Has feminism turned into "Feminism, Inc.?"

November 23, 2017


Has modern "feminism" been removed from its earnest beginnings, and is now a corporate and hypocritical behemoth?

___________________

Feminism is promoted as a movement for equality since its early beginnings with the Suffragettes in Seneca Falls, NY.  At that time, women were fighting for the right to vote and have an equal stake in the civic duty of all Americans.  After that victory, there were more fights relating to sexual harassment (which is making the news now because of Harvey Weinstein, Brett Ratner, Dustin Hoffman, and Matt Lauer etc).  Getting rid of hostile workplaces is a good thing, and hopefully, things will improve to the point it will be rare.  Women can make claims that will be investigated and those who are proven guilty will pay a heavy price.  I believe this is progress and that no woman will have to endure what those women who made claims against Harvey Weinstein.

However, on a political level, I think feminism is transforming into a corporate movement.  For one, it seems to me that now feminism is moving toward financial gain.  For instance, the "equal pay for equal work" language is now popular parlance for every issue.  There is already in place a federal law that states it is illegal to discriminate against anyone for salary based on gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation. So, what does the "equal pay for equal work" mean?  To me, it is essentially the same thing, but for some reason, the Democrats and women's rights groups say that it needs to be in place. Is redundancy now an official position for women?  It does not change the current law throughout the country.  So, what is the main point of this agenda?

I think this is a political tool that tugs at the sense of "grievance" that certain liberal women hold. Why? Both the Democratic and Republican parties have focus groups and meetings with consultants to gauge what issues they can use to rally their base.  For the Democrats, single women are one of the largest group of voters that help them win elections (along with African-Americans, Millenials and a small share of white men).  For Republicans, older white conservatives, military veterans and large swaths of Christian evangelicals are the groups they target to win over voters. In order to keep that group happy, the Democrats need to create issues like the "War on Women," where the issue is framed that Republicans want to ban abortions for women who want or need them and protect companies and religious groups that do not want to cover birth control for their employees.

For the upcoming elections in 2018 and eventually the 2020 presidential campaigns, the Democrats will use the sexual harassment and assault allegations as a weaponized tool to force the party to favor women candidates and accuse those within the party and local officials of not "supporting women," or "don't want to see women succeed."  These are dangerous games the Democratic party is playing with the country.  Identity politics can only go so far, and it can be like Frankenstein's Monster, whereby the monster that was created (in this case, Identity Politics) will eventually turn on its creator.  The same thing will happen to Republicans, who are so dependent on their evangelical base that the GOP will see their own insurgency amongst the base they pander to (Trump was the first salvo in this war for the Republican party's soul).

For the Democrats, it will be more difficult to control the various factions within their party, especially the women's activist and rights groups who want to see more women run for Congress and the White House.  For the 2020 election, the high-dollar and powerful donors have already anointed Senator Kamala Harris (D-Ca) as President Obama's heir apparent. She is intelligent, biracial (black and South Asian) and a woman.  It is the perfect trifecta the Democratic party will hurl toward an unpopular GOP incumbent, one who brings out the hysterical in many Democrats and their party leadership.  Will this prove to be a good strategy? Who knows?  I doubt Trump will lose too many followers.  It seems that women who voted for President Trump will still vote for him so this pandering to women by Democrats may not be the best strategy.  Nonetheless, the party will try to work women into a lather by promoting certain policies.

I think that Democrats are hell-bent on running a woman because they have made many promises to the large segment of women voters in their party. Hillary Clinton was that promise, and it was a massive shock to the party that they did not get what they promised to those targeted voters.  So, what is next?  Here are the proposals I think the Democrats are planning for 2018 and 2020, geared toward the Feminism, Inc. (to turn envy and entitlement into a profit):

1. Use the current sexual assault/harassment in Hollywood, media, and Capitol Hill to push for more women in Congress (which is a good thing, but it should be based policies that benefit all Americans, and not geared to one gender under identity politics)
2. With the recent Matt Lauer sexual assault/harassment crisis front and center in the news, use that to force NBC News to have more women in power, and fire as many men associated with Matt Lauer, otherwise the lawsuits will drain Comcast (NBC parent) of its stock price and profits (this has nothing to do with envy, but more so profit for Feminism, Inc.).
3. Use the Lauer issue as a conduit for a (possible) Democratic control of both houses to pass legislation so that it would be legal for companies to hire more women (even though that would conflict with the current law that makes it illegal for companies to discriminate against anyone based on gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

I agree that it is a good thing to have people get paid close to what their peers make, but it needs to be nuanced.  When companies hire new staff, they base their salary offers on what work experience a person has, plus their educational qualifications.  It is very rare for any two people performing the same job to have the exact work history and educational experience.  While paying people the exact same wage is noble, the question becomes who do you promote if two people are getting paid the exact same wage for the same job?  It becomes a subjective decision and one that has no good outcome. So, while I agree that salary parity is a noble goal, the realities of the workplace is that a diverse employee pool will have diverse characteristics for its employees.  I do not think pandering to women will create a better work environment. In fact, it will create the opposite, a hostile work environment where men and women are more concerned as to who is getting paid more, rather than focusing on why they are working in the first place.