Tag Archives: wages

When Did Success Become Anathema to Feminists?

We live in a two income household nation, and the days of men being the sole breadwinners are dying.  Women are the majority of wage earners, and if the trends continue, they’ll become the main income earners by 2030.  So, women have made massive strides in the socio-economic landscape, and that’s a good thing.  However, when it comes to successful women, feminists can’t stand them.

It seems idiotic.  Feminists have long clamored that there aren’t enough women in Congress, corporate board rooms, sports, etc., but seem perfectly content with cannibalizing their own when one manages to make it to the top.

Sheryl Sandberg, the Chief Operating Officer of Facebook, and Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer are the newest victims of feminist wrath.  It’s because they go against the norm.  Hanna Rosin aptly noted that Mayer’s critics “believe in collective action,” and anyone that deviates from what the feminist establishment thinks is punished.  Hence, why conservative women are vilified without mercy, despite that fact that some have attained positions of power within male-dominated fields, particularly in politics.  In the world of media, feminist antipathy is no different.

Katie Roiphe of Slate wrote last week that:

The main critiques of Sandberg and Mayer boil down to the fact that they are “not like us.” And yet, it is precisely because they are not like us that we should admire them, or at least be pleased, abstractly, about their existence on earth.

It also seems like a feminist mistake to expect women entrepreneurs to create little utopias instead of running extremely successful businesses. Mayer was attacked recently for her decision not to allow employees to work at home. She is a woman, this line of thinking goes, how could she think women should have to work away outside of their houses, away from their children? But why should Marissa Mayer have some special responsibility to nurture her employees with a cozy, consummately flexible work environment just because she is a woman? Isn’t her responsibility to run a company according to her individual vision? If we want powerful female entrepreneurs shouldn’t we allow them to pursue entrepreneurial power?

The strange idea that women who are successful must represent all women, or somehow be like all women, is both totally absurd and completely prevalent. How could someone in the position of Sandberg or Mayer live exactly like most women in America? Mayer attracted criticism for taking too short a maternity leave and for saying her baby is easy, because women with any sort of success or advantage are supposed to be self-deprecating. They are supposed to complain or evoke the terribleness of their lives, so that other women will not be threatened, to diffuse the powerful and frightening competitive instinct. This is an expectation most of us pick up in middle school, but the fact that it persists and lives on in the blogosphere and newspaper columns among grownup critics and pundits is shameful.

Roiphe cited Anna Holmes of the New Yorker, who took Maureen Dowd and Jodi Kantor of the New York Times to task for taking Sandberg’s quote (“I always thought I would run a social movement”) out of context to make her look “arrogant.”

The original, quite reasonable quote was: “I always thought I would run a social movement, which meant basically work at a nonprofit. I never thought I’d work in the corporate sector.” But even if she had said the sentence, as a standalone aspiration, why should out-scale over the top ambition in a woman be considered arrogant or unappealing? Why is there so much resentment and mockery aimed at women with grand visions?

Hanna Rosin, also of Slate, noted how Mayer doesn’t consider herself a feminist, and thinks women of that mold are “militant,” with “a chip on their shoulder.”  Gasp!  It’s a duel between the individualist, independent-thinking woman and the collective tyrants of the secret circle.  Sandberg has stated that women themselves may be the problem when it comes to advancing in the workplace, as Norah O’Donnell reported on 60 Minutes. Rosin used Sandberg’s new book to convey this point.

… [the] tension between the individual and the collective is at the heart of the debate over Facebook executive Sheryl Sandberg’s “lean in” idea. Sandberg is publishing a book of advice to young women executives at the same time as she launches a “consciousness raising” movement complete with specific instructions on how to run lean-in circles. But that kind of collective action feels at odds with the advice in the book. In the book, out next week, Sandberg tells women how to negotiate for higher salaries and promotions, how to nurture their own ambition, how to behave at work if they want to advance. It is all excellent advice, but it’s not the stuff of a consciousness-raising movement. It’s advice for this age of meritocracy, when feminist success largely means professional advancement, one woman at a time. What happens if you’re up against another woman for a promotion? In Sandberg’s world, you go for it.

Hence, why – ironically – independent women, like Mayer and Sandberg, are anathema to the feminist establishment.  They aren’t thinking like a feminist. They’re thinking about their careers, and their own interests.  Men do the same thing.  In fact, anyone who wants to get ahead will do the same thing.  As Robert Frost once said, “I do not want to live in a homogenous society, I want the cream to rise.”

This problem that feminists have with women succeeding relates to their movement as a whole.  It’s a common criticism that the third – and current – wave of feminism lacks a clear vision for the 21st century. What issues, if there are any, are left for women to campaign on that haven’t already been addressed.  There’s nothing new in the arsenal.  All that is left is what needs to be built on, and that isn’t necessarily a compelling call to arms.

Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner wrote in her book the F-Word: Feminism in Jeopardy – Women, Politics, and the Futurethat the third wave is lost in the wilderness.

The lack of a cohesive movement is the crisis of the third wave.” Or as one of the young women she interviewed remarks, “In a nutshell, my problem with the third wave is that I think we’re a whiny bunch of elitists who think we’re so smart, but we’re not doing anything but power knitting. The lack of a political movement is huge, yet we feel so smug.”

What seems to frighten feminists about Sandberg and Mayer – and Rosin and Roiphe write this as well – is that feminism really didn’t help them rise to the top.  Furthermore, Rosin wrote that the crowd that Sandberg is trying to attract, of which Mayer is also a member, really don’t see much feminism has to offer in terms of advancing their careers.

Roiphe added:

the word feminist is of little use to us now, but if we are interested in female power then we should let our powerful women pursue power, without harassing them with our distaste for that pursuit. We should not expect them to be warmer, fuzzier, more nurturing than their male counterparts because to do so is to impose sexist expectations.

Could the feminist bashing of successful women be a manifestation of that frustration?  Is the “not being needed” angst driving this madness?  If so, the feminist establishment has a mindset of “these ladies have to go,” and hopefully the next crop will be more palatable to the cause. That’s one way to destroy a movement.  It’s something conservatives should’ve considered when they excluded GOProud at CPAC this year.

Either way, I say let women be women.  Better yet, let them be “American” – or “capitalist” – in their economic pursuits, which is grounded in being more aggressive, more competent, and more productive than your competition.  If a woman rises to the top, so be it.  She should be congratulated. We’re a meritocracy, and everyone should get a boost from the increased competition.  As for feminists, I suggest they go moan in a corner someplace else.  I want the economy to roar back –with men and women alike – and feminism isn’t helping anyone.

Unions and the Fallacy Behind Them

Written November 18, 2011

Generations of people have grown up with the misconceptions that unions are the God’s of the people, by the people for the people. Like the current state of affairs with our government nothing could be further from the truth. Union heads are strong supporters of the current administration with huge contributions to Obama’s campaign. There is a method to their madness and while they contribute to and help to finance the demonstrations we see daily their main focus goes much deeper

Collective bargaining, wages, and tenure are just a few of the issues addressed by Union leaders. They appear to be the allies for the common folk, the middle or lower class; they have a history of making lives better by obtaining benefits, wages, and profit sharing for all union employees. Thus you would be inclined to believe union officials are your best friends. If you are one of the many people who live in this country and find this to be true you may want to read on.

Although collective bargaining for wages, benefits, and working conditions sounds good, the corruption seriously outweighs the benefits. Richard Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO has publically issued a warning to democrats should they fail to fight for labor unions as determined by him. Trumka: “If lawmakers don’t push hard enough to stem attacks on labor’s interests, workers will abandon the party in the 2012 election.”
Meanwhile, while AFL-CIO head Trumka was flirting with National Socialism, recently retired SEIU president Andy Stern was kissing up to socialism’s more famous sister, Communism, saying, “Workers of the world unite – it’s not just a slogan anymore. It’s the way we’re gonna have to do our work.” But let’s get back to Richard Trumka.

Richard Trumka has his own agenda and rest assured his visions of the future leave little room for confusion.. “As president of the United Mine Workers (UMW) union, Trumka led multiple violent strikes. Trumka’s fiery rhetoric often appeared to condone militancy and violence, especially against workers who dared to continue to provide for their families by working during a strike. As a Virginia judge ruled in 1989, “violent activities are being organized, orchestrated and encouraged by the leadership of this union.” Take the murder of Eddie York, a nonunion contractor, who was shot in the back of the head and killed while leaving a worksite in 1993. Trumka and other UMW officials were charged in a $27 million wrongful death suit by Eddie York’s widow. After fighting the suit intensely for four years, UMW lawyers settled suddenly in 1997 — just two days after the judge in the case ruled evidence in the criminal trial would be admitted. Later, as Secretary-Treasurer of the AFL-CIO, Trumka pleaded the Fifth Amendment before Congress and a court-appointed election monitor over his role in an illegal fundraising scheme to benefit the Teamsters president Ron Carey’s re-election. Trumka has remained in his position ever since despite an AFL-CIO rule (adopted in 1957) which held that union officials who plead the Fifth have “no right to continue to hold office” in the union umbrella organization.” (Cote)

On the orders of the United Mine Workers (UMW), 16,000 miners went on strike in 1993. One subcontractor, Eddie York (who was not a UMW member), decided it was important to support his wife and three children and crossed picket lines to get to his job. He was shot in the head as he left the job site to go home. UMW President Richard Trumka (now Secretary-Treasurer at the AFL-CIO) told The Washington Times that “if you strike a match and put your finger in, common sense tells you you’re going to burn your finger.” UMW strike captain Jerry Dale Lowe was found guilty of weapons charges and conspiracy in York’s death, and York’s widow Wanda sued the union for her husband’s wrongful death. The UMW fought the lawsuit for four years, but settled with Wanda York only two days after federal prosecutors announced that they would share evidence from the criminal trial with York’s attorneys.” (Washington Examiner).

More recently the occupy Wall Street Protesters have support of Union leaders. The violence for many of them is a means to an end of capitalism as we know it. They have their own agenda it is not one that most of us would consider the American Way. They in no way stand for Truth and Justice and Freedom for all – theirs is a way that finds its resolution in violence and by taking what does not belong to them.

References:

Cote, Nick http://www.nrtw.org/en/blog/richard-trumka-facts-09152609

Washington Examiner Staff writer

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/union-thug-richard-trumka-complains-about-sarah-palin-calling-union-leader

Consumer Spending Index Falls in November

NEW YORK, Dec. 15, 2011  — The Deloitte Consumer Spending Index (Index) slid again in November, weighed down primarily by the housing market.  The Index tracks consumer cash flow as an indicator of future consumer spending.

“A high number of foreclosed homes and mortgage defaults continue to deflate real home prices and further lower consumers’ net worth,” explained Carl Steidtmann, Deloitte’s chief economist and author of the monthly Index.  “In recent months however, consumers have sustained their spending and the savings rate has declined, while real wages and employment growth remain stagnant.”

The Index, which comprises four components — tax burden, initial unemployment claims, real wages, and real home prices — fell to 1.75 from an upwardly revised reading of 1.96 the previous month.  The Index is at the lowest level since April 2009.

“Many consumers are showing seasonal cheer when it comes to holiday shopping; however, they are also well-informed and making calculated decisions before buying,” said Alison Paul, vice chairman and U.S. retail & distribution sector leader, Deloitte LLP.  “Retailers are increasing their staffing levels to provide a positive in-store experience and help consumers with their holiday shopping lists.”

“The retail sector added more people to their payrolls last month, showing the strongest November increase in retail jobs since 2007.  With more associates in the stores to provide one-on-one customer assistance, retailers may be able to increase shoppers’ basket size and conversion rates during an otherwise competitive season,” Paul added

Highlights of the Index include:

Tax Burden: The tax burden rose slightly to 11 percent.  While a rising tax burden is typically a sign of an improving economy, in this case it is likely more of a drag on spending as state and local governments began increasing taxes to address budgetary shortfalls.

Initial Unemployment Claims: Initial unemployment claims moved slightly lower to 405,200 after hovering around the 400,000 mark the past six months.

Real Wages: Real wage growth was stagnant this month as energy prices eased.

Real Home Prices: Real home prices fell sharply again this month and are down on average over the past three months 5.9 percent from a year ago.  The housing market appears to be contracting despite record low mortgage rates and the Federal Reserve’s effort to drop them even further.

Unions and the Fallacy Behind Them

Generations of people have grown up with the misconceptions that unions are the God’s of the people, by the people for the people. Like the current state of affairs with our government nothing could be further from the truth. Union heads are strong supporters of the current administration with huge contributions to Obama’s campaign. There is a method to their madness and while they contribute to and help to finance the demonstrations we see daily their main focus goes much deeper.

Collective bargaining, wages, and tenure are just a few of the issues addressed by Union leaders. They appear to be the allies for the common folk, the middle or lower class; they have a history of making lives better by obtaining benefits, wages, and profit sharing for all union employees. Thus you would be inclined to believe union officials are your best friends. If you are one of the many people who live in this country and find this to be true you may want to read on.

Although collective bargaining for wages, benefits, and working conditions sounds good, the corruption seriously outweighs the benefits. Richard Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO has publically issued a warning to democrats should they fail to fight for labor unions as determined by him. Trumka: “If lawmakers don’t push hard enough to stem attacks on labor’s interests, workers will abandon the party in the 2012 election.”
Meanwhile, while AFL-CIO head Trumka was flirting with National Socialism, recently retired SEIU president Andy Stern was kissing up to socialism’s more famous sister, Communism, saying, “Workers of the world unite – it’s not just a slogan anymore. It’s the way we’re gonna have to do our work.” But let’s get back to Richard Trumka.

Richard Trumka has his own agenda and rest assured his visions of the future leave little room for confusion.. “As president of the United Mine Workers (UMW) union, Trumka led multiple violent strikes. Trumka’s fiery rhetoric often appeared to condone militancy and violence, especially against workers who dared to continue to provide for their families by working during a strike. As a Virginia judge ruled in 1989, “violent activities are being organized, orchestrated and encouraged by the leadership of this union.” Take the murder of Eddie York, a nonunion contractor, who was shot in the back of the head and killed while leaving a worksite in 1993. Trumka and other UMW officials were charged in a $27 million wrongful death suit by Eddie York’s widow. After fighting the suit intensely for four years, UMW lawyers settled suddenly in 1997 — just two days after the judge in the case ruled evidence in the criminal trial would be admitted. Later, as Secretary-Treasurer of the AFL-CIO, Trumka pleaded the Fifth Amendment before Congress and a court-appointed election monitor over his role in an illegal fundraising scheme to benefit the Teamsters president Ron Carey’s re-election. Trumka has remained in his position ever since despite an AFL-CIO rule (adopted in 1957) which held that union officials who plead the Fifth have “no right to continue to hold office” in the union umbrella organization.” (Cote)

“On the orders of the United Mine Workers (UMW), 16,000 miners went on strike in 1993. One subcontractor, Eddie York (who was not a UMW member), decided it was important to support his wife and three children and crossed picket lines to get to his job. He was shot in the head as he left the job site to go home. UMW President Richard Trumka (now Secretary-Treasurer at the AFL-CIO) told The Washington Times that “if you strike a match and put your finger in, common sense tells you you’re going to burn your finger.” UMW strike captain Jerry Dale Lowe was found guilty of weapons charges and conspiracy in York’s death, and York’s widow Wanda sued the union for her husband’s wrongful death. The UMW fought the lawsuit for four years, but settled with Wanda York only two days after federal prosecutors announced that they would share evidence from the criminal trial with York’s attorneys.” (Washinton Examiner).

More recently the occupy Wall Street Protesters have support of Union leaders. The violence for many of them is a means to an end of capitalism as we know it. They have their own agenda it is not one that most of us would consider the American Way. They in no way stand for Truth and Justice and Freedom for all – theirs is a way that finds its resolution in violence and by taking what does not belong to them.

References:
Cote, Nick http://www.nrtw.org/en/blog/richard-trumka-facts-09152609

Washington Examiner Staff writer http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/union-
thug-richard-trumka-complains-about-sarah-palin-calling-union-leader