Recently, one of my friends informed me that she would be attending the National Education Association Student Program Conference in Washington, D.C. As the son of two parents who are teachers, I've long held opinions about the NEA. I follow up on the issues in their monthly magazine and have grown increasingly angry at the organization. What follows is my reasons for opposing them.The NEA is the largest teachers union in the country, in a corrupt system. The public education system in our country is doing a horrible job, is unfair, and is unconstitutional.
It's a monopoly. I'll explain what I mean by using an analogy.What would you do if the government came to you and said that you had to shop at Wal-Mart for all of your shopping? You don't like Wal-Mart, and in fact, you like the local grocery store better. Also, say that Wal-Mart costs twice as much as the local grocery store, had worse products, and the products they sold were things you didn't like or want. But, too bad, you have to shop there. You, as an American, would never put up with it. If this scenario really happened, Wal-Mart would be a terrible place to shop. If everyone had to pay and go to Wal-Mart, they wouldn't have any incentive to provide good products. But we aren't forced to go to Wal-Mart: you can go to Kmart, or Target, or whatever. Since you have options, Wal-Mart has to do a good job, or else no one will go there and they'll go out of business.
Now, this analogy accurately describes our public education system. Everyone has to pay money to it, and you don't have any choice. Sure, you can pay to send your kid to a private school; but you still have to pay for the public school system. According to the Washington Post, Washington D.C. public schools spend $12,979 per student. The CATO Institute believes that private schools in D.C. get, on average, about $10,000 less per child. So if you send your kid to a private school, or home school them, you are paying those costs on top of what the public district already gets from you in terms of tax dollars.
To counter this, voucher programs are needed. This means that the parents of a child get that $13,000 and can use it to send there kid wherever they want. This would mean that the public school has to do a better job, or else nobody will go there and will take the money elsewhere. This has been tried in Cleveland and Milwaukee and has worked enormously well (though the parents only get a partial amount of that money to spend at a different school). Naturally, teacher unions and most notably the National Education Association hate this idea. They like the system how it is and insist that districts just need "more money" and they will perform better.
According to UNICEF and other organization, in recent tests America is getting trounced by the rest of the world. In 4th grade, our kids are amongst the top 5 in the world. In 8th, we are middle of the pack. By senior year of high school, we are near the bottom. We are being beaten not only be the Japanese and other modernized countries...but by places like Portugal, Greece, and even some African countries. Keep in mind that we spend more (by far) than any other country in the world. So what's different between us and others? Well...other countries have an education system where you are free to go where you want. Our educational system is like the Wal-Mart I described in my scenario; it is government-run and has no reason or incentive to do better.So that's the argument against public schools in general, but what about the NEA? Besides being against voucher programs, there are many other proposals the NEA supports that are dangerous and just plain bad ideas. This includes tenure and equal pay for equal time. Tenure is ensured after 3-5 years of teaching in a district. It is nearly impossible to fire a teacher after they have gained tenure. In Illinois, where I'm from, the number of public school tenured teachers fired per year since 1985 has never been over 5. It costs over a quarter of a million dollars to fire a teacher in the New York City school district; possibly explaining why some teachers are paid (and given pay raises!) while sitting in jail (http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-06-30-teacher-tenure-costs_N.htm).
Imagine if the businesses in our country ran this way: Work hard for 3 years, and then after that you're guaranteed a job for life, as long as you don't rape a child or kill someone. It would be a disaster. If I owned that business, I couldn't fire anyone. The reason that America has the best and top-performing businesses in the world is because people know that if they don't do a good job, they will lose their job. The opposite of this is true in countries like France, where it is nearly impossible to fire businessmen; and their economy is in the tank.
Equal pay sounds like a good idea. It's the idea that you are paid based on how long you've worked somewhere rather than the value you bring. So gym teachers, math teachers, science teachers, etc. are all paid the same. Can you honestly tell me with a straight face that teaching gym class and learning how to do that is as difficult as math and science? In academia today, we are having a harder and harder time finding math and science teachers. This is because people will teach "easier" subjects and go through schools learning things that aren't as challenging because they are paid the same anyways. To give you an extreme example: Imagine if a company paid the CEO and the janitor the same amount. It sounds good in theory, but in practice is horrible. Everyone would be a janitor, and nobody a CEO. CEO's, much as we like to demonize them, provide a valuable service to the company and only got there because they are so talented.
The NEA also supports "force-fee" initiatives. There are some "right-to-work" states in which teachers don't have to be in unions, but other states follow a "force-fee" standard in which the states' public school teachers are forced to be in a union and pay dues. A teacher in Illinois recently won the TEAI--Technical Education Association of Illinois "Teacher of the Year" award, was an ITEA "Teacher of Merit", and sent a letter of protest to them in the same month. It seems that the NEA has an official position of being "pro-choice" on abortion and this teacher had a problem with them being involved in that issue. How do I know this? Because that teacher is my father. This goes along with the NEA's position of being pro-gay marriage. Now, issues of abortion and homosexuality are complicated and controversial; but come on, should a union dedicated towards teachers really be getting involved in these issues that have nothing to do with education? The NEA sends 99% of the money it gets towards Democratic politicians, and thus supports Democratic positions. It is an endless cycle of unfairness, and children are on the losing end.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
The Politics of Discrimination
The gender war has come full circle. Or so it seems.
I’m scanning through Time Magazine this past week during a quick break between classes and I find this doozy of a story. It’s entitled, “College Confidential” with a subtitle of, “To close the gender gap, admissions officers often favor boys. Is that a good idea?”
Granted, the way this story portrayed my gender, I should be happy I was even in classes. Apparently, boys are slackers who don’t work hard, girls are more qualified for college, and men are sexist. Here is a smattering of quotes from the story:
“…if girls were once excluded because they somehow weren’t good enough, they now are rejected because they’re too good.”
“The gap persists on campus, where women tend to win more honors, join more clubs, do more volunteer work.”
“…it (may) turn out that girls emerge stronger somehow from having the game rigged against them,” says Haverford dean Greg Kannerstein.
“It’s a gross generalization that slacker boys get in over high-performing girls,” says Jennifer Delahunty, dean of admissions at Kenyon College, “but developmentally, girls bring more to the table than boys, and the disparity has gotten greater in recent years.”
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not disputing the figures that the article quotes. I tend to believe what most tests show: girls make up most of the middle of the spectrum in terms of intelligence whereas boys make up a disproportionate amount of the higher and lower ends. This has held true on the SAT and ACT tests for years now. I feel that this would tend to push more women into bachelor degree programs whereas men would get more PhD’s and be more likely to go to trade school, work construction, or do auto mechanic work. This is the choice we get to make in a free society. Outside of a few women having less choice in dating partners, I don’t feel this affects society too much.
My point is much larger: Where have these people been when debating affirmative action?
Asians and whites routinely score higher on standardized tests then blacks and Hispanics and yet are passed on because of their skin color. Miss Delahunty was horrified to learn that her own daughter had been weight-listed at the college her mom was the dean of, prompting her to write a piece for the New York Times entitled, “To All the Girls I’ve Rejected”. She wondered, “Why aren’t (the women) marching in the streets? That’s the part that slays me. It isn’t fair, and young women should be saying something about it not being fair.” Oh really? It isn’t fair? What is Delahunty’s attitude about affirmative action? Is it more important on college campuses to have racial diversity then gender diversity? I think even the most radical feminist would dispute this.
The current gender disparity is going to cross 60-40% women advantage. I would attribute this mainly to gender differences, the way we treat boys in grade school, and overall interest in college. Again, I’m not going to be super upset if colleges want to accept more girls than guys; I believe people should be accepted on merit. However, I don’t want to see UC Berkley passing up on Japanese-American students who graduate near the top of their class with excellent SAT scores in favor of students with lower scores just because they’re the right ethnicity; and then turn around and complain that girls are getting a bad rap because they outperform their counterparts and aren’t being accepted. I choose Berkley because this has happened there on more than one occasion.
If you’re going to discriminate, at least be consistent.
I’m scanning through Time Magazine this past week during a quick break between classes and I find this doozy of a story. It’s entitled, “College Confidential” with a subtitle of, “To close the gender gap, admissions officers often favor boys. Is that a good idea?”
Granted, the way this story portrayed my gender, I should be happy I was even in classes. Apparently, boys are slackers who don’t work hard, girls are more qualified for college, and men are sexist. Here is a smattering of quotes from the story:
“…if girls were once excluded because they somehow weren’t good enough, they now are rejected because they’re too good.”
“The gap persists on campus, where women tend to win more honors, join more clubs, do more volunteer work.”
“…it (may) turn out that girls emerge stronger somehow from having the game rigged against them,” says Haverford dean Greg Kannerstein.
“It’s a gross generalization that slacker boys get in over high-performing girls,” says Jennifer Delahunty, dean of admissions at Kenyon College, “but developmentally, girls bring more to the table than boys, and the disparity has gotten greater in recent years.”
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not disputing the figures that the article quotes. I tend to believe what most tests show: girls make up most of the middle of the spectrum in terms of intelligence whereas boys make up a disproportionate amount of the higher and lower ends. This has held true on the SAT and ACT tests for years now. I feel that this would tend to push more women into bachelor degree programs whereas men would get more PhD’s and be more likely to go to trade school, work construction, or do auto mechanic work. This is the choice we get to make in a free society. Outside of a few women having less choice in dating partners, I don’t feel this affects society too much.
My point is much larger: Where have these people been when debating affirmative action?
Asians and whites routinely score higher on standardized tests then blacks and Hispanics and yet are passed on because of their skin color. Miss Delahunty was horrified to learn that her own daughter had been weight-listed at the college her mom was the dean of, prompting her to write a piece for the New York Times entitled, “To All the Girls I’ve Rejected”. She wondered, “Why aren’t (the women) marching in the streets? That’s the part that slays me. It isn’t fair, and young women should be saying something about it not being fair.” Oh really? It isn’t fair? What is Delahunty’s attitude about affirmative action? Is it more important on college campuses to have racial diversity then gender diversity? I think even the most radical feminist would dispute this.
The current gender disparity is going to cross 60-40% women advantage. I would attribute this mainly to gender differences, the way we treat boys in grade school, and overall interest in college. Again, I’m not going to be super upset if colleges want to accept more girls than guys; I believe people should be accepted on merit. However, I don’t want to see UC Berkley passing up on Japanese-American students who graduate near the top of their class with excellent SAT scores in favor of students with lower scores just because they’re the right ethnicity; and then turn around and complain that girls are getting a bad rap because they outperform their counterparts and aren’t being accepted. I choose Berkley because this has happened there on more than one occasion.
If you’re going to discriminate, at least be consistent.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Making an Example of Detroit
Let’s imagine there exists a city which has the following characteristics, each a major component of the Democratic platform:
-a high living wage, far above the federal minimum wage, for all employees public and private
-a school system that spends significantly more per pupil than the national average
-an effective teachers’ union providing exceptional pay and benefits
-an effective labor union providing exceptional pay and benefits
-a tax system that actively redistributes income from businesses and the wealthy to the poor
There is a city, of course, which looks like this. Detroit, MI has been dubbed “the most liberal city in America” and has voted Democratic consistently for decades. Each of the preceding characteristics are embraced heartily by the city. Newt Gingrich, in an address last week at a think tank in DC, expressed his hope that in the upcoming election conservatives would point to Detroit as an example of what the enactment of the progressive agenda does for a city.
In 1950, Detroit was per capita the wealthiest city in America. Today, the Census Bureau records it as per capita the poorest major city. This time period corresponds with a leftward turn by the inhabitants of the city as unions gained power and the government bureaucracy and business regulation grew. In short, the embrace of the Democratic agenda. And while correlation is not causation it cannot be mere coincidence that what economics predicts would occur when wage controls are implemented, regulation increases, and taxes are raised has occurred there without exception.
Price theory predicts that artificially high imposed wages like the so-called “living wages” will lead to an increase in unemployment. Detroit’s living wage is a whopping $7.40/hr, over $2 above the federal minimum wage when enacted and pressure groups are pushing for more. Additionally, any company working for the city or receiving aid from the city must pay its employees $8.23/hr with benefits or $10.28/hr without benefits. Such high wages make the low-skilled, low-education citizens of Detroit unlikely hires. Struggling and heavily taxed businesses simply cannot pay that high of wages. In a situation that must mystify the well-intentioned progressives at City Hall, yet is understood and predicted by mainstream economists, poverty is rampant and Detroit boasts the highest unemployment rate among large cities.
It is now conventional wisdom among Democrats that if you pay teachers well, support strong teacher unions, and increase spending per student, teacher quality and student performance will improve. We see in the Detroit public schools that this theory must be rejected. The story of the Detroit Public Schools is tragic. The public schools chronically underperform and reforms are vehemently opposed by the powerful teacher unions. The Michigan Education Association is the third largest teacher union in the nation and has negotiated for tremendous compensation for its teachers. Median compensation for a DPS teacher is $76,000 and Detroit spends the third highest amount of money per student among seventy-seven cities nationwide. Statewide, Detroit’s spending per pupil is 91st percentile and Detroit public school teachers are paid at the 96th percentile. And of course, Detroit schools have for decades failed their students.
Despite this massive flow of funds from tax-payers into the schools, Detroit’s public school students perform at the 3rd percentile in the state. People vote with their feet and the DPS loses around 10,000 students each year to charter, private, and suburban schools (called “black flight”). This school system is begging for mass firings for unsatisfactory performance. Of course, teacher unions make this impossible and major reform is opposed at every turn. Major reform was plopped in Detroit’s lap in 2003 at no cost, and again in 2005. Indeed, philanthropist Bob Thompson (an amazing man, look him up) offered public school administrators $200 million to build fifteen charter schools. The offer was turned down both times when the teacher unions revolted and staged walkouts when the mayor considered the offer. Charter schools are public but are not unionized, hence the unions’ opposition. Non-unionized competitors would not be tolerated since it would put their safe and well-compensated jobs at risk.
The MEA is not the only union hurting Detroit. Detroit is of course home to GM, Ford, and Chrysler, three car companies which have contracts with powerful and effective labor unions. The unions have served their workers well over the years. Wages and benefits are phenomenal and workers receive an estimated $71 per hour in total compensation. This is about $25 more per hour than Japanese car companies pay their American workers who are not unionized. Due to this disparity Japanese car companies make over $2000 more profit per car than the American companies. Meanwhile, the Detroit Big 3 are posting billions in losses in recent quarters and suffer the accompanying loss of market share. They have been struggling mightily against bankruptcy since the 80s (and helped along by federal protectionism and tax-payer funded bailouts). Despite this the labor unions won’t accept lower compensation even as plants close.
There are social reasons as well for Detroit’s slide into poverty. Progressive judges in the 1970s court-ordered busing of white students into the failing black neighborhood schools. This coercion of private citizens was resisted, of course. Those who were able simply moved to the suburbs. One infamous mayor told criminals to hit the wealthy and white neighborhoods which didn't help race relations. Finally, a factor that caused the flight of the middle-class and businesses is Detroit’s excessive tax burden, which is currently 170% the national average. Welfare, regulation, bureaucracy, and unions are not cheap.
Detroit is an example of the compassionate welfare state, a system progressives would like all of us to live under. Tom Bray of the Detroit News says this,
“Detroit, remember, was going to be the ‘Model City’ of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, the shining example of what the "fairness" of the welfare state can produce. Billions of dollars later, Detroit instead has become the model of everything that can go wrong when you hook people on the idea of something for nothing—a once-middle class city of nearly 2 million that is now a poverty-stricken city of less than 900,000.”
Let’s hope Democrats will revise their platform after being made aware of the disaster their policies helped produce in Detroit.
-a high living wage, far above the federal minimum wage, for all employees public and private
-a school system that spends significantly more per pupil than the national average
-an effective teachers’ union providing exceptional pay and benefits
-an effective labor union providing exceptional pay and benefits
-a tax system that actively redistributes income from businesses and the wealthy to the poor
There is a city, of course, which looks like this. Detroit, MI has been dubbed “the most liberal city in America” and has voted Democratic consistently for decades. Each of the preceding characteristics are embraced heartily by the city. Newt Gingrich, in an address last week at a think tank in DC, expressed his hope that in the upcoming election conservatives would point to Detroit as an example of what the enactment of the progressive agenda does for a city.
In 1950, Detroit was per capita the wealthiest city in America. Today, the Census Bureau records it as per capita the poorest major city. This time period corresponds with a leftward turn by the inhabitants of the city as unions gained power and the government bureaucracy and business regulation grew. In short, the embrace of the Democratic agenda. And while correlation is not causation it cannot be mere coincidence that what economics predicts would occur when wage controls are implemented, regulation increases, and taxes are raised has occurred there without exception.
Price theory predicts that artificially high imposed wages like the so-called “living wages” will lead to an increase in unemployment. Detroit’s living wage is a whopping $7.40/hr, over $2 above the federal minimum wage when enacted and pressure groups are pushing for more. Additionally, any company working for the city or receiving aid from the city must pay its employees $8.23/hr with benefits or $10.28/hr without benefits. Such high wages make the low-skilled, low-education citizens of Detroit unlikely hires. Struggling and heavily taxed businesses simply cannot pay that high of wages. In a situation that must mystify the well-intentioned progressives at City Hall, yet is understood and predicted by mainstream economists, poverty is rampant and Detroit boasts the highest unemployment rate among large cities.
It is now conventional wisdom among Democrats that if you pay teachers well, support strong teacher unions, and increase spending per student, teacher quality and student performance will improve. We see in the Detroit public schools that this theory must be rejected. The story of the Detroit Public Schools is tragic. The public schools chronically underperform and reforms are vehemently opposed by the powerful teacher unions. The Michigan Education Association is the third largest teacher union in the nation and has negotiated for tremendous compensation for its teachers. Median compensation for a DPS teacher is $76,000 and Detroit spends the third highest amount of money per student among seventy-seven cities nationwide. Statewide, Detroit’s spending per pupil is 91st percentile and Detroit public school teachers are paid at the 96th percentile. And of course, Detroit schools have for decades failed their students.
Despite this massive flow of funds from tax-payers into the schools, Detroit’s public school students perform at the 3rd percentile in the state. People vote with their feet and the DPS loses around 10,000 students each year to charter, private, and suburban schools (called “black flight”). This school system is begging for mass firings for unsatisfactory performance. Of course, teacher unions make this impossible and major reform is opposed at every turn. Major reform was plopped in Detroit’s lap in 2003 at no cost, and again in 2005. Indeed, philanthropist Bob Thompson (an amazing man, look him up) offered public school administrators $200 million to build fifteen charter schools. The offer was turned down both times when the teacher unions revolted and staged walkouts when the mayor considered the offer. Charter schools are public but are not unionized, hence the unions’ opposition. Non-unionized competitors would not be tolerated since it would put their safe and well-compensated jobs at risk.
The MEA is not the only union hurting Detroit. Detroit is of course home to GM, Ford, and Chrysler, three car companies which have contracts with powerful and effective labor unions. The unions have served their workers well over the years. Wages and benefits are phenomenal and workers receive an estimated $71 per hour in total compensation. This is about $25 more per hour than Japanese car companies pay their American workers who are not unionized. Due to this disparity Japanese car companies make over $2000 more profit per car than the American companies. Meanwhile, the Detroit Big 3 are posting billions in losses in recent quarters and suffer the accompanying loss of market share. They have been struggling mightily against bankruptcy since the 80s (and helped along by federal protectionism and tax-payer funded bailouts). Despite this the labor unions won’t accept lower compensation even as plants close.
There are social reasons as well for Detroit’s slide into poverty. Progressive judges in the 1970s court-ordered busing of white students into the failing black neighborhood schools. This coercion of private citizens was resisted, of course. Those who were able simply moved to the suburbs. One infamous mayor told criminals to hit the wealthy and white neighborhoods which didn't help race relations. Finally, a factor that caused the flight of the middle-class and businesses is Detroit’s excessive tax burden, which is currently 170% the national average. Welfare, regulation, bureaucracy, and unions are not cheap.
Detroit is an example of the compassionate welfare state, a system progressives would like all of us to live under. Tom Bray of the Detroit News says this,
“Detroit, remember, was going to be the ‘Model City’ of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, the shining example of what the "fairness" of the welfare state can produce. Billions of dollars later, Detroit instead has become the model of everything that can go wrong when you hook people on the idea of something for nothing—a once-middle class city of nearly 2 million that is now a poverty-stricken city of less than 900,000.”
Let’s hope Democrats will revise their platform after being made aware of the disaster their policies helped produce in Detroit.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Tax Cuts: A Simple Lesson in Economics
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
• The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
• The fifth would pay $1.
• The sixth would pay $3.
• The seventh $7.
• The eighth $12.
• The ninth $18.
• The tenth man (the wealthiest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."
So, now dinner for ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share"?
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being "PAID" to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:
• The fifth man, like the first four now paid nothing (100% savings).
• The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
• The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
• The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
• The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
• The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before, one now eats for free. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man - "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine surrounded the tenth man (the wealthiest) and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.
I can't claim this idea as my own unfortunately, I just cleaned parts of it up so that it was more relateable.
• The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
• The fifth would pay $1.
• The sixth would pay $3.
• The seventh $7.
• The eighth $12.
• The ninth $18.
• The tenth man (the wealthiest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."
So, now dinner for ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share"?
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being "PAID" to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:
• The fifth man, like the first four now paid nothing (100% savings).
• The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
• The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
• The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
• The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
• The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before, one now eats for free. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man - "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine surrounded the tenth man (the wealthiest) and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.
I can't claim this idea as my own unfortunately, I just cleaned parts of it up so that it was more relateable.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Affirmative Action and the Politics of Race
There are many issues in American politics that are extremely complicated. Issues like abortion, stem-cell research, and Iraq. I certainly have strong opinions about each of these, and I think there are parts of these issues that are simple as well (i.e. partial birth abortion). However, some issues are just very easy, particularly to the American people. Newt Gingrich tries to expand upon these in his new book Real Change. One of these issues is affirmative action.
Though this has been voted down repeatedly, even in our most liberal states, it still remains in our system. It is increasingly unpopular, supported only by members of the hard left and race baiters. I truly feel like this is an easy issue, and can be broken down as such.
Now first off, is it effective? If it was effective, they maybe we could argue that reverse racism is the answer to the problems of the lack of minorities in higher education. However, this just isn’t the case. In fact, it seems like the only group of people who haven’t been the beneficiaries of affirmative action (or racial preferences) is the one group succeeding the most. Asian-Americans, more specifically Japanese-Americans, do the best. By population, they get the most graduate degrees, have the most success, make the most money, and have the lowest rate of children born out of wedlock. Remember, Japanese-Americans were extremely discriminated against, even placed in internment camps just 60 years ago. They overcame this, worked hard, and quickly moved up the classes in America. There is no Jesse Jackson in the Asian community.
Consider this simple analogy of affirmative action. A white guy and a black guy apply for a job. The guy giving the job gives it to the white guy despite the black guy being more qualified. What would happen in this country? There would be riots. People would freak out, the court system would compensate the black guy, and Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would make the Jena Six movement look like a Girl Scout picnic. So why is this allowed to happen in favor of the black guy? Or Hispanics? Or women?
Now, I should make something known. If I apply for college, and an inner-city, low-income black student from the devastated part of New Orleans applies as well and we have about the same grades and he gets in over me, I’m not going to freak out and throw a fit. But if Al Sharpton’s son is in my position and an inner-city, low-income white student doesn’t get in ahead of him despite having better grades, a higher SAT, and better academic standing…I may be upset. And yet this is happening all the time.
Dinesh D’Souza makes the point that it is simply impossible to have a system like this in a country as diverse as America. What percentage minority do you have to be? How long ago must you have been oppressed? Remember, every race and group was oppressed at one time or another.
So what should we do about this? Well for one thing, Republicans need to make an issue of it. They won’t; they’re already branded as the party that hates black people, but they should. It’s an easy issue to win on, good politically, and it forces Democrats to support something that is a losing issue for them.
Slowly this issue will go away, but only after being here for many years. Minority and women students (who make up roughly 80% of the population by the way) are repeatedly told; you are oppressed, you are discriminated against. Be upset. Demand repercussions. If you fail, don’t worry, it’s not your fault. Asian-Americans learned long ago that this was pointless. There are times when things aren’t just, you deal with it and move on. These instances should be dealt with on an individual basis.
The question is, why do Asian-Americans do so well and African American students so poorly? None of this has to do with race. It can be broken down further. Japanese children born out of wedlock: 2%. African-Americans: 70%. Whites and Hispanics are somewhere in the middle. If liberals want to do something about minorities not doing well in higher education, they should focus on things like welfare reform and divorce laws. It’s also important to keep something in mind. In the 1930s, 40s, and 50s, the out-of-wedlock birthrate for blacks was about 20%. And that was a mere 70 years after slavery ended. So how did it get worse as blacks got further from the slave years? It’s a long and complicated answer, but it does show us that this issue is not about oppression.
This will never be admitted of course. It is too ingrained in the feminist and minority movements that they are victims. This will continue as a result of white guilt. I agree with Bernard Goldberg’s take on all this. He quotes Tom Izzo (head coach of Michigan State University) as a supporter of affirmative action. So why, Goldberg contends, does Izzo not put this into practice with his basketball team? Currently, Michigan State is made up 6 white players out of 15 total players. Whites make up roughly 70% of the population and over 80% of the state of Michigan. Should we apply these standards to the MSU basketball team? No, of course not, most sane people would argue. These players put in a lot of time and energy to get where they are, and they are rewarded by being on the basketball team. I’m sure Tom Izzo would never give away spots from people who deserved them to people who didn’t.
And neither should our country.
Though this has been voted down repeatedly, even in our most liberal states, it still remains in our system. It is increasingly unpopular, supported only by members of the hard left and race baiters. I truly feel like this is an easy issue, and can be broken down as such.
Now first off, is it effective? If it was effective, they maybe we could argue that reverse racism is the answer to the problems of the lack of minorities in higher education. However, this just isn’t the case. In fact, it seems like the only group of people who haven’t been the beneficiaries of affirmative action (or racial preferences) is the one group succeeding the most. Asian-Americans, more specifically Japanese-Americans, do the best. By population, they get the most graduate degrees, have the most success, make the most money, and have the lowest rate of children born out of wedlock. Remember, Japanese-Americans were extremely discriminated against, even placed in internment camps just 60 years ago. They overcame this, worked hard, and quickly moved up the classes in America. There is no Jesse Jackson in the Asian community.
Consider this simple analogy of affirmative action. A white guy and a black guy apply for a job. The guy giving the job gives it to the white guy despite the black guy being more qualified. What would happen in this country? There would be riots. People would freak out, the court system would compensate the black guy, and Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would make the Jena Six movement look like a Girl Scout picnic. So why is this allowed to happen in favor of the black guy? Or Hispanics? Or women?
Now, I should make something known. If I apply for college, and an inner-city, low-income black student from the devastated part of New Orleans applies as well and we have about the same grades and he gets in over me, I’m not going to freak out and throw a fit. But if Al Sharpton’s son is in my position and an inner-city, low-income white student doesn’t get in ahead of him despite having better grades, a higher SAT, and better academic standing…I may be upset. And yet this is happening all the time.
Dinesh D’Souza makes the point that it is simply impossible to have a system like this in a country as diverse as America. What percentage minority do you have to be? How long ago must you have been oppressed? Remember, every race and group was oppressed at one time or another.
So what should we do about this? Well for one thing, Republicans need to make an issue of it. They won’t; they’re already branded as the party that hates black people, but they should. It’s an easy issue to win on, good politically, and it forces Democrats to support something that is a losing issue for them.
Slowly this issue will go away, but only after being here for many years. Minority and women students (who make up roughly 80% of the population by the way) are repeatedly told; you are oppressed, you are discriminated against. Be upset. Demand repercussions. If you fail, don’t worry, it’s not your fault. Asian-Americans learned long ago that this was pointless. There are times when things aren’t just, you deal with it and move on. These instances should be dealt with on an individual basis.
The question is, why do Asian-Americans do so well and African American students so poorly? None of this has to do with race. It can be broken down further. Japanese children born out of wedlock: 2%. African-Americans: 70%. Whites and Hispanics are somewhere in the middle. If liberals want to do something about minorities not doing well in higher education, they should focus on things like welfare reform and divorce laws. It’s also important to keep something in mind. In the 1930s, 40s, and 50s, the out-of-wedlock birthrate for blacks was about 20%. And that was a mere 70 years after slavery ended. So how did it get worse as blacks got further from the slave years? It’s a long and complicated answer, but it does show us that this issue is not about oppression.
This will never be admitted of course. It is too ingrained in the feminist and minority movements that they are victims. This will continue as a result of white guilt. I agree with Bernard Goldberg’s take on all this. He quotes Tom Izzo (head coach of Michigan State University) as a supporter of affirmative action. So why, Goldberg contends, does Izzo not put this into practice with his basketball team? Currently, Michigan State is made up 6 white players out of 15 total players. Whites make up roughly 70% of the population and over 80% of the state of Michigan. Should we apply these standards to the MSU basketball team? No, of course not, most sane people would argue. These players put in a lot of time and energy to get where they are, and they are rewarded by being on the basketball team. I’m sure Tom Izzo would never give away spots from people who deserved them to people who didn’t.
And neither should our country.
Friday, November 30, 2007
A Winnable Election?
"I think the surge is working…and the surge is working for a couple of different reasons. And one reason is the increase in troops.”
So says Congressman John Murtha (D-PA), one of the most outspoken anti-war advocates. He goes on to say that the surge is, “only one element”, but also calling it “a window of opportunity.”
Well now we’re getting somewhere.
A few weeks ago, the New York Times leads with “A Winnable War?” Conservatives will argue that it is only at the New York Times that this is debatable; all wars are winnable for the United States. The question was never whether or not we could win, but whether or not we would choose to win. Meanwhile, I’m going to give Harry Reid (D-Nevada) a chance to retract his statement that “the war is lost.”
Look, we have a long way to go. The Iraqi government in particular has a lot to live up to. But for the first time, there is hope. The media in the Middle East has turned on Al Qaeda. People there are sick of innocents getting blown up. No longer do the terrorists have a monopoly on what true Islam is in the area.
Iraq is now a neutral issue, with the potential to become something truly special for Republicans next November; a wild card. First, Hillary Clinton fumbles the question about illegal immigrants obtaining drivers licenses. Next, scientists announce that they are moving in a direction that would all but eliminate the debate over embryonic stem-cell research (namely that we wouldn’t need to use them). And now repeated good news from Iraq? Maybe the election isn’t all but lost for the Republicans just yet.
Everyone has been talking about the problems for conservatives for a long time. Iraq was unpopular, stem-cell research was popular, immigration reform couldn’t get done, and universal health care was seen as a must. The tide is turning. Iraq is once again being seen as a front in the war on terrorism. The scientist working on stem-cells announced that they had “successfully reprogrammed human skin cells into cells indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells.” The leader of the research, James Thomson, had expressed reservations in the past about creating new stem cells to use for the research and this helps relieve that controversy. Immigration has been a winning issue for conservatives for a long time, and always will as long as Democratic governors and mayors keep coming up with new ways around the law (i.e. Eliot Spitzer). Health care is a winning issue for Democrats usually, but not if the leader of your party is someone known for their failed health care bill. Americans may want health care reform, but that is a long way from the universal care each of the leading Democratic candidates has offered. Even Hillary Clinton’s new plan is filled with many Republican talking points; the word “choice” is repeated often.
A few months ago, most pundits were writing this election off as a loss for Republicans (Newt Gingrich) and arguing over just how many Congressional seats would be lost. But for Republicans, just like the people in Iraq; there is finally hope.
So says Congressman John Murtha (D-PA), one of the most outspoken anti-war advocates. He goes on to say that the surge is, “only one element”, but also calling it “a window of opportunity.”
Well now we’re getting somewhere.
A few weeks ago, the New York Times leads with “A Winnable War?” Conservatives will argue that it is only at the New York Times that this is debatable; all wars are winnable for the United States. The question was never whether or not we could win, but whether or not we would choose to win. Meanwhile, I’m going to give Harry Reid (D-Nevada) a chance to retract his statement that “the war is lost.”
Look, we have a long way to go. The Iraqi government in particular has a lot to live up to. But for the first time, there is hope. The media in the Middle East has turned on Al Qaeda. People there are sick of innocents getting blown up. No longer do the terrorists have a monopoly on what true Islam is in the area.
Iraq is now a neutral issue, with the potential to become something truly special for Republicans next November; a wild card. First, Hillary Clinton fumbles the question about illegal immigrants obtaining drivers licenses. Next, scientists announce that they are moving in a direction that would all but eliminate the debate over embryonic stem-cell research (namely that we wouldn’t need to use them). And now repeated good news from Iraq? Maybe the election isn’t all but lost for the Republicans just yet.
Everyone has been talking about the problems for conservatives for a long time. Iraq was unpopular, stem-cell research was popular, immigration reform couldn’t get done, and universal health care was seen as a must. The tide is turning. Iraq is once again being seen as a front in the war on terrorism. The scientist working on stem-cells announced that they had “successfully reprogrammed human skin cells into cells indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells.” The leader of the research, James Thomson, had expressed reservations in the past about creating new stem cells to use for the research and this helps relieve that controversy. Immigration has been a winning issue for conservatives for a long time, and always will as long as Democratic governors and mayors keep coming up with new ways around the law (i.e. Eliot Spitzer). Health care is a winning issue for Democrats usually, but not if the leader of your party is someone known for their failed health care bill. Americans may want health care reform, but that is a long way from the universal care each of the leading Democratic candidates has offered. Even Hillary Clinton’s new plan is filled with many Republican talking points; the word “choice” is repeated often.
A few months ago, most pundits were writing this election off as a loss for Republicans (Newt Gingrich) and arguing over just how many Congressional seats would be lost. But for Republicans, just like the people in Iraq; there is finally hope.
Monday, October 29, 2007
The Modern-Day Feminist Movement: How Women are Selling-Out Women
“In a certain sense it was almost accidental—coincidental—that I wrote The Feminine Mystique, and in another sense my whole life had prepared me to write that book; all the pieces of my life came together for the first time in the writing of it.” So writes Betty Friedan years after writing the book that probably launched modern-day feminism. In the late 19th and early 20th century, women like Elizabeth Stanton and Susan B. Anthony kicked off the feminism movement in America, and yet remained true to the roots that they grew up with. With the publication of The Feminine Mystique, women all over America latched on to something new; and those new ideas have produced some very dangerous actions. What once started out as a group of down-to-earth, pro-life, pro-family women has become the complete opposite of what the founders intended. Most of the material that will be dealt with quotes American feminists and considers their views, and this is a problem in itself. However, it should be noted that the opinions of women and feminist governments overseas, particularly in Europe, are far more advanced and dangerous than those in the United States. This short essay deals with the long, hard-fought battle that women have been fighting, how modern-day feminists have sold out the women of America, and in the process have made men, women, and children all weaker from their attempts.
In January of 2001, the president of Harvard University, Larry Summers, did something outrageous. He put forth a hypothesis (backed up by decades of scientific data) that men and women are inherently different. Unfortunately Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was in attendance. Hopkins said later that if she hadn’t left, “I would’ve either blacked out or thrown up.” Very few credible biologists, sociologists, or psychologists will attest to the idea that men and women are innately exactly the same. However, the belief that men and women are mentally, spiritually, and emotionally identical is at the bedrock core of the modern-day feminism movement. Feminist Patricia Adair Gowaty writes:
"…statements about the evolutionary source of typical differences between women and men, it seemed to many a convenient, untested ‘just-so-story’ that buttressed status quo notions about sex roles that were sometimes used to confine women to their ‘natural’ roles as mothers and subordinates to men."
One must wonder if these women have ever had children, as it seems most parents with a boy and a girl realize how different the genders are. To this day, feminists resist arguments that evoke the significance in children’s development of “salient” sexual differences between men and women and instead argue that these differences are brought on by institutions rather than nature. At the core of this belief is the idea that men and women can raise children equally. And why not, for if both genders are essentially the same, then a child can get from each gender separately just as easily as it can from both sexes. This if often the basis for the belief of feminists supporting same-sex marriage and resisting such things as the “family –friendly” tax reduction policy. It is ironic to note that modern-day feminists want absolute equal rights until the idea of women being drafted is brought into the conversation, at that point they really begin to recognize the differences in the genders. Feminists want equal representation in the workplace, but as they say; every woman’s a feminist until they see one of their own climbing up the fire-escape to rescue them. Is it really that radical to prefer a 200-pound man carry you down six stories rather than a 110-pound woman?
In the end, Larry Summers was forced to resign from his job at Harvard. One of the main reasons for this is the result of his comments at a private conference regarding the commonly-held belief of nearly every expert in the field; that men and women are different.
Also, the modern-day feminist movement has taken on topics that are either not relevant to most women, or just simply too out of the mainstream to be taken seriously. Feminism used to be about equality for women, but it has turned into something far different. Such modern-day feminist beliefs include: pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality (and homosexual marriage), the rejection of the belief in gender differences, and even taking on far-left issues such as animal cruelty. By far, the most important of these is the idea that abortion should remain legal at all stages of pregnancy. In 1991, feminists groups in Rochester, New York were planning a month of programs to protest violence against women. The group Feminists for Life planned to participate, but was barred because of their beliefs about abortion. Feminist leaders sponsoring the event said that the denial of abortion constitutes the single greatest form of violence against women.
Sex is another big issue that modern-day feminists have taken on, and their ignorance about sex is what has driven them away from mainstream women. Susan Rose, a professor at Dickinson University, writes about love and sex, “(Love) is not a word to be thrown about easily. Sex, on the other hand, is not a big deal. It’s fun, but you need to take care to use protection so you don’t get AIDS or an infection.” This statement is rather ridiculous; Rose may want to interview some more girls who have been negatively affected by sex. The arrogance from Rose in her article and her condescension towards the “Religious Right,” seeps from the pages.
Another common issue taken up by some feminist groups is the cause of animal rights. This sounds like a noble cause until one really examines the extremes of the movement. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is the largest animal-rights group, and their stunts are well documented. Josephine Donovan writes that it is “…a matter of caring for animals as mothers (human and nonhuman) care for their infants…listening to animals, paying emotional attention, taking seriously—caring about—what they are telling us.” Donovan feels that there is good reason the feminist movement has taken up with PETA and other animal rights activists,
"Feminists—indeed most women—are acutely aware of what it feels like to have one’s opinion ignored, trivialized, rendered unimportant. Perhaps this experience has awakened their sensitivity to the fact that other marginalized groups—including animals—have trouble getting their viewpoints heard."
This quote could just be left alone as it is with no explanation, and nearly everyone would get the point. This idea of attempting to portray animals as equal to humans seems to never grow old. The true irony is: Why do feminists have such an easy time seeing an animal as a human, yet such a hard time seeing an eight-month-old fetus as the same?
The issues that concern feminists are just radically different from what most women are willing to accept. This has caused the term ‘feminism’ to lose its meaning. USA Today interviewed several people about what has happened to the word, and Janice Hedstrom, a twenty-seven-year-old registered nurse from Minneapolis said, “The feminist movement has made it a word that carries a negative connotation. And while I believe the movement has done a lot for women in helping them to become more equal to men, it has pushed an agenda that has been negative toward the family.”
The modern-day feminist movement has simply lost touch with the American woman. In the last 10 years, the percent of stay-at-home moms has risen by 15%. This number puts a smile on the face of conservatives, and yet is seen as a major problem for the leaders of the feminist movement. A well-known feminist lawyer, philosophy professor, and author, Linda Hirshman had this to say:
"These women are choosing lives in which they do not use their capacity for very complicated works. They are choosing lives in which they do not use their capacity to deal with very powerful other adults in the world, which takes a lot of skill. I think there are better lives and worse lives."
Hirshman is the classic example of what the modern-day feminist movement has become; someone who claims to speak for the majority of American women and yet doesn’t share their values. The arrogance of this statement is astounding. Most women wonder, what is more important than raising children? At what point in our history did the most important job become something to look down upon? Feminists are constantly complaining that women are seen as less then their male counterparts, but it appears that they are the only ones looking down on anyone.
Feminist Jackie Brookner writes, “We have developed much activism for woman’s causes: for abortion rights, equal job opportunity, rape counseling, battered women, day care.” For each of the things she lists, one can point out the problems that occurred. Abortion rights led to a rapid spread of such evils as partial-birth abortion, infanticide, and a loss of respect for human life. Equal job opportunity has come at the expense of well-qualified men, pushing them out as businesses hire women for fear of being sued. Rape counseling has led to a rape epidemic; many women have been credibly accused of lying about being raped, most notably in the Duke lacrosse scandal last year. Real rape victims become victims all over again. Day care has led to fewer stay-at-home moms and children being raised in less healthy home environments.
When researching the works of modern-day feminists, one is also struck by the fact that they simply no longer relate to the views of the common woman. “You know, last week I attended the NOW convention and, out of hundreds of sessions, only one focused on children—and it was on lesbian mothers.” So relates Elizabeth Fox-Genovese in her new book.
In conclusion, feminism as we know it is dying out. It has simply become too radical. I was struck by how mean the feminist movement sounded while I was reading about it, and so I decided to do some investigating myself. At Easter dinner this past year, I asked women on both sides of my family if they would classify themselves as feminists. My family is a good mix of conservatives and liberals on both sides, so I hoped it would be a good sample of opinions. This diverse group came together in one area though, and that is in its condemnation of the feminist movement. It was universally condemned as both man-hating and against stay-at-home mothers; and this did not sit well in a family in which most of the female members shared this occupation. A grimace came to the face of whoever I was talking to regarding today’s feminist movement. Mary Hawkesworth writes:
"The women’s movement has lost its bearings, cut itself off from American women, and abandoned its original purpose…Rather than acting in concert to produce social change, the feminist movement factionalized, devolving into highly specialized individuals and cliques, each cultivating ins arcane little patch of ground…"
What started out once as a true and just cause has morphed into something different. With the passage of Title IX and affirmative action programs, feminist organizations began gaining ground; but with the increasing problem of male failures in school and extracurricular activities, what have they gained? It’s no wonder that currently only a third of women define themselves as feminists. As that number drops every year, it is becoming clearer and clearer that the modern-day feminist movement has truly abandoned women. At Grove City College, feminism is a curse word, and that trend is sure to continue as long as organizations like Planned Parenthood and NOW continue to ignore values truly important to American women.
In January of 2001, the president of Harvard University, Larry Summers, did something outrageous. He put forth a hypothesis (backed up by decades of scientific data) that men and women are inherently different. Unfortunately Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was in attendance. Hopkins said later that if she hadn’t left, “I would’ve either blacked out or thrown up.” Very few credible biologists, sociologists, or psychologists will attest to the idea that men and women are innately exactly the same. However, the belief that men and women are mentally, spiritually, and emotionally identical is at the bedrock core of the modern-day feminism movement. Feminist Patricia Adair Gowaty writes:
"…statements about the evolutionary source of typical differences between women and men, it seemed to many a convenient, untested ‘just-so-story’ that buttressed status quo notions about sex roles that were sometimes used to confine women to their ‘natural’ roles as mothers and subordinates to men."
One must wonder if these women have ever had children, as it seems most parents with a boy and a girl realize how different the genders are. To this day, feminists resist arguments that evoke the significance in children’s development of “salient” sexual differences between men and women and instead argue that these differences are brought on by institutions rather than nature. At the core of this belief is the idea that men and women can raise children equally. And why not, for if both genders are essentially the same, then a child can get from each gender separately just as easily as it can from both sexes. This if often the basis for the belief of feminists supporting same-sex marriage and resisting such things as the “family –friendly” tax reduction policy. It is ironic to note that modern-day feminists want absolute equal rights until the idea of women being drafted is brought into the conversation, at that point they really begin to recognize the differences in the genders. Feminists want equal representation in the workplace, but as they say; every woman’s a feminist until they see one of their own climbing up the fire-escape to rescue them. Is it really that radical to prefer a 200-pound man carry you down six stories rather than a 110-pound woman?
In the end, Larry Summers was forced to resign from his job at Harvard. One of the main reasons for this is the result of his comments at a private conference regarding the commonly-held belief of nearly every expert in the field; that men and women are different.
Also, the modern-day feminist movement has taken on topics that are either not relevant to most women, or just simply too out of the mainstream to be taken seriously. Feminism used to be about equality for women, but it has turned into something far different. Such modern-day feminist beliefs include: pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality (and homosexual marriage), the rejection of the belief in gender differences, and even taking on far-left issues such as animal cruelty. By far, the most important of these is the idea that abortion should remain legal at all stages of pregnancy. In 1991, feminists groups in Rochester, New York were planning a month of programs to protest violence against women. The group Feminists for Life planned to participate, but was barred because of their beliefs about abortion. Feminist leaders sponsoring the event said that the denial of abortion constitutes the single greatest form of violence against women.
Sex is another big issue that modern-day feminists have taken on, and their ignorance about sex is what has driven them away from mainstream women. Susan Rose, a professor at Dickinson University, writes about love and sex, “(Love) is not a word to be thrown about easily. Sex, on the other hand, is not a big deal. It’s fun, but you need to take care to use protection so you don’t get AIDS or an infection.” This statement is rather ridiculous; Rose may want to interview some more girls who have been negatively affected by sex. The arrogance from Rose in her article and her condescension towards the “Religious Right,” seeps from the pages.
Another common issue taken up by some feminist groups is the cause of animal rights. This sounds like a noble cause until one really examines the extremes of the movement. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is the largest animal-rights group, and their stunts are well documented. Josephine Donovan writes that it is “…a matter of caring for animals as mothers (human and nonhuman) care for their infants…listening to animals, paying emotional attention, taking seriously—caring about—what they are telling us.” Donovan feels that there is good reason the feminist movement has taken up with PETA and other animal rights activists,
"Feminists—indeed most women—are acutely aware of what it feels like to have one’s opinion ignored, trivialized, rendered unimportant. Perhaps this experience has awakened their sensitivity to the fact that other marginalized groups—including animals—have trouble getting their viewpoints heard."
This quote could just be left alone as it is with no explanation, and nearly everyone would get the point. This idea of attempting to portray animals as equal to humans seems to never grow old. The true irony is: Why do feminists have such an easy time seeing an animal as a human, yet such a hard time seeing an eight-month-old fetus as the same?
The issues that concern feminists are just radically different from what most women are willing to accept. This has caused the term ‘feminism’ to lose its meaning. USA Today interviewed several people about what has happened to the word, and Janice Hedstrom, a twenty-seven-year-old registered nurse from Minneapolis said, “The feminist movement has made it a word that carries a negative connotation. And while I believe the movement has done a lot for women in helping them to become more equal to men, it has pushed an agenda that has been negative toward the family.”
The modern-day feminist movement has simply lost touch with the American woman. In the last 10 years, the percent of stay-at-home moms has risen by 15%. This number puts a smile on the face of conservatives, and yet is seen as a major problem for the leaders of the feminist movement. A well-known feminist lawyer, philosophy professor, and author, Linda Hirshman had this to say:
"These women are choosing lives in which they do not use their capacity for very complicated works. They are choosing lives in which they do not use their capacity to deal with very powerful other adults in the world, which takes a lot of skill. I think there are better lives and worse lives."
Hirshman is the classic example of what the modern-day feminist movement has become; someone who claims to speak for the majority of American women and yet doesn’t share their values. The arrogance of this statement is astounding. Most women wonder, what is more important than raising children? At what point in our history did the most important job become something to look down upon? Feminists are constantly complaining that women are seen as less then their male counterparts, but it appears that they are the only ones looking down on anyone.
Feminist Jackie Brookner writes, “We have developed much activism for woman’s causes: for abortion rights, equal job opportunity, rape counseling, battered women, day care.” For each of the things she lists, one can point out the problems that occurred. Abortion rights led to a rapid spread of such evils as partial-birth abortion, infanticide, and a loss of respect for human life. Equal job opportunity has come at the expense of well-qualified men, pushing them out as businesses hire women for fear of being sued. Rape counseling has led to a rape epidemic; many women have been credibly accused of lying about being raped, most notably in the Duke lacrosse scandal last year. Real rape victims become victims all over again. Day care has led to fewer stay-at-home moms and children being raised in less healthy home environments.
When researching the works of modern-day feminists, one is also struck by the fact that they simply no longer relate to the views of the common woman. “You know, last week I attended the NOW convention and, out of hundreds of sessions, only one focused on children—and it was on lesbian mothers.” So relates Elizabeth Fox-Genovese in her new book.
In conclusion, feminism as we know it is dying out. It has simply become too radical. I was struck by how mean the feminist movement sounded while I was reading about it, and so I decided to do some investigating myself. At Easter dinner this past year, I asked women on both sides of my family if they would classify themselves as feminists. My family is a good mix of conservatives and liberals on both sides, so I hoped it would be a good sample of opinions. This diverse group came together in one area though, and that is in its condemnation of the feminist movement. It was universally condemned as both man-hating and against stay-at-home mothers; and this did not sit well in a family in which most of the female members shared this occupation. A grimace came to the face of whoever I was talking to regarding today’s feminist movement. Mary Hawkesworth writes:
"The women’s movement has lost its bearings, cut itself off from American women, and abandoned its original purpose…Rather than acting in concert to produce social change, the feminist movement factionalized, devolving into highly specialized individuals and cliques, each cultivating ins arcane little patch of ground…"
What started out once as a true and just cause has morphed into something different. With the passage of Title IX and affirmative action programs, feminist organizations began gaining ground; but with the increasing problem of male failures in school and extracurricular activities, what have they gained? It’s no wonder that currently only a third of women define themselves as feminists. As that number drops every year, it is becoming clearer and clearer that the modern-day feminist movement has truly abandoned women. At Grove City College, feminism is a curse word, and that trend is sure to continue as long as organizations like Planned Parenthood and NOW continue to ignore values truly important to American women.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
