The Wage Gap Is Real, And We Should Keep It Around

By Mason Mohon | @mohonofficial

America’s run-of-the-mill slightly progressive feminist will bring up the same ailment of industrial society regardless of whether or not he or she is an actual radical leftist. This ailment is the wage gap. It is the feminist exhibit A of why the patriarchy is in full force and working day and night to oppress women.

The argument goes something like this: The average earnings of all men compared to the average earnings of all women adds up to somewhere between a 100 to 80 to a 100 to 70 ratio. From this, a progressive may argue that a woman earns something like 77 cents on the dollar that a man makes. And thus, they argue that is bad because people deserve equal pay for equal work.

At face value, this sounds like an egregious act of systemic sexism we need to hastily work on demolishing. This would be the case if there were not such a clear logical jump here.

The jump is that people think that a disparity in mean incomes means disparities in each and every individual field of work, yet this is not the case. There are no figures that indicate on a widespread scale, women are not being paid the same for equal work. Surely, this may be happening in some scattered instances, but that is not the statistic that feminists will bring up.

What they do is compare the means of the incomes between genders, and show that there is a 100 to 77 ratio or so. I believe that this does exist (and this ratio would continue to exist even if I suspended my belief). I do believe that the mean incomes between men and women indicate such a gap, yet I do not see what we should do about it if anything.

Should we get rid of it? Should we take action and make sure that the mean incomes between men and women get to a 1 to 1 proportion? I think this would be disastrous because this is the classic case of ensuring equality of outcome.

I am a proponent of gender equality, for more reasons than my female friends not hating me. A country that allows opportunities for everyone regardless of gender will have a higher standard of living, which benefits even the most sexist individuals. Social acceptance is nice too, though.

But the wage gap is not indicative of inequality of opportunity. It is indicative of inequality of outcome, which, last I checked, is something very dangerous to become upset about.

Let’s say I concede that sure, men and women should be equal at the end of the race. But why just men and women? If two men have incomes that are different, how is that just by the same standards? How is it just that any two sections of human we can divide ourselves into are unequal at the end of the game in any way?

The “equality of outcome” doctrine has been one of the most dangerous doctrines to meet humanity, considering the events of the 19th century. The Jewish population had been collecting usury for hundreds of years, giving them a leg-up on the European Christian’s they lived among.

When economic crisis his Germany after World War 1, a successful group became the perfect scapegoats. The Jews became the haves. The Germans became the have-nots. And now history has the Holocaust.

To the East, we saw the Soviet Union demonize and massacre the Kulaks for having more food than the rest after eliminating the bourgeoisie.

One may snicker at these examples, but they are what comes of the idea of “we must end as equals.” Taken to the logical conclusion, the proposition for equality of outcome leads to various forms of redistributive totalitarianism, and that is not a fun place to end up. That is why I have serious hesitations with the demonization of the wage gap.

When we see inequality of outcome, we must look at what the cause of such inequality is. If it turns out that it was unjust (inequality from the start) than something should be done about it. If it was not due to injustice, then we should take a closer look before we jump to removing the cause. Because attempting to remove the cause could come with dire consequences.

Many argue that the wage gap comes from societal expectations we have of women. We expect them to go into nursing and teaching (which tend to pay lower) so they do that. The issue with this approach is that it is impossible to explain how much of the representation of women in these fields is due to societal pressures and how much is due to female choice.

Do women choose these positions in society, or is it the patriarchal hegemon that forcefully places them here. Well, we should look at broadly who men and women are. Men and women are different, and that is quite clear. I cannot give birth. But why would the differences end there?

There is lots of literature on the personality differences between the genders. This study, which has over two thousand academic citations, can probably shed light onto the important gender differences that are creating the wage gap that we see.

Males were found to be more assertive and had slightly higher self-esteem than females. Females were higher than males in extraversion, anxiety, trust, and, especially, tender-mindedness (e.g., nurturance).

Keep in mind, when discussing a large group like this, differences do not mean that every single member of a group will be x while the other will be y. Not every man is going to be higher in self-esteem than every female. There will be more men super high in self-esteem than women, though. This is how social science works, so don’t strawman me as I cite extremely credible and well-accepted scientific literature.

The personality traits that we will find most important are those of assertiveness and nurturance. Men have more extra assertive people than women do, which means that when one is fighting for that top CEO position that pays well, we should expect men to achieve those more often because of their assertive nature.

Women tend to lean more towards nurturance than men, which means we can expect them to go towards careers where they can bring up children and help those in need. We look at the real world, and these predictions are reflected. And now we have a wage gap.

Why do such differences exist? I am not an evolutionary psychologist, but it makes sense that these traits continue across time. Women need to take care of children when they are first born, so over thousands of years, this nurturing trait would have been ingrained deeper and deeper. At the same time, because women are choosy breeders, men need to compete and be more assertive. Hence, the assertiveness trait developed.

So the wage gap either exists because of a patriarchy, which has an effect that is possible to measure, or because of evolutionarily ingrained personality traits that are widely accepted by academia. One of these makes a lot of sense, and the other seems like an apparition dreamed up so as to give people a reason to complain.

Let us look at this feminist end game of a 1 to 1 wage ratio. This would mean forcing men and women to both be something that they’re not. Instead of denying or trying to reduce differences, we should celebrate them. Men and women both have traits and characteristics that represent themselves in their respective genders more often than they do in the other. There are good reasons for the existence of such traits.

So let us not engage in the fatal fight against thousands of years of evolution for the sake of misguided feminist rhetoric.


To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Rodman Was Right

Spencer Neale | @TheNewTreasury

If there ever was a Truman Show moment of my life then it was last night. With tears streaking down his face and a MAGA hat atop his shaved head, former NBA great Dennis Rodman chastised Obama’s ‘no-approach’ policy, called out CNN for misrepresenting his cause of peace & championed Donald Trump while video of the Kim-Trump summit played in the background. Somehow, someway, it really was happening: the Korean wall was falling.

Handshakes, pleasantries and all the icing of another empty cake aside, this was a bitterly fitting occasion for the man who wore a dress to his own wedding; Dennis Rodman. When Rodman first visited North Korea in 2013 his outreach was roundly decried by both the media and the Obama administration as nearsighted & unacceptable. In an interview that read borderline hysterical at times, Rodman laid into his former critics:

Obama didn’t give me the time of day, I said ‘I have something to say from North Korea.’ He just brushed me off… When I went back home I got so many death threats. I couldn’t even go home, I had to hide out for 30 days. I kept my head up high, I knew things could change. Today is a great day for everyone. It’s a great day, I’m so happy.

Rodman’s relationship with the North Korean leader has been maligned and prodded by a pugnacious media. When in 2014 he promised to bring a basketball team to play an exhibition match in the hermit dictatorship, it was the media who described it as a circus and sent in their hounds to detail human rights violations while flashing images of Rodman laughing with Kim courtside. Throughout it all Rodman held fast to the belief that if our leader would simply extend his hand in a show of peace that Kim would be there to reciprocate. Against all odds, Rodman was right.

In the high stakes game of media punditry, it’s become increasingly important to call a spade a spade. So often, pundits and writers alike don’t call it like they see it, they call it how they want to see it. For the intellectual mafia that attempts to distill highly complex narratives into perky soundbites, Rodman & Kim was always a tricky subject.

Their special relationship speaks to a communication and friendship that sits at uncomfortable odds with the well-established line of thought that demands we distance ourselves from certain dictators. It was the same toothless media that cheered on deals with Cuba & Iran during Obama’s governance that sits here today criticizing Trump & Rodman for their audacity in offering an olive branch to the teetering cold state of North Korea. On Cuomo Tonight, CNN anchor Cuomo bit his tongue and wrenched his face as Rodman pleaded for peace on the Korean Peninsula.

This is the bizarre time that we find ourselves living through. The moguls in charge of the official ‘record of truth’ are scrambling to hold onto their dogmas while every morsel of diplomatic knowhow is blown out the window by a former NBA hothead nicknamed ‘The Worm.’ All of the conventional wisdom that the mainstream media purported as abject fact has been scattered to the wind like the entrails of their own dying carcasses and it is glorious to watch. In the era of peak post-truth, Rodman, Trump, & Kim raised the proverbial violins aboard a sinking ship of falsehoods and lies. Peace apparently can be had by the shake of hands and for once in half a century, some common belief in the goodwill of your enemy.

Though the mainstream media will continue their unrelenting assault of North Korea’s human rights violations (as if our own record was spotless), anyone with an exacting glance on the charade will witness the unbelievable success achieved on this historic day. Kim & North Korea have agreed to disarm their nuclear weaponry and Dennis Rodman was a key figure in showing the world how far a basic belief in peace and love can transcend decades of deafening silence.


To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source

Trump, Kim Shake Hands in Singapore, Sign Agreement

Eli Ridder | @EliRidder

A much-anticipated summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and South Korean leader Kim Jung Un started on Tuesday morning local time with a historic handshake in the Capella five-star hotel in Singapore where they pledged towards complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, although it was vague.

The two leaders spent some 40 minutes talking privately before a working lunch with their respectives entourages at the table, including the U.S. secretary of state, advisor John Bolton and others.

 A unprecedented summit between the pair in Singapore started with a historic handshake, marking the first time a sitting U.S. president and a North Korean leader have met in person since the isolated Asian country went to war with South Korea.

“President Trump committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK and Chairman Kim Jong Un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,” said the statement.

The DPRK, or Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, is the formal title for the North, a nation that spurred increasing global tensions up until late last year over its nuclear and intercontinental missile testing.

The summit centred on nuclear disarmament and reducing tensions, with the agreement saying the two countries would co-operate towards “new relations” while Washington would provide “security guarantees” to Pyongyang.

On nuclear weapons, Mr. Kim “reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula”, but observers said the document lacked substance, in particular on how dropping nuclear weapons would be achieved.

However, in an hour-long press conference held after the summit, Trump went further, unveiling details not in the agreed text that include:

  • The U.S. would suspend its “provocative” so-called war games it holds with South Korea, he said, while he added he wanted to see US troops withdrawn from the South. Analysts have said this is a major concession;
  • On denuclearization, he said that Kim had agreed to it being “verified”, a key US demand ahead of the meeting;
  • Trump said Kim had also agreed to destroy a “major missile engine testing site”
  • But he said sanctions would remain in place for now, and argued “we haven’t given up anything”.

When the press questioned whether Trump had raised the issue of human rights with Kim, who runs a totalitarian regime with extreme censorship and forced-labour camps, the U.S. president confirmed that they had indeed broached the topic.


Global reaction

International reaction to the Singapore summit has been reported as largely positive by global press, with the major players such as South Korea, China and Japan marking the historical significance and Trump’s leadership.

China suggested on Tuesday that sanctions relief could be considered for the DPRK; Beijing, who has joined the U.S. and United Nations in tough sanctions against Pyongyang, has always maintained that tariffs should be accompanied by talks.

Speaking earlier in the day, the Chinese government’s top diplomat, State Councillor Wang Yi, said China hoped the United States and the DPRK can reach agreement on a peace deal, reported Reuters news agency.

Beijing, who also marked the summit as creating “new history”, is Pyongyang’s sole major ally and shares a land border with the North, and changed its tone under pressure from Trump to carry out sanctions on its authoritarian ally.

South Korean President Moon Jae-in said the “two Koreas and the U.S. will write new history of peace and co-operation”, a hopeful outlook that appears to have become Seoul’s new norm since Mr. Moon has met with Kim twice earlier this year.

The bilateral meetings came ahead of the Singapore summit and were significant as the two countries are still technically at war as only an armistice agreement was signed at the end of the Korean War over 60 years ago instead of permanent peace.

It was the U.S. president’s “leadership and effort” that was praised by Japan’s Shinzo Abe, who also said he supports the DPRK’s pledge to denuclearize as “a step towards the comprehensive resolution of issues around North Korea”, reported the BBC.

Russia warned that the “devil is in the detail” and Iran said Pyongyang should not trust Washington.

The U.S. just recently pulled out from the multilateral nuclear deal with Tehran that exchanged nuclear disarmament for sanctions relief set up in 2015.


Full text of agreement

Joint Statement of President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea at the Singapore Summit.

President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) held a first, historic summit in Singapore on June 12, 2018.

President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un conducted a comprehensive, in-depth and sincere exchange of opinions on the issues related to the establishment of new US-DPRK relations and the building of a lasting and robust peace regime on the Korean Peninsula. President Trump committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK, and Chairman Kim Jong Un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

Convinced that the establishment of new US-DPRK relations will contribute to the peace and prosperity of the Korean Peninsula and of the world, and recognizing that mutual confidence building can promote the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un state the following:

1. The United States and the DPRK commit to establish new US-DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity.

2. The United States and DPRK will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.

3. Reaffirming the April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

4. The United States and the DPRK commit to recovering POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified.

Having acknowledged that the US-DPRK summit – the first in history – was an epochal event of great significance in overcoming decades of tensions and hostilities between the two countries and for the opening up of a new future, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un commit to implement the stipulations in the joint statement fully and expeditiously.

The United States and the DPRK commit to hold follow-on negotiations, led by the US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and a relevant high-level DPRK official, at the earliest possible date, to implement the outcomes of the US-DPRK summit.

President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea have committed to cooperate for the development of new US-DPRK relations and for the promotion of peace, prosperity, and the security of the Korean Peninsula and of the world.

Document signed in Singapore

DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America

KIM JONG UN, Chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

June 12, 2018 – Sentosa Island – Singapore


Despite previous attempts by Washington to block the DPRK from developing their nuclear and missile weaponry, Kim pushed ahead with increased testing in 2017, claiming to have successfully tested a hydrogen bomb and launch an ICBM.

Although it has been widely reported that Trump is optimistic about the prospects of the key U.S. summit objective–the total and permanent denuclearization of the Korean peninsula–his secretary of state, Mike Pompeo was cautious over Kim’s sincerity.

It was several months of diplomatic activity and uncertainty over the summit even occurring that led to the June 12 meeting on the resort island of Sentosa.


Featured Image Source

Weld Didn’t Endorse Hillary, Did He?

By John Keller | United States

Since the presidential election of 2016, many have speculated that the Libertarian vice presidential candidate Bill Weld endorsed Hillary Clinton before the election. Is this true?

In an interview with MSNBC on 30 September 2016, Bill Weld is credited with endorsing Hillary Clinton for President of the United States. He made the following statement:

“I’m not sure anybody is more qualified than Hillary Clinton to be President of the United States.” – Bill Weld

The question must be raised: Was Bill Weld wrong? Let’s take a look at the numbers. Seventeen presidents were former governors, what Gary Johnson’s job was. On the other hand, thirty-four presidents were former lawyers or secretaries, what Hillary Clinton’s career was. Even looking at the vice presidential picks, the Clinton Campaign was more “qualified”, whereas twenty-four vice presidents had been senators, as Tim Kaine was, and only sixteen vice presidents were governors, like Bill Weld.

But it is the second statement that Bill Weld makes that is forgotten by the media. He continued:

“I mean that’s not the end of the inquiry though. I mean, we were two-time governors and I think Gary is very, very solid. You know, at this point, we overlapped as governors and I thought highly of him back when we served together, but having spent the last several months with the guy, I mean I don’t even just like the guy I love the guy, I think he is very solid and deep. I think his insight that it pays to have some restraint about military incursions for the purpose of regime change before we still American blood on foreign soil and put boots in the ground in countries where we just don’t like what the government in that country is doing. I think that’s a valuable insight. I’m not sure it’s characterized the foreign policy of either Bush, the most recent Bush, or the Obama Administration and I think that might be a refreshing change. I think he and I could bring a much more tranquil approach to Government in Washington because we wouldn’t be screaming at one of the two parties about how stupid they are. We would work with them both.” – Bill Weld

Furthermore, the rest of the interview seems to be his expression in favor of Gary Johnson and himself for the national ticket. The next question that must be raised: was it wrong of Weld to speak in favor of Mrs. Clinton over Mr. Trump? He spoke plainly on MSNBC on the 30th of September of 2016:

“I do not view those two candidates the same way. I think very highly of Mrs. Clinton, I think she is very well qualified, I think she did a great job in the debate the other night. She kept her game face on… I thought Mr. Trump by the end of the debate was out of control…” – Bill Weld

Bill Weld was looking at it from a realist perspective in an unreal election cycle. Businessman against a career policy maker in the debates when unspoken traditions of policy discussion were broke. Mr. Trump threatening to jail his opponent was, to the common politician, very unprofessional. Threatening to lock up opponents in an election is commonplace in shame democracies that are in essence dictatorships, and it is not commonplace in a constitutional republic.

The total length of the interview with MSNBC on September 30, 2016, was seven minutes and forty seconds (7:40). Throughout the interview he made a few statements in favor of Mrs. Clinton, totaling thirty-four seconds (0:34). Thirty of those seconds was made responding to a question about the debates in which he was expressing that he thought Hillary Clinton performed better than Trump. No harm in expressing who you think won a debate the libertarians were even in, right? But the four seconds that killed him was the statement mentioned formerly in this article in which Bill Weld said, “I’m not sure anybody is more qualified than Hillary Clinton to be President of the United States.” However, the statement he followed that up his remark about Hillary Clinton was a one minute and four second (1:04) praise of Gary Johnson on how experience was the end of the inquiring and that Gary Johnson would be a better president than Hillary Clinton, although he may not necessarily be more “qualified”. Throughout the whole interview, thirty four seconds (0:34), or 7%, of the interview was expressing approval of Mrs. Clinton over Mr. Trump, and seven minutes and six seconds (7:06), or 93%, of the interview expressing that Gary Johnson and himself were the right choices for America.

The other moment in which many thought Bill Weld endorsed Hillary Clinton was on 1 November 2016 in an interview with Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. Many think that Bill Weld gave up on the campaign, but after failing to get into the debates it was clear the campaign strategy had to be re-examined. That is why Bill Weld made the realistic statement:

“I think in the real world that’s [aiming for 5% of the vote] probably correct… we thought for the longest time we might have a chance to run the table because we’re such nice guys and centrist party and etc etc, but not getting into the debates really sort of foreclosed that option. So now it is the 5%, your right.” – Bill Weld

Bill Weld was looking realistically at the coming election. The Republicans and Democrats had just spent millions of dollars to keep Gary Johnson out of the presidential debates and himself out of the vice presidential debate, keeping them at 12% national and then pushing them back down towards 2%. In order to have a successful ticket in the future, the Libertarian ticket knew they had to reach 5% to get matched federal funds, guaranteed ballot access, and more of being recognized as a major party. Although the goal changed, the message did not. In the same interview he gave the following statement:

“Well, we are making our case that we are fiscally responsible and socially inclusive and welcoming and we think we got, on the merits, the best ticket of the three parties if you will and so we would like to get there. Having said that, as I think you’re aware, I see a big difference in the R candidate and the D candidate, and I’ve can in some pains to say that I fear for the country should Mr. Trump be elected. I think it’s a candidacy without any parallel that I can recall. It’s content-free and very much given up to stirring up envy and resentment and even hatred and I think it would be a threat to the conduct of our foreign policy and our position in the world at large.”

It is clear the message had not changed, but the goal of the campaign had. He wanted to see a Libertarian presidency but the current, realistic climate made it impossible, and so he expressed when asked about referring to Trump as “unstable” during the interview:

“Oh yeah, yeah I mean that psychologically.” – Bill Weld

In the research done in this article, I am of the opinion that Bill Weld did not endorse Hillary Clinton and that a study of what was actually said proves he supported the Libertarian message to the end of the campaign. Although the goal of the campaign may have changed in the end weeks, and he may have preferred one candidate over the other in terms of the duopoly, he stood by the libertarian message through the end of the campaign and even continues to fight for libertarian principles today.


To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source.

 

 

Hotel Artemis: Movie Review

Brennan Dube | @Brennan_Dube71R

‘Hotel Artemis’ is the third film ever to be distributed by Global Road Entertainment, it also happens to be Drew Pearce’s directorial debut for a feature-length film. It stars the likes of Jodie Foster, Sterling K. Brown, Sofia Boutella, Jeff Goldblum, Charlie Day and Dave Bautista.

Going into this movie I had no idea really what it was about other than the few tweets I saw on Friday when it opened. I had not seen a trailer nor did I read into this film, but I went into it pretty excited nonetheless.

‘Hotel Artemis’ is set in 2028 Los Angeles during one of the worst riots in U.S history. It centers around Jodie Foster’s character who runs a hotel that is meant to patch up and take care of the most elite criminals. From here we have a movie that offers some quality suspense, good performances all around and a decent plot.

‘Artemis’ as I previously stated has quite the well-rounded cast. Jodie Foster in this movie is quite good, Sterling K. Brown is also really good in this movie, he plays one of the criminals there to get service from Foster. Sofia Boutella plays probably this movie most exciting character and she really played her role well.

At times these performances, especially the ones from the criminals, came off as comical or cartoony. I think after processing this film that Pearce and the other filmmakers who worked on this were actually going for that. Dave Bautista is pretty cool in this movie. He plays the hotels security and works alongside Foster.

His and Foster’s character have quite good chemistry and it was the most believable of the movie for sure. Foster did a really good job at setting the tone of this hotel and what it’s all about. I had a hard time being invested in these characters because of the lack of overall development.

The characters are for the most part interesting but without any developed arcs, as well as the subplots that just felt useless, I really did not care much for these characters. Jeff Goldblum is pretty awesome in this movie and his talents were put on display once again…

(SPOILERS AHEAD)…for about 2 minutes! Yea! They killed off this movie’s most intriguing character after maybe three or four minutes tops screen time. It felt like Goldblum was in town and they put out an alert saying we need someone to come by the studio for half an hour! His character felt so wasted in this and that was a disappointment. (SPOILERS DONE)

Pretty much the entirety of this movie is spent in this hotel so it is important that they set a good vibe in there, and thanks to how Foster portrayed the hotel as well as the set design, I was rather pleased and drawn into the world of ‘Hotel Artemis.’ It was a neat estranged setting and it was quite entertaining to be a part of.

The intensity in this movie is build up pretty well but without a sense of payoff. The final parts of this film were somewhat rushed in my opinion and it hurt this movie in terms of emotion and intensity, however, this was still a lot of fun to watch.

The main fight sequence was really fun in this movie and it was choreographed very well but because of no connection being developed with the characters in this movie for me, it’s essentially just mindless fun. Overall, I was much more interested in this World and hotel not the actual characters and subplots.

The big plus: A rather enjoyable watch, the ever so appealing look and vibe of ‘Artemis’ really draws you in.

Where it lacks: Some useless subplots and cartoonish characters ensure this movie feels like a watered-down popcorn flick.

Score: 70/100

‘Hotel Artemis’ was a fun time at the movies. This movie had times where it tried to go for a touchdown and run with deep subplots, but they weren’t exciting or intriguing. The overall scenery within this movie is where it shines. It’s a unique idea but also a movie that feels simple, and simple can be good. I had a pretty good time watching this movie despite its flaws.


To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source.