Friday, September 10, 2004

More pithy DI insight

Here's one of my colleagues ranting about abortion and women's rights (full disclosure: I dislike her on a personal level as well)(fuller disclosure: a lot of this stems from the fact that she never comes to our meetings, because she has to work at another job or has class. My thoughts are: perhaps you shouldn't be a member of a board whose meetings do not fit into your schedule, but what would a grouchy conservative know?).

First off, feminism is dead. Remember when NOW sat on their hands while Clinton used an intern for sexual gratification? Shouldn't that have been against virtually all of their bedrock principles? Whatever happened to outrage at sexual harrassment in the workplace, or using power to coerce sex? To cop Rush here, the acronym should more accurately be phrased NOLW, National Assoc. for Liberal Women.

Anyway, the big problem with feminism is that it's become synonymous with abortion. In fact, I'm unable to name a single issue that NOW has made a fuss about that doesn't involve abortion. Obviously I think abortion is reprehensible, but I can never understand how being against abortion can be construed as being against women. Do all women support abortion? Whatever.

I also can't stand the wage inequality issue. As if there are a bunch of scheming males in the executive wings (probably at Halliburton, no less) trying to keep women in the lower rungs, where they must go barefoot and cook lunch for their male co-workers. These studies rarely correct for the fact that many women choose to take time off and have kids; they believe that taking a few years off work to raise their children, despite the fact that it handicaps them those years in seniority, is worth the loss of income. Unfortunately, feminism is now teaching women that you should put your career first, that you have to outdo the men, that a family is for lesser woman, and that any woman that would stay home to raise their kids is a sucker and subservient to their husband.

So what is the solution to these evolutionary-dictated wage inequality? Government intervention? I honestly don't know how the federal government can be expected to solve these problems, since it's not as if bureaucrats can draw up a policy that enables males to bear the kids. My guess is simply quotas, or federally-mandated equal income, is what the feminist lobby has in mind, and we all know what a rip-roaring success that would be.


UPDATE: I just noticed her definition of feminism: "equality in reasonable ways." Well, jumpin' Jehosafat, what kind of sloped-brow conservative could oppose that? Of course, her definition of reasonable seems to encompass the killing of developing humans and some sort of government oversight on wage equality, not to mention insured contraception, but if you oppose those, I guess you're not being reasonable. And while we're talking about insured contraception for federal employees, what's the problem with opposing that? The beauty of the invisible hand: if it is a substantial disincentive for women to work for the government, then there will be a dearth of jobs in the public sector, and guess what? More benefits will be provided for government employees.

I'd better stop. I quit making sense a few paragraphs ago. Time for a glass of warm milk and maybe some blood-pressure medicine.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home