Has the Feminist Cause, Hillary’s Cause, Come and Won?

“Today, women make up about half our workforce. But they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong, and in 2014, it’s an embarrassment.”

--Barack Obama, 2014 “State of the Union”

Christina Hoff Sommers, in the liberal “Daily Beast,” forcefully corrects our leader:

What is wrong and embarrassing is the President of the United States reciting a massively discredited factoid[:] the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. [When] differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure, or hours worked per week. . .are taken into consideration, the wage gap narrows to about five cents [emphasis added]. . . the Washington Post included the president’s mention of the wage gap in its list of dubious claims. “There is clearly a wage gap, but differences [relate to] the life choices of men and women.”

Women don’t want these jobs:

And women love these jobs:

Sommers writes that early childhood educators and social workers earn around $36,000 and $39,000, petroleum engineering and metallurgy, $120,000 and $80,000. Yet--of course--most early childhood educators won’t change course after learning they can earn more in metallurgy or mining. Face it, women are drawn to jobs in the caring professions, and Sommers says (I agree), men want “people-free zones.”

So why the bogus statistics? Sommers quotes the American Association of University Women saying that “Women’s personal choices are . . . fraught with inequities,” and that women are being “pigeonholed” into “pink-collar” jobs in health and education. Similarly, the National Organization for Women claims powerful sexist stereotypes “steer” women and men “toward different education, training, and career paths.”

In truth, “powerful sexist” organizations have invested heavily in women as victims, and have no plans to change their missions. Adds Sommers, “American women are now among the most educated, autonomous, opportunity-rich women in history.” So while in 2000 following pressure from feminists, women earned 19% of engineering and 28% of computer sciences degrees, by 2011 the numbers had fallen to 17% of engineering and 18% of computer science degrees. We are living the early, post-feminist years.

Still, Hillary Clinton is available to ride a feminist-fueled victory wave back to the White House. Listen to Sommers' sister “Daily Beast” conservative, Myra Adams, who wrote “16 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Will Win 2016”:

Akin to the movement that elected the first African-American president in 2008, the “Madame President movement” will be propelled by the mainstream media, Hollywood, and social media. Together they will build momentum and coalitions across all platforms, while reveling in their awesome social and cultural significance. You will hear the “triumph of the ’60s feminist movement.” You will hear that you will be “voting to make history.” And you will hear that your vote will be used as a “hammer to break through the glass ceiling of the Oval Office.” listen as political pundits exclaim, “It’s her time,” or “She deserves it.”

Long-suffering Hillary, who was publicly humiliated by her cheating husband and then triumphed over adversity by being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2000. Long-suffering Hillary, who was defeated by her own party for the presidential nomination in 2008, and then further rejected by Obama to be his running mate. Triumph came later when “Hillary the team player” became the globe-trotting secretary of State and despite a lack of any real accomplishment, eventually earned international respect and higher approval ratings than the team leader himself.

“Vote for the First Dude” is a bumper sticker waiting to happen. During [the] last . . . Democratic National Convention, Bill Clinton convinced America to vote for President Obama in what was heralded as such an eloquent speech that it made Obama seem small by comparison. At that moment, Democrats and their media allies experienced a tsunami of feel-good Clinton nostalgia that continues to this day, and “Hillary 2016” is the supreme beneficiary. Furthermore, from a pop culture/media perspective, her leaner, non-meat eating, more highly evolved, totally rebranded, well-respected charitable husband (of Clinton Global Initiative fame) will be one of Hillary’s greatest assets on the campaign trail.

Persuasive, yes? Two more White House terms for the Clintons, the “two for the price of one” team, as slippery Bill plus Hill skirt past the XXII (2 term limit) Amendment. And here’s another reason (from an earlier entry) why the Clintons will win. Philip Rucker’s Washington Post story about Bill Clinton’s Virginia campaigning last fall taught us exactly how the Clintons plan to run against Obama’s failed presidency:

Clinton credited his work across the aisle with balancing budgets and creating 22 million new jobs — and lamented the state of the country today. “This economic thing, it’s terrible,” Clinton said in Hampton[, Va]. “Median family income — after you adjust for inflation, is lower than it was the day I left office. That was a long time ago. And we need somebody who wants to do something about it.”

Bill Clinton repeatedly said the Founding Fathers wanted elected officials to be practical above all else, designing a system of governing that would force them to negotiate with each other. “Read the Constitution of the United States of America,” Clinton said Sunday in Richmond. “It might as well have been subtitled, ‘Let’s Make a Deal.’ ”

Practical Bill+Hill. Feminism may be an aging cause, but it lives even as Hillary sends it to the background in her historic quest for another 8 White House years.