Oh boy. I mean, this is Rep. Joe Crowley of New York, a member of the House Democratic leadership, not some lunatic back-bencher.
Someone has to take a stand against these kinds of attacks, which are ultimately demeaning toward women. If criticizing a woman is, ipso facto, sexist, then you are essentially saying that women can’t play the game and take the hits.
I similarly heard CNN Reliable Sources host Brian Stelter say the other day that some believe President Trump’s suggestion that Rep. Maxine Waters has a low IQ is racist. That’s not racist. Waters’ apparent paucity of intelligence, as demonstrated by her calling for Trump’s impeachment since before he could even have committed any impeachable offenses – and certainly before any had been shown to be true – has nothing to do with the color of her skin. It has to do with the content of her character.
Democrats want to use race and gender as shields against criticism. Ultimately, it’s a tactic at least as divisive as anything they accuse Donald Trump of.
Harvey Weinstein’s disgrace and the spectacle of so many liberals who advocate for women ignoring his transgressions provides the perfect opportunity for Republicans to make inroads into a voter segment among whom they consistently trail Democrats: Women.
The hypocrisy of high-profile liberals is reflected not just in their willingness to ignore what Weinstein did, but in their fear of supporting those he hurt who were brave enough to say something. Almost everyone waited until after Weinstein had lost his job, and his power, before saying anything against him.
Sure, elite liberals care about women. But their focus, as it is with minorities, is on creating angry factions, not improving the life circumstances of average people within a group. While this may have made sense 50 years ago, when discrimination was far more prevalent, it makes much less sense now.
The conservative program of economic and cultural revival will improve the lives of all people and serve to unite Americans, not divide them into angry groups. Liberal policies are hurting minorities and women far more than discrimination is. That so many elite liberals could ignore the vicious behavior of Harvey Weinstein suggests that they self-indulgently care more about their “causes” than actual, flesh-and-blood women.
But just as Weinstein’s public image as a good liberal was at odds with his actual treatment of women, the policies that Democrats champion under the banner of helping women often aren’t how they work with real people.
Meryl Streep will never lose her job because of a hike in the minimum wage, but many less fortunate women have. Hollywood celebrities can pay to have their own children opt out of dangerous public schools, but other Americans are stuck with them thanks to Democratic opposition to school choice. New York City A-listers don’t have to worry about the steady climb in their health insurance premiums, but women in Middle America do. Many women, particularly those women in urban centers where Democrats have had complete control, may rethink whether the Democratic leadership really has the average woman’s best interests at heart.
Weinstein’s is the story of more than one dirty, rotten creep who abused women, but of an elitist culture that uses women’s rights as a political prop — a culture that stood by, protected, and even celebrated a man they knew victimized women.
Conservatives may not always say the “correct” things, but they are the true friends of women.
The White House this week set aside a rule crafted by the Obama White House to force businesses to disclose what they are paying people, information the Clinton administration, which didn’t happen, would have used to begin forcing equal pay.
From the Wall Street Journal:
A long-time progressive goal has been to use charges of a gender pay gap to begin dictating salaries in the private economy. This week the Trump Administration halted an Obama Administration step toward that end.
The Office of Management and Budget on Tuesday stayed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) rule dealing with a bureaucratic form known as EEO-1. The old EEO-1 required federal contractors and any company with more than 100 employees to submit data about their workforces—including breakdowns by race, ethnicity, gender and job category. In 2016 Team Obama added a demand for data on pay, effective March 2018.
The rule is a typical end-run around Congress, which refused to enact President Obama’s Paycheck Fairness Act that would have enabled such wage-data collection.
The Trump OMB cited the exorbitant cost and hassle of compliance for staying the rule, and that’s reason enough. The old EEO-1 form required about 180 pieces of information, while the Obama form increased that 20-fold to 3,660 data points per report.
The Obama EEOC said the rule would cost about $50 million a year and 1.9 million hours to comply. But a Chamber of Commerce survey found the direct compliance costs alone would be closer to $400 million and eight million hours of labor. Add indirect overhead and annual costs jumped to $1.3 billion.
There are many reasons women earn less than men – few of them having to do with discrimination – including the careers they choose and decisions to leave the workforce to have children. Discrimination should be litigated on a case-by-case basis, not via socialist edict.
And BTW, add $1 billion to businesses costs while forcing them to increase salaries just because people are of a certain gender results in job losses, for women and for men.
MSNBC’s Luke Russert during a broadcast today accepted as fact that the Republicans were guilty as charged in 2012 of waging a war on women.
Incredible how propaganda can stick. If you repeat “war on women” enough times, then there is a war on women. This White House understands this kind of tactic well, doesn’t it, you climate deniers out there?
So one is waging war just because one opposes abortion or guaranteed wages based on dubious – actually, fictitious – claims that women earn 77 cents on the dollar?
I don’t know. I don’t remember waging a war on women, do you? This is not known in Washington, but some conservatives actually are women. Do you ladies remember declaring a war on yourselves?
Personally, I like women very, very much. I would never wage war on women, unless they decided to wage war on me. In which case, I would certainly try to get the UN to supply some of its blue-hatted peacekeepers and do whatever I could to reduce levels of violence, injury, and property destruction.
I mean, that’s what I do at home, when war breaks out there . . .
President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama will deliver remarks Tuesday at the White House about “expanding efforts to help adolescent girls worldwide attend and stay in school,” according to the White House.
“These efforts will build on the investments we have made and the successes we have achieved in global primary school education by elevating existing programs and public and private sector partnerships,” the White House said.
This is all very nice. But it of course begs the question, Why is the White House concerning itself with the worldwide education of girls or the worldwide education of anyone else?
At a time when our own schools are giving so many of our young people a lousy education, why are we devoting resources to helping other countries educate their kids?
Because, we are all one world! What are you, some kind of American exceptionalist?
This looks to be a Valerie Jarrett operation, likely done under the auspices of the White House Council on Women and Girls.
The Council was created by Bill Clinton – okay, sorry, that’s a bad joke – it was created by President Obama and is chaired by ValJar, her own pet project.
The council appears to do some useful things, like combating human trafficking in our supply chains and raising breast cancer awareness, and some harmful things, like the typical equality-of-results and affirmative action-type efforts you would expect from this White House.
But whether we’re doing helpful things or not, let’s leave the education of girls in Guinea to the Guineans.
President Obama and his aides are up to their usual deeply unpresidential vitriol, suggesting evil motives on the part of Republicans for opposing Obama’s agenda.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney today compared Republican opponents of the Paycheck Fairness Act to “conservatives” who fought civil rights legislation.
Carney spoke today at the White House briefing:
Republicans object to this strenuously using the same arguments that conservatives used when they objected to very bit of progress made on civil rights for women and minorities over the past many decades. And they were wrong then, and they are wrong now.
Actually, Republicans oppose the Paycheck Fairness Act because it would add new red tape and bureaucracy for businesses and cause artificial business decisions to preempt government intrusiveness, harming both male and female employees. Not because they hate women.
Carney offered up his nasty rebuke at the end of a tortuous five-minute effort to parry persistent questioning from ABC’s Jonathan Karl about the White House’s own gender pay gap.
Speaking today at the White House about the gender “wage gap,” President Obama avoided the racism equivalency charge, instead describing Republicans as anti-women and hostile toward working people.
I don’t know why you would resist the idea that women should be paid the same as men, and then deny that that’s not always happening out there. If Republicans in Congress want to prove me wrong, if they want to show that they, in fact, do care about women being paid the same as men, then show me. They can start tomorrow. They can join us in this, the 21st century, and vote yes on the Paycheck Fairness Act. (Applause.) Vote yes . . .
On minimum wage, three out of four Americans support raising the minimum wage. Usually when three out of four Americans support something, members of Congress are right there. (Laughter.) And yet here, Republicans in Congress are dead set against it, blocking a pay raise for tens of millions of Americans — a majority of them women. This isn’t just about treating women fairly. This is about Republicans seemingly opposing any efforts to even the playing field for working families.
It just boggles the mind that we have a White House that routinely villainizes half the country, over which it also presides. What a sad moment this is.
You may be aware that during the recent Miss USA contest, Miss Utah flubbed a question about income inequality between men and women in the United States.
Have a look.
But even if she got it right, she would have flubbed it. Because she should have started out by questioning the premise of the question.
The line that women only earn 77 cents on a dollar compared to men is a favorite of President Obama’s. He parroted it yet again at a recent White House event, and he was hopping mad about it:
I don’t want that for Malia and Sasha. I don’t want that for your daughters. I don’t want that to be an example that any child growing up ends up accepting as somehow the norm. I want every child to grow up knowing that a woman’s hard work is valued and rewarded just as much as any man’s.
Man, I wish he’d stop bringing those kids into things.
But it turns out one reason for the disparity is that women work fewer hours than men. According to Politifact, when you compare hourly wages, women actually earn 86 cents on the dollar compared to men.
And this doesn’t even take into account that “women also more often choose occupations with lower wages” and “obtain degrees that lead to lower-paying jobs than men,” according to Politifact.
What’s more, men tend to stay in their careers longer instead of dropping out to care for children, and they therefore obtain senior positions with higher salaries more often than women.
There’s no doubt some amount of wage discrimination. But it’s not the nightmare Obama describes and doesn’t require the kind of intrusion and remedies he supports – particularly the Paycheck Protection Act, a potential bonanza for Obama’s trial attorney supporters.
Here’s the appropriate answer, as imagined by reason.com.
Despite beginning what is likely to be a series of high-profile appointments of women to his administration, President Obama’s most senior advisers at the start of his second term will continue to predominantly be men.
Obama has come under criticism for relying mainly on men as his top advisers. With moves like Thursday’s announcement that he wants to install REI CEO Sally Jewell as Interior Secretary and the expected nomination of Obama fundraiser Penny Pritzker to be Secretary of Commerce, the president is hoping to tamp down the noise.
But those appointments are little more than window dressing, because the locus of power in the administration is in the White House and among a few select Cabinet secretaries. And Interior and Commerce are not among them.
There are arguably 17 people within the administration who are the most senior and who have the most constant access to the president. Only three of them are women: Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett, Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri and, assuming current chief counterterrorism adviser John Brennan moves to CIA, Lisa Monaco, who will take Brennan’s place.
The rest are all men. That is, the percentage of women in the United States is 50.9 percent. The percentage of female senior Obama advisers is 17.6 percent.
The men are also almost all white. They are: Vice President Joe Biden; White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough; Senior Advisor Dan Pfeiffer; National Security Advisor Tom Donilon; Director of National Intelligence James Clapper; Counselor to the President Pete Rouse; National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling; Acting OMB Director Jeffrey Zients; Press Secretary Jay Carney; and Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Alan Krueger.
Obama meets one-on-one regularly with only three Cabinet members, and all will be men in his new administration: the Defense Secretary, who is expected to be former Sen. Chuck Hagel; the Secretary of State, John Kerry; and the Treasury Secretary, for which position Obama has chosen former Chief of Staff Jack Lew.
While he doesn’t meet with him as often, Attorney General Eric Holder is close to the president, holds a senior Cabinet post, and so is also arguably among the administration’s most elite group of power holders.
Notably, Obama’s entire economic team will consist of white men: Lew, Sperling, Krueger and Zients.
Among the women, Jarrett was present during the first term, while both Palmieri and Monaco are newly elevated to the top group. But Obama traded Hillary Clinton for John Kerry as Secretary of State. So despite all the claims by the White House that it has beefed up its distaff component, the net addition of women at the highest echelons of Obamadom amounts to one.