MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Women’

Conservative Outrage Over the Possible Drafting of Women Obscures the Real Issue – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on September 15, 2021

Conscription is abhorrent to a free society. As Senator Paul’s father—former congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul—has well said: “A government that is willing to enslave some of its people can never be trusted to protect the liberties of its own citizens.”

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/09/laurence-m-vance/conservative-outrage-over-the-possible-drafting-of-women-obscures-the-real-issue/

By Laurence M. Vance

Earlier this year I asked the question: Will women have to register for the draft in 2021? That day may soon be coming.

Although the draft ended in 1973, the federal government continued to prosecute “draft dodgers” even after the Vietnam War ended. In 1975, President Gerald Ford eliminated the requirement that 18 to 25 year-old male citizens register with the Selective Service System.

During his campaign for president in 1976, Jimmy Carter promised to pardon those who evaded the draft. On January 21, 1977, President Carter made good on his promise and granted an unconditional pardon to hundreds of thousands of young men who dodged the draft during the Vietnam War. Yet, in 1980, Carter reinstated the requirement that men must register with the Selective Service System.

In its final report, issued in 2020, the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service (NCMNPS) recommended that Congress amend the Military Selective Service Act to require that young women, like young men, register for the draft when they reach 18 years of age.

Back in July, the Senate Armed Services Committee, with 5 Republican no votes, approved an amendment to the fiscal year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to require “all Americans” (not just men) to register with the Selective Service System. The final approval of the NDAA was by a vote of 23-3.

Now, the House Armed Services Committee, which contains 31 Democrats and 28 Republicans, has voted 35-24 on an amendment to the NDAA (5 Republicans voted with the Democrats: Jack Bergman, Liz Cheney, Pat Fallon, Scott Franklin, Mike Waltz) to include women as well. The NDAA then cleared the committee in a 57-2 vote.

Texas Republican Chip Roy blasted both parties for the recent committee vote, and tweeted that its supporters can “go straight to hell.” Roy said that he would rather see the draft abolished than see women forced to participate: “Abolish the draft if you want. But under no circumstances will you draft our wives and daughters. Total, complete, bullshit.”

Many other conservatives share his outrage. But conservative outrage over the possible drafting of women obscures the real issue.

There is one thing, and only one thing, that the draft is good for: giving governments a supply of cannon fodder to fight unjust wars.

Waging war in the actual defense of ones country, home, property, and family does not require conscription. If the United States were actually attacked; that is, if foreign soldiers actually landed on east or west coast beaches or crossed the northern or southern borders, the government wouldn’t have to conscript anyone. Americans would get their guns and flock to the coasts or borders and start shooting before the government or the military did anything.

Conscription is a form of slavery, regardless of what the Supreme Court says. No young man or woman should ever be drafted.

If young men and women want to enlist in the military, travel the world, meet interesting people, and then bomb, maim, and kill them for Uncle Sam, that is bad enough. But the government should never force any American to do so.

A heroic group of just 4 Democratic and Republican senators and representatives, including Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), has sent a letter to House Armed Services leaders calling for an end to the Selective Service System because it is “expensive, wasteful, outdated, punitive, and unnecessary.” The small group of lawmakers also recently introduced the Selective Service Repeal Act. That is 4 out of 525 members of Congress.

Conscription is abhorrent to a free society. As Senator Paul’s father—former congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul—has well said: “A government that is willing to enslave some of its people can never be trusted to protect the liberties of its own citizens.”

Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] writes from central Florida. He is the author of The War on Drugs Is a War on Freedom; War, Christianity, and the State: Essays on the Follies of Christian Militarism; War, Empire, and the Military: Essays on the Follies of War and U.S. Foreign Policy; King James, His Bible, and Its Translators, and many other books. His newest books are Free Trade or Protectionism? and The Free Society.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

What Happens When Governments Force Corporate Boards to Appoint More Women | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on May 8, 2021

The effects of gender quotas appear to be nugatory and, in some cases, expensive. Economic research reveals that in Norway, gender quotas reduced firm performance because female directors were on average younger and less experienced. Although some studies link stronger firm performance to female management, deeper analyses show that these results are driven by the propensity of high-quality firms to appoint competent women.

Quota systems

Competence in business, no matter the source, appears to be the key. One would think this applies to government also.

https://mises.org/wire/what-happens-when-governments-force-corporate-boards-appoint-more-women

Lipton Matthews

A controversial new law in California requires publicly traded companies headquartered in the state to include at least one woman on their board of directors. Supporters of those types of laws even contend that gender quotas could boost firm profitability. However, the literature indicates that gender quotas are unlikely to enhance firm performance. What is also shocking is that research argues that quotas may actually be damaging to the presumed goal of increasing the role of women on corporate boards.

No Help for Corporate Profits

According to a 2014 study titled “Women on Boards and Firm Financial Performance: A Meta-analysis” published in the Academy of Management Journal the relationship between female board representation and market performance is nearly zero. Similarly, a later study featured in the journal PLOS One complements the previous conclusion by submitting that a “higher representation of females on corporate boards is neither related to a decrease, nor to an increase in financial performance, confirming findings from a similar meta-analysis on this topic.”

Moreover, using a quota system to elevate women, unfortunately, fuels perceptions of tokenism. “Such females might be perceived as “tokens’’ to meet society’s expectations or those of important stakeholders, and could therefore be marginalized and not be taken seriously on the board, which might subsequently hinder their and the entire board’s performance, ’’ the authors note. Further, Noland, Moran, and Kotschwar (2016) in a shrewd assessment of gender quotas conclude that the “results find no impact of board quotas on firm performance, but they suggest that the payoffs of policies that facilitate women rising through the corporate ranks more broadly could be significant.”

The effects of gender quotas appear to be nugatory and, in some cases, expensive. Economic research reveals that in Norway, gender quotas reduced firm performance because female directors were on average younger and less experienced. Although some studies link stronger firm performance to female management, deeper analyses show that these results are driven by the propensity of high-quality firms to appoint competent women.

Furthermore, because gender quotas are often instituted as a response to demands for diversity, after complying, companies lose interest in pursuing initiatives to cultivate a nurturing environment for women. As Kathleen A. Farrel and Philip L. Hersch (2005) observe,“ Rather than the demand for women directors being performance-based, our results suggest corporations responding to either internal or external calls for diversity…. Consequently, as firms satisfied minimal expectations, they no longer actively sought greater diversity…. We fail to find convincing evidence that gender diversity in the corporate boardroom, on average, is a value enhancing strategy.”

No Help for Junior-Level Employees

In fact, though elites advocate gender quotas, the literature implicates them for failing to uplift low-level female employees. Discussing the inability of gender quotas to improve prospects for junior staff, the Economist writes: “Perhaps the most puzzling shortcoming of the quotas is that they have had no discernible beneficial effect on women at lower levels of the corporate hierarchy.” Neither do quotas increase the representation of women in senior management in firms where the policy is standard practice. 

Another strike against gender quotas is that the evidence refutes the assumption that quotas are beneficial since women bosses are likely to invest in female employees. The truth is that women are not more likely to promote other women, hence expecting gender quotas to induce favorable outcomes for female employees is questionable. In the research article “Meet the New Boss … Same as the Old Boss? Female Supervisors and Subordinate Career Prospects,” David J. Maume demonstrates the futility of expecting female bosses to make a difference. If an organization selects for people with masculine traits, then the women who are promoted will perpetuate the existing culture. “The cog in the machine perspective emphasizes that organizational structures, cultures, and policies remain pervasively male-oriented, and that careerist female managers will have to conform to organizational preferences to promote the careers of male subordinates…. The results are consistent with the notion that female managers are cogs in the machine, in that female supervisors have little or no effect on the career prospects of female subordinates, and instead foster men’s career prospects,” Maume explains.

Interestingly, research duly informs us that gender quotas can erect barriers to female employment. Research led by Pierre Deschamps illuminates the unintended consequences of institutionalizing quotas. According to Deschamps, hiring committees affected by quotas are considerably less likely to employ women. Deschamps asserts that quotas may have reduced the incentive to recruit women by fostering a false semblance of gender equity.

Legislation like California’s board mandates for female board members is being pushed on the grounds that it fundamentally shifts the balance in corporate America in favor of female employees and managers. Moreover, many even justified the change on the grounds these laws would improve corporate governance and profitability. Yet, there is no evidence such legal changes have accomplished any of these goals. Rather, new mandates only serve to further politicize the selection of board members while doing nothing to enrich these firms’ customers or employees.  Author:

Contact Lipton Matthews

Lipton Matthews is a researcher, business analyst, and contributor to Merion West, The Federalist, American Thinker, Intellectual Takeout, mises.org, and Imaginative Conservative. He may be contacted at lo_matthews@yahoo.com or on Twitter (@matthewslipton).

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

On Strategy: Go Home and Hug Your Kids

Posted by M. C. on November 6, 2019

https://www.bastionmagazine.com/articles/on-strategy-go-home-and-hug-your-kids

By CJay Engel
…Such a return to normalcy must be motivated in a change of personal perspective. We must learn to love the everyday; to cherish the mundane; to appreciate the regular; to invest time and happiness in the ordinary. This is the long-lasting and measurable path forward. A people that find their sole identity in the fight against the zeitgeist will so often find that the fight came at the expense of the truly meaningful elements of our person….

If you want to have a role on the future, something measurable and something identifiable to your own hand, stop trying to change the world. Go home and hug your kids. If you don’t have any, get married and make some. Homeschool them, if at all possible. Enjoy them. Teach them. Impart the memories and customs of your past—their past—onto their soul, that they might bring them forward to posterity. Make them read— most kids can’t; make them write—still fewer know how.

Raise boys to be men. Raise girls to be women. This is the new counter-cultural. But it is the foundation of culture.

Don’t envision yourself as a hero of world change and bringer of hope to the world. Be a father or mother. Be a hero to your family. Gramsci had his long march through the institutions. It’s time for our long march through Main Street.

To leave a legacy, first look homeward.

It must be remembered that we the living are the catalyst bringing the past to the future.

We must be vigilant to treat this duty with care, for we are our children’s present and tomorrow we will be their past.

Be seeing you

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The genius of the ‘Islam is right about women’ stunt – spiked

Posted by M. C. on September 27, 2019

The result is utter confusion on the part of the interviewees about how to signal their obedience to the unspoken lie.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/09/26/the-genius-of-the-islam-is-right-about-women-stunt/

Alaa al-Ameri

Posters bearing that message have appeared in a town in Massachusetts. No one knows how to react.

Trolling the woke left has become a popular pastime. It can be clever and funny, but it can just as often be a crude attempt to elicit outrage for its own sake. Rarely, however, does something show up that is easily dismissed as ‘trolling’, but which is so remarkably incisive and apt that it rises not only to the level of satire, but borders on civil disobedience.

Think of Posie Parker’s billboards quoting the dictionary definition of the word ‘woman’. The power of such acts comes from two things. First, they acknowledge – usually with irreducible simplicity – that something that went without saying a moment ago has suddenly become unsayable. Secondly, the outrage they provoke does not come from any epithet, caricature or insult, but rather from having the nerve to draw the viewer’s attention to an act of cognitive dissonance that we are all engaging in, but would rather not acknowledge.

The result is that those who attempt to explain why the act is offensive end up simply tying themselves in knots, while revealing that they have never given a moment’s thought to the position they find themselves defending. This seems to generate even more anger, with the inevitable online mob quickly joined by politicians, journalists and other public figures, eager to see that the heretic is made an example of.

At their best, these acts of public disobedience are examples of real-life Winston Smiths pointing out to the rest of us that ‘Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four’. Their persecutors, like his, are those who know and fear the truth of Smith’s next sentence: ‘If that is granted, all else follows.’

The example of perfectly crafted dissent that I’d like to submit here appears in this video from Massachusetts local TV news, showing some reactions to the fly-posting of white sheets of paper bearing the statement ‘Islam is right about women’. The reactions are deeply revealing. Nobody can clearly point out why they object to the statement – indeed, nobody seems to object to the statement at all on its face. Yet most seem to express offence at it – if a little unconvincingly.

The reason for their dilemma is obvious enough to anyone who has been paying attention. Western society has managed to convince itself (at least in public) that any statement criticising any aspect of Islam is, by definition, bigotry. As a result, Western societies have effectively decided to enforce Islamic restrictions on blasphemy, and called it ‘tolerance’.

The strain of conforming to this lie is evident in the fumbling attempts by the interviewees to explain their objections. Do they believe that Islam is right about women? If so, why the objection? Do they believe that Islam is wrong about women? If so, in what sense is the statement an attack on Islam or Muslims? Do they believe that the author of the poster is saying that ‘Islam is right about women’, but doing so ironically? In which case, the objection can only be that the author is guilty of a thoughtcrime by stating that ‘two and two make five’ with insufficient sincerity. Or do they worry that they are guilty of thoughtcrime for noticing the irony?

I think the source of the objection is as follows: ‘I thought we had all agreed to pretend not to have any negative opinions about Islam. But this statement forces me either to agree with it, which I don’t, or disagree with it, which I’m not allowed to.’…

Be seeing you

The Federal Government Has Proven They Are Behind Illegal ...

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

California’s Jerry Brown Signs Law Requiring Women on Corporate Boards

Posted by M. C. on October 3, 2018

Definition of socialism 

1any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2aa system of society or group living in which there is no private property

ba system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

 

What group du jour is next?

By Joel B. Pollak

California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill Sunday that will require companies to meet quotas for the representation of women on corporate boards.

SB 826, authored by State Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara), requires any “publicly held domestic or foreign corporation whose principal executive offices … are located in California” to place at least one female member on its board. By 2021, such corporations must have two female board members if they have five directors, and three if they have six.

Only a small percentage of corporations, however, have no female board members. The Wall Street Journal noted Monday: “Among firms in the Russell 3000 Index, which includes most public companies on major U.S. stock exchanges, 485, or 17%, had all-male boards in the second quarter.”…

Be seeing you

Maxine Waters

The face of socialism.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »