Friday, July 3, 2015

Willis Hart Many "No Female Discrimination" Commentaries Disturbingly In Agreement With Men's Rights Movement Concerns (Addendum to OST #48)

In OST #48 I discussed a specific "females not discriminated against" commentary from the blog of the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart titled "On Patricia Arquette's Oscar-Winning Speech in Which She Dusted Off that Thoroughly Discredited Meme About Gender Pay Inequality". In this 6/27/2015 commentary Willis argues that women are never paid less than men for doing the same work.

Although he does clarify (in an addendum) that he wasn't saying "individual women haven't been discriminated against or [that] there aren't bigoted employers of every stripe out there". No, of course not! There are only "anecdotes" like Lilly Ledbetter. Such things are always anecdotes with this guy... and not real problems that need to be addressed!

If you do think that gender pay discrimination is a real problem? You are worthy of ridicule from Willis. Which he did recently on his blog with a series of 8 commentaries (see list below). The first one being the one where he expresses his outrage toward Patricia Arquette for her Oscar speech. This is the commentary for which I wrote a response (OST #48), and where I bring up the Lilly Ledbetter case

A case Willis apparently considers just another anecdote. He also considers his views on the issue as having nothing to do with "anti-female discrimination".

However, when I plugged into Google some search terms based on his 6 subsequent (in the same vein) commentaries I found that many of the complaints Willis makes point back to the Men's Rights Movement (MRM). Seems that misogynist men who loath feminists like to cite the very same stats Willis does to dispute male privilege (which Willis refers to as "supposed").

Willis goes on to echo other MRM complaints, whining that "Oh, yeah, us guys get all the breaks". Yeah, cry me a river Willis - it really is men who are discriminated against. Not!

Anyway, back to Willis' pay disparity commentary... in it he cites a number of "facts" that he sez proves women are justifiably being paid less. These Willis "facts" concern types of work (or fields) that tend to be dominated by men... but we're talking about women being paid the same for doing the same work. Men dominating a field isn't a good excuse to pay a man more - and 13 of Willis' 20 good reasons why a man should make more can be chucked immediately for this reason.

For example, Willis says that more men "major in technology and the hard sciences", but since we're talking about women being paid the same for doing the same job, we can assume that the woman majored in the field needed to get the job (people with the same job have to meet the same requirements to get said job).

Mr. Hart also laughably claims that because a man is "willing to commute longer distances" he should be paid more. What the hell does how far away you live have to do with how much you should be paid? Where you live and how far you're willing to travel isn't anything your boss really cares about. I'm positive he (or she) does not take it into consideration when determining pay.

It seems that Willis does not understand the whole pay disparity issue is based on paying people the same for doing the same work, as only 6 of his 20 excuses have anything to do with paying someone more for doing the same work.

That the Hartster's post is such a joke is one reason why I'm convinced that misogyny might be a factor here. I mean, I read an article from a "Resident Scholar" of the Conservative American Enterprise Institute titled "Wage Gap Myth Exposed (by Christina Hoff Sommers) and she did a MUCH better job of disputing gender pay inequality than Willis did with his pathetic post.

Which isn't to say Sommers convinced me of this "myth", although her article did cause me to think on the issue. Whereas I only laughed at the Willis commentary. And deduced that he may be a misogynist (based on this commentary and the 6 that followed).

For the record, I am not going to label Willis Hart a misogynist at this time with 100 percent certitude. I only strongly suspect he is. I have labeled him a racist for his strong racial biases. Or, racist-leaning, at least. There is PLENTY of evidence to support that charge.

Anyway, I think that if someone is biased against African Americans it's pretty likely they hold other biases... against women, for example. Calling male privilege "supposed" is another reason to believe I'm on the right track here, as well as his commentaries slamming Sandra Fluke for having the audacity to call for birth control to be paid for by health care insurers.

Wait, scratch that "100 percent certitude" business - I am absolutely convinced the Hartster has a misogyny problem. I mean, in addition to the other issues I already pointed to in this commentary, the dude has authored numerous posts objectifying women and numerous posts concerning lesbians. Lesbianism has nothing to do with you, Willis (as a straight male). It is only a FANTASY that they're going to let you watch (or join in). Yet Willis can't stop thinking about lesbians. Sure, I'm positive lots of straight guys have similar thoughts, but how many blog about lesbians regularly?

WTNPH "Supposed" Male Privilege Commentaries
[1] On Patricia Arquette's Oscar-Winning Speech in Which She Dusted Off that Thoroughly Discredited Meme About Gender Pay Inequality (and of How Meryl Streep Jumped Up Like a Trained Seal with Silly and Embarrassing Affirmation). 5/27/2015 AT 8:13pm.
[2] On the Fact that Women Fail to Pay Child Support at a Higher Rate than Men (32% versus 26%) and We've Never Once Heard the Term, Deadbeat Moms (Until, that is, Naomi Brunner's Book of the Same Name Last Year). 5/28/2015 AT 4:05pm.
[3] On the Fact that Men are 13 Times More Likely to Die on the Job than Women (93% Versus Just 7%). 5/28/2015 AT 5:25pm.
[4] On the Fact that Nearly 40% of the Victims of Serious Domestic Violence Are Men (with Men Being Far More Likely the Victims of Attacks with a Deadly Weapon). 5/28/2015 AT 8:59pm.
[5] On the Concept of Making Male Victims of Statutory Rape (14 and 15 year old boys) Pay Child Support to the Predators Who Got Pregnant from the Act. 5/29/2015 AT 3:51pm.
[6] On Patricia Arquette's Oscar-Winning Speech in Which She Dusted Off that Thoroughly Discredited Meme About Gender Pay Inequality (and of How Meryl Streep Jumped Up Like a Trained Seal with Silly and Embarrassing Affirmation) - Quick Addendum/Surface-Thinker Alert. 5/29/2015 AT 5:25pm.
[7] On the Fact that Women Commit 10% of the Murders but Only Comprise 1.5% of Those on Death Row. 5/30/2015 AT 2:49pm.
[8] On the Fact that (According to Author, Warren Farrell) Never-Married Women with No Children Make 117% of What Never-Married Men with No Children Make. 6/26/2014.

Image Description: Albert Calabrese believes the age of consent should be 12 years old. Does Willis agree? Probably not, but this is the kind of fellow he throws his lot in with when he posts on "Men's Rights" related topics. OK, so maybe he doesn't throw his lot in with this sort (statutory rapists), but his posts do reflect where these MRM dude's minds are at (they're convinced that men are oppressed).

OST #53

1 comment:

Comment moderation is not currently in effect.