Kamala Harris undermines her historic vice presidency by supporting policies ruinous to women
By: Mary Vought (MSN)
Oh boy.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Kamala Harris undermines her historic vice presidency by supporting policies ruinous to women
Kamala Harris made history when she became our country's first female vice president.
While electing the first woman to a nationwide office serves as an important milestone, Harris's policy positions themselves provide little comfort to women. On numerous issues, Harris will undermine, rather than advance, causes that are important to women.
Take, for instance, Harris's support for the Equality Act. This legislation, which adds gender identity and sexual orientation as protected categories to the Civil Rights Act, would be bad for those born biologically female. If enacted, the Equality Act would functionally give individuals born biologically male federal approval to enter sporting competitions previously reserved for those born biologically female. It could also subject parents who prohibit their underage children from undergoing gender transition procedures to potential civil rights enforcement actions.
Additionally, Harris's position on abortion allows for the ending of the lives of millions of women not yet born. During the Democratic presidential primaries, Harris attacked Biden as insufficiently pro-abortion because, for decades, he opposed taxpayer-funded abortion, though he has since changed his position. Harris supports passing a federal law that, by requiring states to get preclearance for any limitations or regulations on abortion, would effectively block states from imposing safety restrictions on abortion clinics, placing mothers at risk.
These policies would be most harmful to low-income families and minority communities. Recent data from the Centers for Disease Control show that in 2018, African American women and Hispanic women got abortions at rates 3.4 times and 1.7 times that of white women, respectively. In New York City in 2018, 21,145 children were born to non-Hispanic black women, while 17,252 were aborted. Removing safety restrictions on abortion and solidifying taxpayer funding of abortion would accelerate the demise of a generation of children.
Beyond that, the lucky children who escape abortion in the womb won't have the best educational options if Harris has her way. She has publicly opposed opportunity scholarship programs that allow low-income students to attend the school of their choice. Even as Harris attacked President Biden last year on the issue of desegregation and busing, her own policies would keep many low-income children stuck in failing schools.
Finally, Harris has also committed to decriminalizing prostitution. She claims that "we can't criminalize consensual behavior as long as no one is being harmed." Of course, the many women trafficked to participate in sex work, both domestically and internationally, would consider themselves harmed by prostitution. Decriminalizing prostitution won't just encourage sex trafficking overseas, but it will also lead more women to enter an industry that inflicts untold psychological and physical harm on them.
Harris's agenda will be bad for all categories of women, from collegiate athletes seeking to compete on a level playing field to mothers seeking to ensure their children will receive a quality education, from those caught up in sexual exploitation to millions of unborn children.
While her election to the vice presidency represents a personal step forward for Harris, the policies she seeks to impose on America will set women back.
Mary Vought (@MaryVought) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. She is a Republican strategist and the executive director of the Senate Conservatives Fund.
Tags
Who is online
79 visitors
Must be fake news.........................
There's no such thing as fake news, there's just fake fiction.
What a crock of shit. I stopped reading that ultra-Christian proselytizing crap at that point. That author should be made to spend a day tending to the "monster" babies in the top floor ward of Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children.
That's all one needs to know that the article is BS!
No surprise here that the damn gop's Prurient Potty Patrol opposes The Equality Act on silly grounds!
In their backwards minds equality is bad for women!
Women are the superior gender ... of course equality is bad for them.
Tell it to women making less for the same work!
In some instances... women make more for the same work (generally in male-dominated fields, believe it or not) (I've made more money than my male counterparts for years in the automotive world) and there are some instances in which men make more in a female-dominated field, like nursing. It's just enough incentive to entice the gender that's non-dominant in certain fields.
I did a paper about monetary equality between genders and found that in a large number of instances, women were just not aggressive enough when they were asked about the salary they were seeking. It appears that often, women will request a salary that's average or a bit lower than average for the position they're trying to get, because psychologically speaking, women tend to feel [for various reasons] that they're not yet good enough to get a higher salary even if they're actually better at a job than another person seeking the same position. On the other hand, men, in many instances [not all] have egos and they believe that they're worth more than everyone else.
I learned a VERY LONG TIME AGO that a company can only say no or counteroffer a salary, so what's the harm in asking for more that what I think I might be worth? I thought I was reaching a bit when I requested the salary I did when I got hired in where I am now... the female manager offered more than I requested. I'm grateful for it, but would a male manager have done that; maybe a few, but certainly not most? In my current position, I'm making more than the rest of my little team even though they've been in IT longer... hell, I got a promotion just after a year working in IT. However, my team members were happy that they don't have to deal with upper management and can simply be assigned things and do them.
Anyone can point to a few outlying examples that don't reflect the average, but the fact remains, women make on average 81.6 cents to every $1 a male makes for the same jobs. There is a gender pay gap regardless of whether your own personal experience differs.
Oh, so it's the woman's fault. "You weren't aggressive enough when asking for a raise" "You shouldn't worn a skirt that short, you were just asking for it...".
While it may be true that women aren't as aggressive as men when asking for raises, the reason for it is clearly the history of women in the work place who have had to suffer far more than men in a lot of ways all to retain jobs that were often more difficult to get than their male counterparts. Being aggressive as a woman risks being considered a "B" which is counterproductive when asking for a raise yet when it's a male they are just considered assertive and strong which can be seen as assets to a company.
Perhaps they valued your work and it wasn't related to your gender at all. When I was a building inspector and went to my male boss requesting a raise he also gave me more than I requested and told me he was planning on giving me a raise anyway because I was worth it. The point is, women haven't been in most work fields for very long, it's only been in the last few decades that many fields have been opened to women and I think they are often still trying to prove themselves and work harder to do so in male dominated fields which may also play a role in why in some instances they get paid more. But in general, they are still being paid almost 20% less for the same jobs as males and that is unacceptable, and blaming women for not being aggressive enough is just another sad excuse to keep paying them less, just more victim blaming and finding justifications for status quo discrimination.
I agree, but the fact also remains that it's far better than it was when I started working... hell, it's better now than it was 10 years ago.
So... you're missing the part in which I say "It appears that often..." No where did I indicate that I thought that it was a woman's fault. And for you to try and equate what I said to rape-shaming... shame on you. I was stating facts. I also stated that it was "psychologically speaking, women tend to feel [for various reasons] that they're not yet good enough to get a higher salary even if they're actually better at a job than another person seeking the same position." I thought that people were adult enough to determine that historically, women have been "brow beaten" and never allowed equality, without having to state the obvious.
It's probable.
Go ahead and tell me that no women have ever undervalued themselves and that it's not one of the various reasons for being underpaid. I'm not saying that it's the only nor the primary reason; I'm simply stating that it happens. I've done it myself.
I'm the last person that wants to see status quo discrimination. I've worked DAMN HARD to get where I am; far harder than most men in similar positions and all while dealing with a lot of personal shit on top of discrimination, being undervalued, scrutinized for every thing I say or do, and being dismissed from places in which the "reason" was questionable at best, but no lawyer would take it on, because it's simply too difficult to prove.
That's called progress and we wouldn't be where we are at without pushing forward and making the gender pay gap an issue and have Presidents like Obama who signed the Lilly Ledbetter act. And just because we've made progress doesn't mean we should just stop pushing for reform, we're not there yet and the gap is even wider for women of color.
You said you "did a paper" "and found that in a "large number of instances", women were just not aggressive enough". That sounds a lot like victim blaming. Later you couched it with "It appears that often, women will request a salary that's average or a bit lower" but that doesn't take away the implication that the reason for the pay gap is somehow the woman's fault, in fact it adds to it by implying women also don't value themselves enough.
I'm not saying that doesn't occur, I'm saying that it's a symptom of a society that hasn't valued women's work outside (and often even inside) the home and shouldn't be used as an excuse to ignore the obvious gender pay gaps that do in fact exist. When a society pays women nearly 20% less then their male counterparts for the same work, it's not hard to see why women would value themselves at similar rates. They are no doubt trying to be realists and not rock the boat just as many women for decades put up with abuse and assault at the hands of fellow male co-workers that men would never have put up with simply because society had shown them time and time again that women were punished and victimized for filing complaints or being too aggressive or "bossy" which is a term rarely applied to men but often labeled on strong women who refuse to be treated unfairly.
Sounds like you've experienced many of the problems and understand very well that such disparities still exist in our society. Strangely, in your comments I heard that "In some instances... women make more for the same work", aren't aggressive enough, don't value themselves enough and that we've already made a lot of progress which sounds a lot like victim blaming and justifications for the inequity which frankly doesn't make sense based on your own admitted personal experiences.
I agree. Never even implied anything different.
Then, I guess I'm blaming myself too.
So, we're in violent agreement.
I'm stating facts, not feelings. Victim blaming would insinuate that I'm stating feelings and I'm not. I originally went to school for aircraft maintenance and repair and later, after being married, daughter born, divorced, son born, and remarried, I went back to school for a BBA in Ops Management. The aforementioned career choices are still male-dominated. So, of course I struggled with discrimination.
My first work-related stint with discrimination was when I was 16 and working at Firestone changing tires and doing oil changes. Then it was at auto parts stores. Then a dealership. 0Then it was being a manager at a shop. Then it was in prototype shops. And the most recent one was when I interviewed with FCA at the Trenton, MI Engine Plant. Everything was great until my 5th and final interview... with the Plant Manager. Ironically, he's since been let go. I know people there... I know that they hired a man as a contractor for the position I was interviewing for and for about $30K less than what's average for that position and about $20K less salary than I was requesting. The fact is, people that worked for that Plant Manager blatantly stated that he was a sexist asshole.
If I made my reality all about feelings, I'd have gone down a sad and dark path.
The author is full of shit...
Bullshit.
If they're not born, they're definitely not "women". Get your slimy conservative religious opinions out of others peoples business.
More bullshit. None of the laws that conservative States have enacted which have forced hundreds of clinic closures have been to protect the safety of women, they have all been to push ridiculous unnecessary restrictions on clinics in an effort to strip women of their rights to a safe and legal abortion.
More whiny ridiculous conservative religious bullshit. Just because some women in poor and minority communities avail themselves of their rights more than privileged wealthy white women doesn't mean the "demise of a generation of children". Save the emotional bullshit for your sermons.
More bullshit. In places where sex work is legal those engaged in it have far more control and safety than places it's still illegal. Making something illegal doesn't get rid of it, it just pushes it underground where it's unregulated and full of risk.
Sounds a lot like something a bitter whiny religious sore loser conservative would say when they don't get their way or aren't the one breaking glass ceilings.
Do you know why more minority women have abortions? It's because they are the ones that can least afford to have children. Do you want children to live in poverty? Have little to no opportunities? Have a higher likelihood of ending up in prison for longer periods than whites do for the same crime?
Some do make it out. Many do not. This whole opinion piece is trash. The blogger concerns herself more with her religious viewpoint than she concerns herself with women.
That about sums it up.
Then perhaps they should take advantage of the Planned Parenthood birth control program. While I realize not all women can use the pill without side affects, there are other methods out there. After all, doesn't PP provide it for free?
I don't disagree, tho they dispense forms of birth control, it's not a "program". But with republicans want to cut their funding so some of these clinics are closing shop. It may be difficult for them to obtain BC
There are states where the RW has made it impossible for PP to have clinics and others where there are few if any and only in urban areas. All too many women have to travel hundreds of miles to go to a PP clinic.
Do you propose to make PP more available for women, even in rural areas, to get 'free' birth control?
Got no problem with more clinics to help women. And one may assert that if they can't afford a child, perhaps they should check with their local Medicaid office. They cover for free in most cases if they have it. That and a doctor visit would make it possible for them to receive the BC.
Hell... now women can order BC online and with Medicaid, it's covered 100%. I believe that includes condoms.
Ever see a woman wear a condom, lol?
Funny, but...
yes.
Sure... let's allow a 10 year old undergo gender transition procedures without parental consent. /s
I will posit this without paying much attention to the seed or the comments so far.
No one seriously expected Mr Obama to govern as a black man for all black people first and foremost.
It's just not realistic or honest.
I would say the same applies to the current VPOTUS, she cannot and will not agree with all issues based on her gender.
but thanks for the laughs.
On the other hand, white male Presidents have at least 200 years to make up for, lol