender studies, which are simply not worth the time or money in college as there is not enough jobs in this field. Since you can't all be Jessica Valenti and write a book and become twitter famous by "drinking male tears", the odds of being a professional feminist are very slim. This greatly contributes to this wage gap because the career and educational choices made by all women, not just feminists, lead to an overall decrease in average pay by the female gender. In addition to that, women tend to take more time off to spend time with and raise a family. Is that a good enough reason to underpay women? Heck no. But that's why, again, underpaying women for doing the same job as men was made illegal 52 years ago. But this also leads to a dramatic decrease in the average pay for women overall. Why would someone pay the same amount of money to someone who is constantly taking time off or not working consistent hours, regardless of what it's for, as someone who is constantly working and taking normal vacation time off, which does lead to a large increase in productivity and providing a legitimate asset to the company? They wouldn't. (Most) companies want to pay their workers the best way that benefits themselves and their employees, fairly. If you're working less hours, you're less of an asset to someone who isn't. Period. The final issue in the wage gap is that, although unequal pay is illegal, it still happens. The same with anything that's illegal, it still happens. But, when feminists find themselves in a position of unequal pay, they resort to making it into a political statement or drawing on the victim card, instead of spilling the beans, and trying to resolve the problem, or at least trying to find the reasonable excuse as to why they're not getting paid justly. Taking all of these factors into account, the wage gap is greatly reduced to 99 cents. So, yes, to answer your question, I know that sexism exists, and that unequal pay happens, and I agree it needs to end, but there are certain factors that reduce this way past the point that feminists exaggerate it to, and that there are things that women need to do to reduce this, instead of blaming it on the "patriarchy".
Politically- Here's where my whole theory of "feminism does not equal equality" comes into true light. I do strongly believe, as I stated before, that women need to be taken more seriously in politics. However, I do not agree, as so many feminists do, that women need to hold every major position possible over men. If feminism is supposed to equal equality, then why is female domination so prevalent in the field of government in feminist beliefs? Then we have famous female politicians such as Hillary Clinton or Debbie Wasserman-Schultz who simply want to change everything from abortion to Congress to accommodate women. Women deserve to be recognized in government, but men deserve to keep their equal recognition in politics, instead of feminist government officials being elected simply because their women. The problem I find with left politics is that they want to accommodate the oppressed by seeing things as a scale. With things like sexual and racial oppression, things were so unbalanced for so long, that now all of a sudden they feel like they need to tip the scale in their favor to make up for lost time. I don't think so. How is this true equality? Blaming cis white men for the oppressions of modern day women and African Americans and oppressing them in the process does not make an equal society. And, no I am not saying this simply because I am a "cis white male", and if that is what you believe then you can leave this post right now, because you are not worth trying to reach out to. I am saying this because I believe in true social justice, and I don't think that oppressing and attacking cis white males is how our current society is going to reach it. You can't create an equal society by punishing the "non-oppressed" (which there is no such creature) and tipping the scale against them, you need to create an equal society by making things equal NOW, not in 100 years.
There's so much more to be said about modern day 3rd wave feminism, and how it seriously needs to be improved. However, there is nothing more to be said in this particular post. I encourage discussion, but I dismiss attacks or any allegations of sexism in this post because there is none, and simply because I, along with several members of the female gender, do not agree with feminism, does not make me a misogynist. Thank you for reading this post and I'll see you next time!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)