I remember a time when the "women's movement" was about equal opportunity, the chance to compete with men on an equal footing. There was an idea I could get behind. For that matter, it's an idea I still could get behind, if I had the chance. Between the government and the gender feminists, that chance seems slimmer and slimmer all the time, at least as far as public policy is concerned.
This evening as I rode home, I was treated to a news story about Mary Barra, the new CEO of GM. The tenor of the story seemed to be outrage that, as a woman, her compensation appeared to less than that of her male predecessors. A follow-up to the story, with GM disclosing full details of her compensation appears to contradict that earlier report, which is completely irrelevant as far as I am concerned. The questions I find far more pressing are 1) Why is there so much upset over a difference in salary, and 2) Why is it any one's business outside of the GM and Ms. Barra?
I am making a few assumptions here. I am assuming, for example, that no one was holding a gun on Ms. Barra or members of her immediate family during the salary negotiations, or that no other nefarious means of corporate duress were employed. That being the case, I would have to guess that anyone, male or female, capable of being CEO of a multi-national corporation would be capable of negotiating an equitable salary for themselves. If they were not, I can't see why the company would want them in the first place. Claiming that GM conspired to reduce compensation in the offer because Ms. Barra is a woman is not only insulting to GM but insulting to Ms. Barra as well. As we acknowledge that she is capable of looking after GM's best interests, let us acknowledge that she is capable of looking after her own as well.
For those who believe that publicizing such incidents benefits women, I disagree. Each time a case such as this arises in the media, it once again raises the specter of doubt with regards to the ability women to compete equally. Men have always worked with the assumption that they were responsible for negotiating their own salaries in professional positions. While calling attention to disparities might win sympathy for women in some quarters, women professionals don't need sympathy. They need respect. They won't get that if they are cast as victims incapable of speaking up for the compensation they deserve.
It's time for the gender feminists to take their belief in female competence past the "lip service" stage. You can't claim that they are fully capable of taking care of billion dollar companies but unable to look after themselves, and you can't expect people to see them strong if you constantly cast them as victims. Man up, ladies.
The "Woman's Movement" or "feminism" starts out with a single premise: it is "unfair" that I am a woman. "Society" treats men better; I would rather be a man; or I want all the benefits of being a man. A whole generation of women has been led to believe that there is some kind of "unfairness" associated with being a woman. I have commented on "unfairness" before. As I see it the concept of "fairness" always works to undermine or destroy kindness. Therefore "feminism" is a bad idea because it is rooted in the concept of "unfairness". God, in His great kindness, created us male or female: one or the other. To be unhappy with one's gender for reasons of "unfairness" is to be unhappy with God. It is a rejection of God's kindness. It leads to destruction of oneself.
ReplyDelete