I’ve mentioned some of this before but since I heard a few ladies talking about the terrible impact that Hillary Clinton not winning the election had on women I just had to write something.
There’s no doubt we’ll have a female President someday when the right woman comes along; Hillary wasn’t her. She didn’t lose because she was a woman she lost because she’s Hillary Clinton. She lost because of the Benghazi scandal. She lost because of the email scandal. She lost because of the DNC scandal. She lost because she was caught in so many lies. Too many people didn’t see her as being a great role model for young girls and women. The fact that she lost to Donald Trump is a testament to how atrocious she was as a candidate for the Democrat Party.
So how earth shattering has Hillary not winning the election been on the lives of women? I’ve not heard of any women’s rights going away since Trump took office. I realize Trump has plenty of scandals going and who knows he might get impeached but Hillary would’ve been inundated with them and just how bad would it have been for women if the first female President was impeached? The risk was too high with her.
What exactly would’ve happened with women’s rights should Hillary have become elected? The marchers held up signs about their being a pay gap between men and women but what would Hillary have done to fix it? Not only did I not hear Hillary present a plan I also didn’t hear the marchers providing ideas on how to constitutionally and realistically, change any pay disparities.
There are common sense reasons for gender pay gaps and it has nothing to do with white men oppressing women. Women historically have taken on jobs that paid less because they were the ones who took care of the children and managed the home so they couldn’t do long work weeks or put in crazy hours. So of course if you add up the number of women and the money they make compared to men there will be a discrepancy. There isn’t unbiased, statistically viable data, which shows that a man and a woman with the same education and job experiences consistently possess pay gaps. I’m not saying this didn’t happen decades ago but it certainly isn’t common now just like a lot of other social issues.
There’s absolutely no reason why a quality employer would want to pay a woman less than a man. If a company wants to hire and keep the best people they need to pay for it. If a woman chooses to accept a lower salary than she expects then that’s on her because in America we don’t force someone to take or stay in a job.
There’s a shift taking place to where more women than men are graduating with post high school degrees (i.e. associates, bachelors, doctorate, engineering, masters, medical, etc.). This fall, women will have slightly more participants than men in law schools. All of the above means that women will soon have higher incomes than men because of the high-skilled jobs they’ll have especially since the high school dropout rate for boys is increasing while it’s not for girls.
When this happens, will men start protesting about income inequality or will we recognize it for what it is and put the time and effort into making ourselves more valuable to the marketplace so we can reach women’s income levels? Basically will we do the right thing and not use the same tactics as the women’s movement who play victim when there are legitimate reasons for the current pay gaps?
The market should dictate wealth distribution because in the end it’s the best way to reward people for what they put into it (i.e. getting a good education, making good life decisions, working hard, being loyal, etc.). If the government gets involved in some way (I don’t know how), to force companies to make adjustments to payroll based on gender, we might as well change to communism or socialism and have businesses run by the government. Take a look at how great that’s going in Central and South America; corruption is through the roof and businesses are failing.
The Women’s Rights Movement did their best to get Hillary elected but it didn’t work. They did everything they could to make it appear they were victims of the system and electing a woman would make things better but it was a false narrative. Things were already getting better for women on their own because they’re completely capable of doing great things and they’re doing it.
Lastly, for the Women’s Rights Movement to constantly bring up Roe vs. Wade is ridiculous. They used it as a scare tactic during the campaign making it sound as if it will be overturned should a Republican get in office. It won’t be overturned no matter who’s in office because it was a sound decision by the Supreme Court.
About the only real question the majority worries about is the question of when does life begin? When is it wrong to take a baby because it’s a viable life? My thought is that if life ends when the heart stops beating it should begin when it starts beating but regardless if the child puts a woman’s life in danger she has every right to make the choice about whether or not to have the baby. A majority of Republican voters acknowledge this, yet liberal Democrats keep playing the anti-woman card against the Republican Party. It gets old. I’ve said it before but why in the world would the Republican Party having millions of women in it if the Party was against women? It’s ridiculous.
So I ask once again, what difference was Hillary going to make towards women’s rights? Why would her not getting elected set the movement back? There’s no doubt that when the right female candidate comes along (it won’t be Elizabeth Warren), with the right messages for the times, she’ll have absolutely no problem getting elected. Hopefully it will be someone of good character who everyone especially young girls and women can truly look up to; Hillary clearly wasn’t the one.
There’s no doubt we’ll have a female President someday when the right woman comes along; Hillary wasn’t her. She didn’t lose because she was a woman she lost because she’s Hillary Clinton. She lost because of the Benghazi scandal. She lost because of the email scandal. She lost because of the DNC scandal. She lost because she was caught in so many lies. Too many people didn’t see her as being a great role model for young girls and women. The fact that she lost to Donald Trump is a testament to how atrocious she was as a candidate for the Democrat Party.
So how earth shattering has Hillary not winning the election been on the lives of women? I’ve not heard of any women’s rights going away since Trump took office. I realize Trump has plenty of scandals going and who knows he might get impeached but Hillary would’ve been inundated with them and just how bad would it have been for women if the first female President was impeached? The risk was too high with her.
What exactly would’ve happened with women’s rights should Hillary have become elected? The marchers held up signs about their being a pay gap between men and women but what would Hillary have done to fix it? Not only did I not hear Hillary present a plan I also didn’t hear the marchers providing ideas on how to constitutionally and realistically, change any pay disparities.
There are common sense reasons for gender pay gaps and it has nothing to do with white men oppressing women. Women historically have taken on jobs that paid less because they were the ones who took care of the children and managed the home so they couldn’t do long work weeks or put in crazy hours. So of course if you add up the number of women and the money they make compared to men there will be a discrepancy. There isn’t unbiased, statistically viable data, which shows that a man and a woman with the same education and job experiences consistently possess pay gaps. I’m not saying this didn’t happen decades ago but it certainly isn’t common now just like a lot of other social issues.
There’s absolutely no reason why a quality employer would want to pay a woman less than a man. If a company wants to hire and keep the best people they need to pay for it. If a woman chooses to accept a lower salary than she expects then that’s on her because in America we don’t force someone to take or stay in a job.
There’s a shift taking place to where more women than men are graduating with post high school degrees (i.e. associates, bachelors, doctorate, engineering, masters, medical, etc.). This fall, women will have slightly more participants than men in law schools. All of the above means that women will soon have higher incomes than men because of the high-skilled jobs they’ll have especially since the high school dropout rate for boys is increasing while it’s not for girls.
When this happens, will men start protesting about income inequality or will we recognize it for what it is and put the time and effort into making ourselves more valuable to the marketplace so we can reach women’s income levels? Basically will we do the right thing and not use the same tactics as the women’s movement who play victim when there are legitimate reasons for the current pay gaps?
The market should dictate wealth distribution because in the end it’s the best way to reward people for what they put into it (i.e. getting a good education, making good life decisions, working hard, being loyal, etc.). If the government gets involved in some way (I don’t know how), to force companies to make adjustments to payroll based on gender, we might as well change to communism or socialism and have businesses run by the government. Take a look at how great that’s going in Central and South America; corruption is through the roof and businesses are failing.
The Women’s Rights Movement did their best to get Hillary elected but it didn’t work. They did everything they could to make it appear they were victims of the system and electing a woman would make things better but it was a false narrative. Things were already getting better for women on their own because they’re completely capable of doing great things and they’re doing it.
Lastly, for the Women’s Rights Movement to constantly bring up Roe vs. Wade is ridiculous. They used it as a scare tactic during the campaign making it sound as if it will be overturned should a Republican get in office. It won’t be overturned no matter who’s in office because it was a sound decision by the Supreme Court.
About the only real question the majority worries about is the question of when does life begin? When is it wrong to take a baby because it’s a viable life? My thought is that if life ends when the heart stops beating it should begin when it starts beating but regardless if the child puts a woman’s life in danger she has every right to make the choice about whether or not to have the baby. A majority of Republican voters acknowledge this, yet liberal Democrats keep playing the anti-woman card against the Republican Party. It gets old. I’ve said it before but why in the world would the Republican Party having millions of women in it if the Party was against women? It’s ridiculous.
So I ask once again, what difference was Hillary going to make towards women’s rights? Why would her not getting elected set the movement back? There’s no doubt that when the right female candidate comes along (it won’t be Elizabeth Warren), with the right messages for the times, she’ll have absolutely no problem getting elected. Hopefully it will be someone of good character who everyone especially young girls and women can truly look up to; Hillary clearly wasn’t the one.
RSS Feed