- Text smaller
- Text bigger
Do some Americans get pleasure or profit from keeping women under their thumb?
Are women really paid less than men for the same kind of work because of misogyny and sexual discrimination?
Or, is it possible that all this rhetoric is designed to distract Americans from government policies that are restraining economic growth and curtailing liberty across the board?
Barack Obama last week signed an executive order requiring federal contractors to pay men and women equally. What he didn’t do, however, was require the White House and his own executive branch of government to follow such an edict.
The American Enterprise Institute found that women staffers in Obama’s White House made about 88 cents on the dollar, compared with male staffers. This figure is down from 93 percent three years ago.
Why is Obama requiring federal contractors to do something his own White House is unable to do?
Because it’s about symbolism, not substance. It’s about dividing the American people into competing groups rather than doing what’s best for all. It’s about placing the government in charge, not the marketplace. It’s about bamboozling political constituencies, not creating an environment conducive to jobs growth and a healthy economy. It’s about pronouncements that sound compassionate rather than actions that work. It’s about getting Americans fighting with each other over the redistribution of pennies in the hopes they don’t unite to throw out the rascals in Washington who are ripping them off and keeping them down.
Think about this: If you or I were convinced that, under all circumstances, men and women should be paid equally, the first thing we would do would be to make sure we were paying men and women equally in all cases.
That’s not the way Obama and his party think or act. Uh-uh. Not at all. The rules never apply to them. The rules apply to others – non-government employers and, particularly, those misogynist Republicans.
Nor do they look at reasons, other than discrimination, that women might be paid less than men in the marketplace. Could it be they frequently leave the workplace to bear and raise children? Would it be fair to penalize men who do not leave their careers for months and years at a time to bear and raise children by lowering their wages? You will notice that Obama’s rules don’t require raising the wages of women to bring them into parity with men. Contractors could just as easily lower the wages of men. How would Americans feel about that? Would you like to see your fathers, your husbands, your brothers and your sons getting their wages cut for the sake of equality?
Would you like to see employers cut jobs altogether to avoid more regulations that cut into their profits?
Some people think Obama and his party don’t understand the way the market works. They think he’s just naïve on economics. I don’t believe that for a minute. They know exactly what they are doing. And it has nothing to do with the end results they claim to seek. It’s not about equality in wages. It’s about dividing and conquering the people. It’s about their war on liberty, not some fantasy about a war on women.
There is no war on women.
There is only a war on liberty.
I don’t expect my colleagues in the media to suddenly pick up the “war on liberty” line. It’s not as sexy as suggesting that anyone opposed to manipulative, paternalistic, Big Brother, top-down solutions is waging a war on women. But there really is a war on liberty. There is no war on women.
Personally, as a husband and father of five daughters, I love women. I want the best for them. I want them to have every conceivable opportunity. But I know they won’t get anything by putting their fate in the hands of Obama and the Democrat connivers.
Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact email@example.com.