What feminists are avoiding on International Women's Day

International Women's Day (IWD) is today, March 8th, and is being celebrated with social media posts by Big Business with posts like this by Pharmapack, a drug packaging and delivery device company, promising that their "dedication to gender equality never stops."

Women's dreams shattered

Corporations like Pharmapack did not address women like Emma Weyant, whose dream of capturing an NCAA swimming championship was destroyed by a towering biological male. Swimming World Magazine reported the story with the title, “A Look At the Numbers and Times: No Denying the Advantages of Lia Thomas.”

Just how much of an advantage did Lia Thomas possesses [sic] over biological females? The numbers paint a clear picture. The fact that the University of Pennsylvania swimmer soared from a mid-500s ranking (554th in the 200 freestyle; all divisions) in men’s competition to one of the top-ranked swimmers in women’s competition tells the story of the unfairness which unfolded at the NCAA level.

In her final meet, Thomas finaled in three events at the NCAA Championships, highlighted by a victory in the 500 freestyle . . . Thomas’ time of 4:33.24 from her NCAA-title swim handed her the fastest time in the nation by more than a second over Arizona State’s Emma [Weyant] (4:34.87). [Emphases added].

Newsweek described those who stood by Weyant, and her dream, as “distractions” and described her supporters as “right wingers.”  

There were even some boos from the crowd after Thomas was proclaimed the winner on the podium . . . "I try to ignore it as much as I can," Thomas said when asked about the distractions regarding her appearance at the championships . . .

Following the race, a number of right-wing figures and groups dismissed Thomas' victory and declared Weyant the actual winner of the race.

Angela Morabito, a former press secretary for the Department of Education for the Trump administration, tweeted: "Round of applause for Emma Weyant, the UVA swimmer who placed second in the 500y freestyle tonight, behind Lia Thomas. Second is the new first. #savewomenssports."

Clay Travis, political commentator and founder of sports media company OutKick, added: "Congrats to Virginia freshman Emma Weyant, the woman who would have won tonight's NCAA title in the 500 meter if women's sports were still sane." [Emphases added].

Women's privacy shattered

Mainstream news outlets did not just gloss over the detriment to women's careers caused by biological males, they failed to report the effect of those biological males entering their changing rooms. Fox News, though, did find space to cover the abuse. They quoted Riley Gaines, a 12-time All-American and five-time SEC champion, who is demanding  that the NCAA keep biological males out of women's locker rooms, who reacted to being forced to undress in front of Thomas after a swim meet.

We were not forewarned beforehand that we would be sharing a locker room with Lia. We did not give our consent, they did not ask for our consent, but in that locker room we turned around, and there’s a 6’4" biological man dropping his pants and watching us undress, and we were exposed to male genitalia. [Emphases added].

According to a Rebel News exposé, Thomas' behavior may not have been innocent. They reported on Daily Wire journalist Jake Crain's series of tweets featuring posts from Thomas' secret Instagram account, summed up by Crain in a tweet stating, 

These disturbing images raise serious questions about how the @NCAA defines what a woman is. Check out our interview with @Riley_Gaines_about the glaring difference between woke media’s sanitized portrayal of Lia vs. his life as seen on social media.

Women's bodies shattered

While biological males competing in women's swimming and other non-contact sports expose women to abuse in the locker room and losses in competitions, biological males competing in contact sports present an increased risk of physical injury in the competitions themselves. The Heritage Foundation covered the story of a woman whose skull was fractured by a biological male in a martial arts fight, only to be reprimanded by Vice for not being inclusive in discussing her injuries. 

Although biological males hold unfair advantages in noncontact sports, such as track and field, forcing women to compete against biological men in contact sports approaches abuse.

In mixed martial arts, Fallon Fox, who “transitioned” from male to female at 30 years old, is the first openly transgender athlete to compete as a woman despite the dangers of injury to other competitors.

In September 2014, Fox fought Tamikka Brents. Within the first two minutes of the match, Fox had fractured Brents’ skull and gave her a concussion. Fox continued the brutal assault until Brents was knocked out. 

“I have struggled with many women and I have never felt the strength I felt in a fight like that night,” Brents said later. “I have never felt so dominated in my life and … I am an abnormally strong woman in my own right.”

In any other instance, the domination of a woman by a biological male would make her a victim of abuse and injustice, according to the left. But because Brents was a woman fighting a trans-identifying biological male, the left dismissed her as a sore loser.

Vice’s article on the story criticized Brents for not being inclusive and told her to “get over it” and accept that “Fallon Fox is a woman.”    

No wage gap

Legacy media often quote a debunked claim that women receive 77 cents for every dollar a man earns for the same job, even promoting an annual Equal Pay Day in April to symbolize how many days a woman works "for free" to catch up to men. HuffPost already reported a decade ago how that claim was disproved.

If you believe women suffer systemic wage discrimination, read the new American Association of University Women (AAUW) study Graduating to a Pay Gap. Bypass the verbal sleights of hand and take a hard look at the numbers. Women are close to achieving the goal of equal pay for equal work. They may be there already . . . 

The AAUW has now joined ranks with serious economists who find that when you control for relevant differences between men and women (occupations, college majors, length of time in workplace) the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing. The 23-cent gap is simply the average difference between the earnings of men and women employed "full time." What is important is the "adjusted" wage gap-the figure that controls for all the relevant variables. That is what the new AAUW study explores.

The AAUW researchers looked at male and female college graduates one year after graduation. After controlling for several relevant factors (though some were left out, as we shall see), they found that the wage gap narrowed to only 6.6 cents . . . the AAUW's 6.6 cents includes some large legitimate wage differences masked by over-broad occupational categories. For example, its researchers count "social science" as one college major and report that, among such majors, women earned only 83 percent of what men earned. That may sound unfair... until you consider that "social science" includes both economics and sociology majors.

Economics majors (66 percent male) have a median income of $70,000; for sociology majors (68 percent female) it is $40,000 . . .The AAUW study classifies jobs as diverse as librarian, lawyer, professional athlete, and "media occupations" under a single rubric--"other white collar." Says Furchtgott-Roth: "So, the AAUW report compares the pay of male lawyers with that of female librarians; of male athletes with that of female communications assistants. That's not a comparison between people who do the same work." With more realistic categories and definitions, the remaining 6.6 gap would certainly narrow to just a few cents at most.

This finding mirrored what was already known.

One of the best studies on the wage gap was released in 2009 by the U.S. Department of Labor. It examined more than 50 peer-reviewed papers and concluded that the 23-cent wage gap "may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers." 

While the National Organization for Women (NOW) claims that misogyny "steers" women to make different career choices than men, HuffPost notes that that claim itself is misogynistic. 

But are American women really as much in thrall to stereotypes as their feminist protectors claim? Aren't women capable of understanding their real preferences and making decisions for themselves? NOW needs to show, not dogmatically assert, that women's choices are not free. And it needs to explain why, by contrast, the life choices it promotes are the authentic ones -- what women truly want, and what will make them happier and more fulfilled.

Finally, HuffPost notes the obvious — actual discrimination based on factors not relevant to work product would eventually bankrupt an employer, as their competitors would have lower personnel costs.

And as economists frequently remind us, if it were really true that an employer could get away with paying Jill less than Jack for the same work, clever entrepreneurs would fire all their male employees, replace them with females, and enjoy a huge market advantage.

There is a caveat to that claim, though. Heads of government agencies, and businesses granted monopolies through government regulations, can get away with discriminating on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, etc., since the only money they stand to waste is ours.