A Few Links to Dispel Conservative Myths Part Nineteen: Gender Inequality

2022 will long be remembered as the year when American women lost their constitutional right to control their own reproduction. This blog series is overdue to discuss the fight for women's equality, because it's another subject where conservatives believe a lot of things that just ain't so. Diving right in:

Myth: The gender pay gay and the "glass ceiling" do not exist.
From Forbes magazine: "There are many media reports of a gender gap, often claiming that women are paid only about 80% of what men are paid. But that number is comparing the total amount of salary paid to men and to women in this country. It does not take into account such crucial factors as profession, qualifications, type of employer, seniority, hours worked or many other things that go into deciding compensation. When these basic factors are taken into account, the gender pay gap vastly decreases."

Fact: The Forbes author is partially wrong, and what he says that is not wrong is grossly misleading.

According to the Department of Labor: Women earn less than men in nearly all occupations. There are only a handful of occupations where women earn slightly more than their male counterparts, such as health care social workers. Furthermore, "Women are more likely than men to be employed in professional and related occupations, according to a 2019 BLS report. Within the professional category, however, the proportion of women in higher paying jobs is much smaller than that of men."

And an interesting thing about the Forbes quote. It lists "seniority" as one of the reasons men make more money than women. Well, yes. Time for: Some relevant stats on the glass ceiling: Employers overall promote 8.9% of their employees annually, with an average wage increase of 17.4%. Among them, women tend to receive promotions earlier in their careers than men, with an average of 6.6 years into their working life for women as compared to 7.3 for men. Women also women tend to stay with one company longer than men, and employees are more than 20% more likely to get promoted to management positions from within. However, things start to change as women move up the org chart. There’s a steep drop-off at the fourth level of management, as women only represent 23% of executives. Among the top brass or sixth level, women comprise only 15%.

 

A McKinsey study shows that a "broken rung at the first step up to manager is holding women back. For every 100 men who are promoted from entry-level roles to manager positions, only 87 women are promoted, and only 82 women of color are promoted. As a result, men significantly outnumber women at the manager level, and women can never catch up. There are simply too few women to promote to senior leadership positions."

 

Myth: Women want greater equality with men but reject the responsibilities that would accompany that equality. Examples: The military has lowered its standards for women to get the same jobs as men. Women still expect men to pay for dates.

Fact: The above are things repeatedly said to me on social media. The military has not lowered its  physical standards as it has opened combat jobs to women.

I have a hard time wrapping my head around the "But women want men to pay for dates" thing. First of all, what evidence there is suggests that women who expect a man to pay for a first date are in the minority. Second, even if some women do expect a man to pay for a first date, I don't think that alone justifies the patriarchy in the United States. Call me crazy if you want.

Tweet

2022 Election Predictions

US Senate:
Current Senate: 50 D and 50 R 
Prediction: 51 D and 49 R
Democrats to pickup PA.

US House:
Current House: 222 D and 213 R
Prediction: 225 R and 210 D

Governor's Races:
Democrats to pickup: Maryland and Massachusetts

Random observations:
* Assuming that Democrats squeak by the hold the Senate, the biggest story of this election is whether Republicans win a big enough majority in the House to impeach Biden, hold the debt ceiling hostage and have a strong chance of keeping their majority after 2024.

* I'm assuming that in Nevada, Democrats will as usual slightly outperform the polls.

* Republicans have been flooding the landscape with poor-quality, right-leaning polls to make it appear that they have the momentum. The only question is, will those polls accidentally turn out to be right.

 

 

Tweet

A Few Links to Dispel Conservative Myths Part Eighteen: Venezuelan Asylum Seekers

Since 2014, over 6.8 million Venezuelan refugees and migrants have fled to other countries, causing one of the largest refugee crises in the world. More than 150,000 have come to the United States in the past year alone. The U.S. does not recognize Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro as the country’s legitimate president, limiting the ability of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to send migrants back.

Most Democrats support granting asylum to these refugees, most Republicans do not. Never mind the fact that it's sanctions put in place by the Trump administration that are partially at fault for Venezuela's collapse. Let's be blunt: Trump and his MAGA supporters don't want any brown people coming to the US, and are prepared to tell any lie they need to to manipulate non-white immigrants and to stoke up hate and fear of them.

Consider this callous stunt that took place earlier this month, and the lies used to bolster it. About 50 migrants, mostly from Venezuela, arrived unannounced on two chartered planes from Texas at the island of Martha's Vineyard on September 14. The flights were organized by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, an outspoken critic of the Biden administration's immigration policies. Persons not yet identified told the migrants a litany of lies in order to get them to board the planes. From Rolling Stone: "A brochure given to migrants in order to convince them to board planes headed from San Antonio, Texas, to Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, falsely suggested they would be given access to refugee resettlement benefits like housing assistance, job interviews, and even help with cash and food."

Some of the migrants have since sued DeSantis and other Florida officials. Their lawsuit, (from Vox.com), "claims that they were essentially swindled into agreeing to travel to Martha’s Vineyard aboard two flights chartered by Florida officials. The flights cost more than $600,000 in taxpayer dollars.

They argue that DeSantis and other Florida officials schemed to target migrants on the streets outside a migrant shelter in San Antonio, Texas, offering McDonald’s gift certificates and free hotel stays and promising them employment, housing, educational opportunities, and other assistance if they boarded flights to other states. (Texas Sheriff Javier) Salazar said Monday that a Venezuelan migrant was paid a "bird dog fee" to recruit them.

They claim they were told they were going to Boston or Washington, DC, but instead were taken to Martha’s Vineyard, where they found no such resources nor even food or water until locals rushed to the aid of the unexpected arrivals. They were later moved to a military base shelter at Cape Cod."

But why did DeSantis organize the flights? As a self-aggrandizing stunt of course. A cruel trick played on vulnerable human beings to help him curry favor with his supporters. From Business Insider: "When Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis orchestrated flights sending migrants and asylum seekers from San Antonio, Texas, to Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, many observers saw a stunt aimed at raising the Republican's political profile ahead of a potential 2024 White House run. 

But according to GOP operatives, the move also gave Republicans running for Congress the opportunity to home in on illegal immigration and border security, topics they've clamored to put at the center of this fall's midterm elections.

DeSantis' timing is ideal for Republicans and allows the governor to continue casting himself as a national GOP leader that others in the party will follow."

And in the most disheartening twist of the story, Republicans are attempting to gaslight Democrats and the state of Massachusetts as somehow being the villains of this story. For that myth and others, let's move on to:

Part Eighteen: Venezuelan Refugees

Myth: After calling itself a place where migrants are welcome, Martha's Vineyard actually treated the migrants with indifference.
Fact: From NPR: "The office for Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker announced Friday (9/16/22) that the state's emergency management agency relocated the migrants to Joint Base Cape Cod. There, the state will provide shelter, food and other essential services, Baker said. Baker also plans to activate 125 members of the state National Guard to assist. "We are grateful to the providers, volunteers and local officials that stepped up on Martha's Vineyard over the past few days to provide immediate services to these individuals," Baker said in a statement. "Our Administration has been working across state government to develop a plan to ensure these individuals will have access to the services they need going forward, and Joint Base Cape Cod is well equipped to serve these needs."

Myth: The Martha's Vineyard asylum seekers and others like them are illegal, or "undocumented" immigrants.
Fact: The United States has granted temporary protected status (TPS) for Venezuelans. Therefore, once they have crossed into the US and been released into the general population to await their asylum hearings, these Venezuelans are here legally.

Myth: The transportation of the Martha's Vineyard asylum seekers was a legitimate extension of the authority and funding the state of Florida granted to Governor DeSantis.
Fact: Florida lawmakers allocated $12 million in the state budget this year to "facilitate the transport of authorized aliens from this state". Texas is not Florida. DeSantis has baselessly claimed, "Most of them are intending to come to Florida."

Myth: The Martha's Vineyard group were not lied to or misled (a DeSantis claim on Fox News).
Fact: "They were told, "You have a hearing in San Antonio, but don’t worry, we’ll take you to Boston,"" said Iván Espinoza-Madrigal, the executive director for Lawyers for Civil Rights Boston. He said dozens of the migrants had told his team they only had been informed midair that they were going to land in tony Martha’s Vineyard rather than Boston. "They were also told there would be employment opportunities and immigration relief available to them if they boarded the plane," Mr. Espinoza-Madrigal said. "That’s not only state interference with federal immigration matters, it’s also a violation of our clients’ civil rights."" - From a New York Times article about the migrants taking legal action against DeSantis.

Myth: Communities such as Martha's Vineyard have invited DeSantis' actions: "They said they wanted this," he told Fox News’s Sean Hannity. "They said they were a sanctuary jurisdiction."
Fact: "That’s not what "sanctuary" is generally understood to mean. (There is no concrete definition.) Sanctuary states and cities are ones in which law enforcement promises not to inform federal authorities if they learn that someone is in the country without documentation. There’s a very practical reason for this: If immigrants think talking to police will result in their deportation, they won’t talk to police. That makes solving crimes much more difficult." - From the New York Times.

Myth: Migrants are responsible for a wave of illegal fentanyl crossing the border.
Fact: The probability that individuals crossing the border are carrying some kind of illicit narcotic is negligible. Most smuggling through official ports of entry, hidden in cars and tractor-trailers.

 

To summarize, the hostility that conservatives are showing toward the current wave of asylum seekers is indicative of where the Republican party stands as a whole. It's can no longer define a party platform other than overwhelming hostility toward those its sees as outsiders. From a 2018 article in The Atlantic by Adam Serwer titled, The Cruelty is the Point:

"Their shared laughter at the suffering of others is an adhesive that binds them to one another, and to Trump."

"Taking joy in that suffering is more human than most would like to admit. Somewhere on the wide spectrum between adolescent teasing and the smiling white men in (old-time) lynching photographs are the Trump supporters whose community is built by rejoicing in the anguish of those they see as unlike them, who have found in their shared cruelty an answer to the loneliness and atomization of modern life."

"This isn’t incoherent. It reflects a clear principle: Only the president and his allies, his supporters, and their anointed are entitled to the rights and protections of the law, and if necessary, immunity from it. The rest of us are entitled only to cruelty, by their whim. This is how the powerful have ever kept the powerless divided and in their place, and enriched themselves in the process."

 

 

Tweet

A Few Links to Dispel Conservative Myths Part Seventeen: "Cancel Culture" and Aunt Jemima

Mistakes can be corrected. The City of New Orleans should never have built a memorial to Robert E. Lee, a man who was no different from the other slave-owning white supremacists who plunged America into civil war. There's no mystery as to why the US had so many statues and memorials to the Confederacy. They were created because men still in sympathy with the Lost Cause wanted them. 

Lee's memorial in New Orleans is gone now. But the question is: Why was Lee's statue still standing in New Orleans in 2015? Certainly part of the reason is inertia. Once a statue is put up, it tends to stay up, especially if it's added to the National Register of Historic Places. But Confederate memorials also endure because the Civil War is the one conflict where history was often written by the losers. Defenders of the Lost Cause love to claim that the Civil War was fought for reasons other than slavery, that slaves in the south were loyal to their masters and defended the Confederacy, that Robert E. Lee was a paragon of virtue. None of these things are true. So it's ironic then that those who decry the removal of Confederate statues do so because the removals "erase history". Because the "history" they are talking about never existed.

I was thinking about this when I saw a recent discussion of the retirement of the Aunt Jemima brand by Quaker Oats/Pepsi Co. Here is what one person had to say on social media:

"A great woman erased from history due to ignorance. The branding of the syrup was a tribute to this woman’s gifts and talents. Now future generations will not even know this beautiful woman existed. What a shame. The world knew her as “Aunt Jemima”, but her given name was Nancy Green and she was a true American success story. She was born a slave in 1834 Montgomery County, KY. and became a wealthy superstar in the advertising world, as its first living trademark. Green was 56-yrs old when she was selected as spokesperson for a new ready-mixed, self-rising pancake flour and made her debut in 1893 at a fair and exposition in Chicago. She demonstrated the pancake mix and served thousands of pancakes, and became an immediate star. She was a good storyteller, her personality was warm and appealing, and her showmanship was exceptional. Her exhibition booth drew so many people that special security personnel were assigned to keep the crowds moving. Nancy Green was signed to a lifetime contract, traveled on promotional tours all over the country, and was extremely well paid. Her financial freedom and stature as a national spokesperson enabled her to become a leading advocate against poverty and in favor of equal rights for all Americans. She maintained her job until her death in 1923, at age 89. This was a remarkable woman, and sadly she has been ERASED by politics. I wanted you to know and remind you in this cancel culture time period."

Now let's look at what actually happened:

1889: Chris L. Rutt,and Charles G. Underwood, of the Pearl Milling Company perfect the first ready-mix pancake. That same year, Rutt sees a team of blackface minstrel comedians known as Baker and Farrell perform to a tune called "Aunt Jemima". Pearl Milling is renamed the Aunt Jemima Manufacturing Company.

1890: R.T. Davis of the Davis Milling Company purchases the Aunt Jemima company.

1893: Nancy Green, a black cook, begins performing as the Aunt Jemima character at the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago. She also models for the image of the character used in promotions and packaging of the pancake mix. The company also hires at least one other woman to perform the character.

1910: Although Nancy Green still makes paid appearances as Aunt Jemima, at age 76 she is still working as a residential housekeeper according to the census. Needless to say, she is not wealthy. She was well-known in Chicago as an advocate against poverty and in favor of equal rights.

1917: The company makes the first of what will be many updates to the image of the Aunt Jemima character on the packaging.

1923: Following Nancy's death, other actresses begin portraying Aunt Jemima.

To summarize, retiring a racist caricature has done no harm to the memory of Nancy Green, because the Aunt Jemima brand wasn't representing her in any way, shape or form. And sadly, Green never became wealthy from her role as a spokeswoman. Recently, Bronzeville Historical Society President Sherry Williams spearheaded a successful effort to to place a headstone on Green's unmarked grave. Williams has said she wishes Quaker Oats would invest more money into preserving the legacy of women like Green and Black women caretakers.

 

 

Tweet