Christina Hoff Sommers Debunks the Gender Wage Gap

Below is a good companion video to my piece dealing with The Myth of the Gender Pay Gap.

Christina Hoff Sommers debunks the common myths of a gender wage gap that is being peddled by feminists and liberal activists.



Sommers ends the video with a plea to reform feminism which I disagree with.  You don't repair rotten wood by repainting it.  Like the case of feminism, the wood must be torn down.

Activists, interest groups and watch dogs can start out with some pretty noble goals and objectives.  But none of these organizations really plan for an exit strategy.  In other words, What are we going to do when we've achieved our goals?

By the time this question rears it's head, the organization has already become a bloated bureaucracy with revenue streams in the form of donations and public funding that has employed administrators, lobbyists, press secretaries. consultants, etc, etc.  One would think that, after achieving equality between the sexes in society, we all pat ourselves on the back and disband the organization and move on to something else.

But this isn't what happens.  Nobody wants to kill that golden goose.  Such an organization tries to justify it's existence (along with the revenue streams and guaranteed job security) by raising concerns about a backslide--the idea that all the reforms and legislation that was passed for women's rights would get rolled back if they left the scene. 

For the record, I see this as a legitimate concern.  But I would also argue that it would take a lot less money, personnel and resources to stand sentry and safeguard what you have achieved than what you needed to pass these reforms to fundamentally transform a society. 

Also,  I would argue that as time passes, the need to safeguard these reforms would be a lot less pressing.  It's been over a century since slavery ended.  Yet, if an organization such as the NAACP were to disband tomorrow, I doubt we'd see people rolling back the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments and putting black people back in chains.  Likewise, my experience in the workforce has seen women working in many different positions, including supervisory and management rolls and being compensated quite well for them.  None of it seems odd to me.  If NOW were to disband tomorrow, I doubt that we would see many women laid off or demoted as a result.

In the case of feminist organizations, this isn't what happens.  Sommers paints a picture of feminism begrudgingly accepting that some achievements have been made for equality between the sexes but there's still more work to be done (so keep those donations coming!).  They'll start to conjure up conspiracy theories such as The PatriarchyⓇ .  They'll invent and coin new concepts such as male privilege , microaggressions and internalized oppression that we must wage a righteous struggle against.

This would normally be so ridiculous on it's face that nobody would take it seriously.  It's one reason why I think that fewer women than ever are considering themselves as feminists and feminism organizations are trying to launch a public awareness campaign to clean up their image (which requires money so don't you dare stop donating!).  But Sommers describes millions of female students graduating from our top universities indoctrinated to believe in myths like the gender pay gap.  This rotten system must be torn down.

A Vote For the GOP Is a Vote For Civil Rights

Another election is upon us which means another discussion about the black vote.  It's that key voting block that supposedly decides the outcome of elections according to the wisdom of the main stream media, and consequently,  the voting block that both candidates must court during their campaign.  Race relations in the United States are currently at their lowest point in recent years and current polling indicates a tight race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.  So the contest for the black vote takes on a new sense of urgency.

Black people tend to lean towards the Democratic party in elections and I'm always a little puzzled as to why.  What have the Democrats done for them lately?  What have the Democrats done for them, ever? The Republican party has historically been big on civil rights and other programs that have benefited the black population in this country. 

However, to hear some people tell it, you'd think the party was populated by a bunch of bigots that are one step away from lynching somebody, and the Republican party has been dumb enough to let them be tarred with this brush.

The sentiment I notice from black voters is that they aren't too happy with the Democratic party either, but they aren't disenfranchised enough to defect to the Republican party en mass any time soon.  The demographic seems to be stuck in some type of political purgatory.  I suspect that reminding black voters of all the civil rights initiatives brought forth by the Republican party might shift the mood of the black demographic.

Abraham Lincoln

I'm sure that nearly every American knows about President Abraham Lincoln and his role in ending slavery.  But what proportion of Americans know that Lincoln was a Republican?  The Republican party was formed in 1854 around the ideology of "free labor, free land and free men", an obvious repudiation of slavery and the southern plantation culture that perpetuated it.  Likewise, Lincoln himself held consistently abolitionist views during his entire political career and it led to his election to serve as President of the United States in 1860.  Shortly thereafter, some southern states began to succeed and form their own government while the sitting duck, Democratic president Buchanan, did virtually nothing to stop them.  A four-year war ensued that ended up being the bloodiest in our history and eventually led to Lincoln's assassination by a southern sympathizer who was upset when the South had clearly lost.

So clearly, the Democratic party was on the losing side of this one and needlessly provoked a bloody conflict to keep black people in chains.  I say "needlessly" because slavery as an institution in the Western world was on its way out.  Abolitionism was sweeping the globe leading many countries to outlaw it which would have eventually effected trading prospects for the US, or there would have been diplomatic pressures for us to abandon slavery.  Also, cotton can't be grown everywhere, it's a fairly demanding crop that needs land and a lot of inputs that are suitable for it and there was no more land available to the southern states to expand production.  The plantation owners grew wealthy and bought up all the suitable land, and southern land further west didn't have a suitable climate or soil conditions for growing cotton. 

Republicans wisely decided on a containment strategy for slavery and simply wait until it withered and died.  But when the situation escalated, they literally laid their lives on the line to free black slaves.

I only write all of this because there seems to be a contrary opinion that the Civil War being fought under Lincoln's leadership was never about slavery and that Lincoln was never opposed to the peculiar institution.  I don't know if this is because liberals in the Democratic party want to white-wash history or if it's some douche that's trying to look interesting at cocktail parties.  If so, I suggest just being polite and refill his glass while you call him an idiot.

"But it was really about 'state's rights'"

There was mention of state's rights during the era leading up to the Civil War, but it was often a euphemism for slavery.  Besides, if states rights are so important to you then would you allow states to decide on gay marriage and abortion? No?  Have a seat hypocrite!

"But this is ancient history and the Democrats involved are long dead.  We are a different country and a different people now"

So when are you going to shut up about reparations for slavery?  And if we can truly put this part of our history behind us then can you please stop calling everybody racists?  It makes you look like a trained seal and history shows pretty clearly who the racist party in America is (it's a word that begins with D and ends with rat).

I'm not inventing straw men, here.  I've actually had these conversations with people!  Granted they aren't the sharpest tools in the shed, but still...

13th, 14th and 15th Amendments

It could be argued that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation that freed slaves in Confederate territories was technically an executive order made by necessity in wartime and can be later rescinded, overturned or challenged in court.  Lincoln and Congressional Republicans preempted these concerns by leading efforts to secure freedom for blacks and enfranchise them with the rights normally granted to white Americans by passing a series of amendments.

The 13th amendment abolished slavery with the notable exception that it can be used as punishment for a crime.

The 14th amendment broadly defined citizenship to include all individuals born within US territory.  The intention was to negate the Dred Scott decision and to legally characterize a people that wouldn't likely have any legal documentation, such as slaves, as citizens.  However, this amendment is now biting us in the ass since there's a class of citizens that were born in the United States by foreign nationals that have entered the country illegally.

The 15th amendment effectively allowed black men to vote.  It states that the right to vote can't be denied to a citizen based on color or previous condition of servitude (but says nothing about gender; that will have to wait until the 19th amendment).

After sacrificing blood and treasure in a costly war, the Republican party doubled-down on the emancipation of black slaves, nationally and permanently.  Voting in Congress was, more or less, partisan.  Representatives from Southern states didn't regain representation in Congress to debate the issue.  A southern succeeded state's restoration was conditional on them ratifying these amendments.  Lastly, the 14th amendment also prohibited a person that had participated in "the rebellion" from holding office.  So the passage and ratification of these amendments was pretty much a guarantee.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866

Clauses from the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments contained language that allowed Congress to pass laws to enforce its provisions.  One of these acts was the Civil Rights Act of 1866.  The law reaffirmed citizenship of former black slaves and their equal protection under the law.  There was still enough Republican support for the bill to override Democratic President Andrew Johnson's veto (requires a 2/3 majority in both houses).

Unfortunately, the constitutional wall dividing federal powers from state powers was nearly insurmountable at this time.  The original authors of the Constitution was well aware of abuses under British rule and also wanted to get buy-in from the states for ratification.  Consequently, they limited federal power over the states.  The Constitution guarantees the states a representative form of government, but pretty much allows them to run their affairs as they see fit.  Supreme court decisions rarely intervened on the state level.  This may seem odd to us today, but it allowed a politician to be quite liberal and progressive on the federal level while ruling with an iron fist on the local level.

What all this means is that, despite the best of intentions, the secessionists, the former slaveholders and anybody else who bet on the losing side of the Civil War still wielded considerable influence on the local level making the Civil Rights Act of 1866 completely ineffective.

The Civil Rights Act of 1871

Democrat secessionists and former slave holders might have lost the Civil War but they weren't going to accept defeat anytime soon.  As far as they were concerned, this was a country for white folks and they weren't going to give up their privileged status any time soon.  Jim Crow Laws were passed to marginalize and disenfranchise blacks, despite the 15th amendment explicitly giving them the rights to vote.  Black people can be charged for crimes with very little evidence and based on hearsay, and face trial with very little representation.  A guilty verdict was virtually guaranteed and carried sentences that were harsh in proportion to the crimes.  The rise of the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups terrorized black populations all across the South and their atrocities were gaining national attention.

Republican President, and former Union General, Ulysses S. Grant petitioned a Republican controlled Congress full of Representatives that were former abolitionists and Union supporters to grant him the means to effectively deal with the KKK.  Congress passes the Civil Rights Act of 1871 in record time (about 1 month).

The Act, allowed the president to suspend habeas corpus and use federal troops to intervene on the state level to enforce civil rights laws while bringing members of the KKK to justice.  President Grant didn't hesitate to use these provisions and effectively destroyed the KKK in the south.  Once again, the Republican party doubles down in favor of civil rights for blacks.

Posse Comitatus Act of 1878

U.S. Grant might have been a very able general and a staunch supporter of black civil rights, but this doesn't make one a good politician.  Grant's administration was rocked by scandals entailing corruption and embezzlement during the gilded age of American history where corporate tycoons were dictating policy and purchasing influence.  Economic prospects were also abysmal for the typical American (even if he wasn't black).  Grant proved naïve in dealing with them and it pretty much killed any hope for a third term as president.

At about this time, Reconstruction and the enforcement of federal civil rights laws with troops garrisoned in the south was becoming a contentious issue with southern Democrats and they started gaining representation in their state legislatures and Congress.

Republican candidate, Rutherford B. Hayes was elected president in 1876 in a bitterly contested election.  It was a very close election that resulted in a deal being made in which Hayes would get the electoral votes he needed to win in exchange for promising to withdraw federal troops from the southern states, formally ending Reconstruction.

Hayes was also a champion of black civil rights and had designs of his own to realize it.  Unfortunately, Democrats also gained a majority in Congress for the first time since the end of the Civil War.  This, in conjunction with the perception by much of the public that Hayes won the presidency in an illegitimate election, greatly diminished his ability to govern.  He would only serve one term.

Democrats promptly passed legislation that defunded federal garrisons and troops in the southern states and returned those states to home rule.  Democrats quickly followed up with passage of the Posse Comitatus Act that Hayes was compelled to sign in order to receive appropriation for the country's military.  The Act effectively barred the federal government form using federal troops to intervene in state affairs, allowing local governments in the south to continue disenfranchising blacks without federal government interference.

By 1881 (the end of Hayes's single term) we see the Democratic party consistently thwart Hayes's attempts at enforcing civil rights for blacks.  Hayes was first in a long line of mostly Republican presidents until World War II that would find resistance in advancing civil rights for blacks primarily due to meddling by Democrats and the diminished authority that the federal government had on the state level.

Of the few Democratic presidents:

Grover Cleveland was a Democratic president that was reluctant to enforce federal civil rights laws on the state level.

Woodrow Wilson was a racist.

Franklin D Roosevelt was more mixed in his approach to civil rights.  Blacks were among the beneficiaries in a lot of New Deal programs, but everybody was suffering during the Great Depression and federal budgets were rapidly expanding due to World War II and spending on the New Deal programs while running up a huge debt at the time.  Arguably, FDR needed all the manpower he could get and keep the country as unified as possible to wage war against the Axis powers, so his civil rights actions seem to have been more of a necessity than any moral conviction.  Conversely, Americans of Japanese descent fared badly under FDR.

Harry Truman was upset over how black war heroes were being treated and desegregated the military by executive order.

Civil Rights Act 1957

We see that only Truman and FDR were Democrats that had a halfway decent view of black civil rights but their acts brought wrath from Southern Democrats, and compared to Republicans like Lincoln and Grant, they were very limited in scope.  The fact remained that segregation and open discrimination against blacks pervaded American society.  This situation was starting to come to an end under the administration of another Republican president--Dwight Eisenhower.

Eisenhower presided over two landmark events in regards to race relations in this country.  First, he deployed federal troops in support of a recent Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education to enforce desegregation of a high school in Arkansas in defiance of Arkansas' Democratic governor.

Second he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 which created the Civil Rights Commission and levied penalties for coercive and discriminatory voting practices that disenfranchised blacks.  Passage through Congress wasn't a partisan vote strictly speaking, but it did have overwhelming Republican support while Democrat support was more mixed.

In the House of Representatives, Republicans overwhelmingly passed the bill by a vote of 197-19 while Democratic support was more split with a vote of 118-107.  Republicans in the Senate unanimously supported the bill by a vote of 43-0 while Democratic support was more tepid (29-18).

The Civil Rights Bill also had the notable distinction of being held up by the longest Senate filibuster in history led by Strom Thurmond (a Democrat at this time), and being virtually gutted by an up-and-coming Democratic Senator, and future President, Lyndon B. Johnson, making the law almost completely ineffective.

It's at this point in history that we are noting a schism forming in the Democratic party between Southern Democrats and their more progressive Northern kin.  Democratic support for the bill tended to come from Northern Democrats.  Meanwhile Southern Democrats staunchly opposed the bill and were willing to go on record.  In 1956 the Southern Manifesto was written declaring opposition to racial integration.  Of the 99 signatories to the resolution, 97 of them were from the Democratic Party!

Republicans, on the other hand, were more unified in the law's passage.  Despite Democrats in the Senate led by LBJ gutting the original bill that called for more enforcement  provisions, it still required Eisenhower's Vice President, Richard Nixon, to assure its passage.

Even at this point in our history, we see nearly unanimous support for civil rights for blacks from the Republican party while Democrats still attempt to stonewall and derail their efforts.  Liberal whitewashers of history may begrudgingly acknowledge the Republican role in freeing slaves and giving them the vote, but would try to convince the public that the Republican party has changed their position on the matter and it's really the Democratic party that are champions of civil rights.  The Civil Rights Act of 1957 debunks this myth.  It was the first modern civil rights law and an exclusively Republican achievement. This achievement was quickly followed up with the Civil Rights Law of 1960 in an attempt to strengthen the 1957 Act, also signed by Eisenhower.  If these Acts didn't go far enough in securing the civil rights for blacks, it was because of Democratic meddling.

Civil Rights Act of 1964

The Democratic tradition of flip-flopping seems to have it's origins in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

About a decade after his obstructionism to civil rights during his time in the Senate, Democrat president Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  This is the quintessential civil rights act and the piece of legislation effectively desegregated America while offering equal protection and treatment under the law.  It also allowed the federal government to intervene on the state level via its power to regulate interstate commerce.

The bill got very broad support from both the Republican and Democratic parties.  In the House of Representatives, Republicans voted 138-34 in favor of the bill.  Democrats also voted 152-96 in favor.  In the Senate, Republicans voted in favor, 27-6.  Democrats voted 46-21 in favor.  Opposition to the bill tended to come from representatives and senators from the southern states.

I can believe that Congress might not have been the same body that obstructed the passage of the 1957 Civil Rights Act.  It's members could have changed over the years due to elections of more progressive public servants.  But why did LBJ change his mind on the issue?  A decade before, he was clearly opposed to civil rights issues and did everything he could to kill the 1957 Act.  Did he really have a change of heart?

Or was LBJ simply capitalizing on the massive civil unrest and angst of the American public over the issue and used the legislation to insure Democratic dominance? 

The Act of 1964 was passed and signed at the pinnacle of the civil rights movements.  It is an era of American history that is almost as well documented in history books as the American Civil War.  And there are still many people alive that remember living during this time, while people that remember living during Eisenhower are rapidly dwindling and the ones that lived during Lincoln are, most certainly, dead.  So despite the Republican party being the originators of civil rights and consistently championing them all through America's history, people give credit to the party that was in dominance during the passage of the more recent 1964 Act.

"What have you done for me lately?"

Every man has been in this situation.  You dote upon your wife/girlfriend and children for years.  And you must continue to do so.  Let too much time pass between favors or romantic gestures and your own family starts to complain and resent you.  This is life and Eddie Murphy did a comedy bit with it (see below).





It's funny because it's true.

The same thing happens in politics.

Heck, the same thing has been happening since the Garden of Eden!

What have the Republicans done for black people lately?

What have the Democrats done for black people lately?

Well, here's the issue.  We've done all that we can.

Black people have the vote.  They have equal opportunity.  Equal housing.  Equal job prospects.

What else do they need?  Minority quotas?  Done that.  Have the t-shirt.

Heck, we even elected a black president!

What rights or privileges does a white person have that a black person does not?

I can understand why we don't ask these questions out loud.  The first person that does so will be voted out of office so fast his head would spin.  But this doesn't stop a lot of people from thinking it.

And certainly, politicians could stump on equality all the want.  They may even come up with some commissions or blue ribbon committees, but there won't be anything actionable coming from them because all the necessary stuff has been done.

During one of Donald Trump's campaign speeches, he asked black voters what do they have to lose (by switching parties).  This is a good start but doesn't go nearly far enough.  It might be worth reminding people of the long laundry list of Republican initiatives throughout history that gave black people the rights they have today; the blood they've shed; their tenacity as the Democratic party thwarted them at every turn.  And the fact that the Democratic party didn't really get on board with civil rights until it was politically advantageous to them.

Remember who is the party of Lincoln.