Mad Women

Women’s employment opportunities have certainly increased since the “Mad Men” 60s, when a powerful glass ceiling precluded their advancement to leadership in virtually every major American enterprise, both public and private. Now, long removed from the days of Don Draper and Co., women have come a long way: they are equal, if not superior, to men in many sectors of the economy and many fields of knowledge.

Wage-wise, women are increasingly dominating the American workplace. According to a recent Forbes article, women control 60 percent of all wealth in the United States, which amounts to roughly $12 trillion. This statistic is only expected to increase, with some analysts having women increasing their control of aggregate wealth to $22 trillion by the year 2020, although this is admittedly a partial function of the demographic demise of male baby boomers.

Although women have not consistently arrived at the highest rungs of the economic ladder – just 15 Fortune 500 companies have women CEOs, and only 73 percent of such companies have female executives of any kind – those numbers are quickly changing as women continue to dominate the halls of colleges and universities across the nation. Indeed, because more and more graduates of higher education are women, the day is fast approaching when men will be a distinct minority in most board rooms and government agency front offices. For every 100 men, 140 women will graduate with a college degree at some level – while in 1960, there were 160 men for every 100 women who graduated.

This presents a problem for those who continue to assert pervasive gender inequality: feminists. Is the decline of one gender in one societal institution (in this case, men in education) something worthy of celebration if it leads to greater gender balance in other areas (more women in corporate leadership positions)?

“Many industries will see a shift in the male-female ratio in the coming decades simply because women are now more likely than men to get a bachelor’s degree,” a recent Scripps Voice column reads. “This trend extends to graduate programs, where 62.6 percent of Master’s degrees and 53.3 percent of Doctoral degrees are conferred to women according to the National Center for Educational statistics.”

“Hopefully over time, this trend in education will transfer to a more gender equitable workplace,” the column concludes.

While the author does appear to see this trend as a means for overall gender equality, she also shows very little concern for the growing imbalance among men and women within the ranks of education.

University of Michigan Economics and Finance Professor Mark Perry writes in his American Enterprise Institute blog that if women had been the opposite end of this educational imbalance, it would be deemed a “national crisis.”

“Just as a thought experiment – imagine the public reaction if the educational degree imbalances of 4.35 million bachelor’s degrees and 9.7 million college degrees overall favored men, and not women?” Perry said. “I don’t think it would be an exaggeration to say that a college degree imbalance that large in favor of men would be considered a ‘national crisis.’ College degree disparities, when women are over-represented, never seem to be much of a concern. And with those enormous gender imbalances in higher education favoring women, do we really need hundreds of women’s centers on college campuses all over the country, women’s only study lounges, and female-only campus housing for STEM degrees?”

It is often said that demography is destiny. As more and more advanced degrees are conferred upon women by the American higher education system – which remains the central arbiter of life-long income and wealth prospects for most people – the rise of women into positions of public and private leadership will be exponential, leaving men behind.

Few would disagree that feminism was instrumental in getting rid of the Pete Campbells of the “Mad Men” world. But we are now in a very different place. Instead of promoting gender equality, the modern movement now roots for women to do better than men at every turn and celebrates women’s achievements at the expense of male failure. The movement would have more credibility if it would call out gender bias against both men and women and if it would champion the day, paraphrasing Dr.King, when children grow up in an America where they are not judged by their gender but by the content of their character.

21 thoughts on “Mad Women”

  1. Eugene argues that “instead of promoting gender equality, the modern movement (I assume he means feminism/the women’s rights movement) now roots for women to do better than men at every turn and celebrates women’s achievements at the expense of male failure.”

    Can Eugene please give me evidence that this is 1.) what feminists believe and want 2. that this is what their policies and agendas call for and aim to achieve.

    I am honesty curious why non-feminists or Mens Rights Activists interpret feminism as meaning what you say it means. How is it that you and me come to such different conclusions (you don’t need to answer this, it is just something I honestly think about)? If you were to give me examples I would probably argue that those are not mainstream feminists. There ARE people who believe in female domination (society and sexual-wise) but this is not what feminists call for.

    I agree that there are important issues that men are facing: higher rates of depression, suicide, and alcoholism, falling academic achievement rates for men, unfair child custody rulings, lack of research and advocacy for prostate cancer, etc. I just don’t understand why you can’t care about these issues and be a feminist (like me) and why you (and others) come to such different conclusions about what feminism means.

    Finally, I would love to discuss this with you in person Eugene. It is much easier, productive, and efficient to talk about these things in person than online. You can e-mail me at



  2. The workplace may not be as in the 60s, but it’s certainly not perfect. There are still plenty of ways in which workplaces are inhospitable to women & other disadvantaged groups. I recommend reading for examples. Just because there are fewer Pete Campbells doesn’t mean that women are suddenly being treated equally. In fact, sometimes the subtle biases against women are the hardest to articulate and the most difficult to fix.

  3. Eugene, I am really glad you wrote an article addressing this issue. I am a conservative male, but despite the common stereotype surrounding men like me, I believe in gender equality to an extent. Men are physically superior to women and there is no arguing that, it’s a fact. The “mainstream” modern-day feminist refuses to accept this fact and, surprisingly, believes that women are superior to men. Feminists hardly argue for rights that are equal to their male counterparts, but instead argue and protest for rights far superior to those given to males. Giving women more rights than men…that doesn’t sound too equal to me. If education is truly the source to social equality, then the statistics brought up in this article show that women are well on their way not only to equality, but to superiority. I don’t think you should take any hubbub from some Pitzer feminist, Eugene. You bring up many good arguments and back them up with statistics, something your “haters” attempt to do, but ultimately fail in doing so. Keep writing intriguing articles such as this one, Eugene, you’ve gotten me hooked. Well done.

    …and I would like to end my comment with a remark my father once told me: “Feminists are like clowns – they’re scary and nobody listens to them.”

  4. Darrell,

    I’m having trouble telling if you comment is serious or not.

    -I don’t know any feminists who say women are physically superior to men!!! I’m pretty sure biology and statistics tell us that men, on average, are stronger, faster, and better in most sports. Flexibility is the one skill that comes to mind when I think of what women are better at on average.

    -Don’t call me “some Pitzer feminist”. I have a name and its Arielle. And I am more than a feminist and more than a Pitzer student. Did I call Eugene “some CMC conservative” or “some CMC anti-feminist”? No, I wrote a respectful comment, unlike you.

    -That quote from your father is ridiculous. Do you realize what he is saying? He is saying that all feminists are silly, naive, and foolish (all various meanings of the word clown). Does he and yourself literally believe that the millions of men and women in this world who identify as feminists are clowns? I’m not a fan of many different groups but I don’t go around calling them clowns.

    -Again, can you please back up your statement that feminists believe in and call for female supremacy?!?!?

    -Finally, I also extend an offer to you to meet in person about this

  5. Thanks for trolling, Darrell.

    Quick version of what could be a line-by-line critique of this article:

    1. The fact that women now have more extensive educational qualifications than men (though they still fall behind in STEM fields) and yet are severely underrepresented in politics and professional fields has to be the best evidence there is for a glass ceiling. Say whatever you want — factually supported or not — but the rate at which women have approached parity has been abysmally slow.

    2. Darrell S. and the author of this piece are clearly profoundly ignorant of what modern feminism is about. Give me the name of a single modern-day feminist with any mainstream recognition and authority who supports anything you’re claiming and explain how they promote female supremacy. Really. Because I can give you a full list of feminists who are actually working to improve conditions for men, women, and everyone in between (gender isn’t a binary, folks.)

    3. Read some bell hooks, PLEASE. I’ve got a fully stocked feminist bookshelf in my room if you’d like to educate yourself.


  6. Look, we couldresolve this very easily. If women’s numbers in higher education were slipping as badly as men’s were, feminists would almost certainly be decrying this as systematically induced “inequality.” Provide 4 or 5 feminists and/or feminist writings that express genuine concern within the past 20 years about the educational crisis that men and boys are facing. OR perhaps provide a few that have expressed concerns about disproportionately high male suicide rates, unequal sentencing in criminal courts, biases against fathers in custody cases, or the sorry state of men’s health in the U.S. THEN people just might believe that the feminist movement takes a holistic approach to erasing gender inequality and bias. Otherwise, I don’t think people like Eugene are being terribly unfair for pointing out how gynocentric feminism is and always has been. Moreover, I frankly find it odd that people hailing from a movement that claims to fight for gender equality are getting so defensive over an article that points out the educational inequality currently being faced by men. After all, the feminist movement is supposed to have the ENTIRE gender equality mission covered, right?

  7. Shannon, maybe you could point out some feminists that are concerned with the issues Derek raises? I mean I would argue that lots of people (men and women) who write about those issues identify as feminists. Maybe they just don’t say it because it isn’t their MAIN identity. An environmentalist writer for example, may not share all their identities: maybe they are vegan, buddhist, gay, etc.

    -Some topics related to/can be applied to all genders that feminists/feminist circles work towards are: ~body positivity
    ~*** positivity
    ~discussing the meaning and importance of consent
    ~discussing sexual assault and prevention
    ~discussing and breaking down stereotypes about how each “gender” is supposed to act (males being aggressive, hiding their emotions, being strong vs women being submissive, overly-emotional, being weak)
    ~LGBTQ/queer rights

    Listen, maybe feminists aren’t focusing on every single issue related to gender inequality. No movement can focus on every single issue. It doesn’t mean they don’t care about the issues you raised. I am a feminist and I care about those issues. Because I’m also a human-rights and general justice-seeking advocate! Your argument makes it seem like feminists don’t even care about those issues.

    I am fine if men’s rights advocates fight for all those issues you mentioned. Because people can chose their own causes and battles! I’m just asking for them to not be anti-feminist or misogynistic…just like feminists (or the mainstream ones/ones I support) aren’t misandristic against progress for men’s issues.

    I’m not upset or getting defensive about the article bringing up these issues. I’m getting upset and defensive about an incorrect view of feminism.

    ****Again, I am asking someone to prove this statement: “the modern movement now roots for women to do better than men at every turn and celebrates women’s achievements at the expense of male failure.” I am asking you to prove the common anti-feminst and men’s rights movement argument that feminism is misandristic and want female supremacy. Neither Eugene, Darrell, or Derek, have responded to this specific point.****

  8. Arielle, just as you say that Eugene’s statement cannot capture modern feminism, last I checked, there is no single person that speaks out for the entire feminist movement (especially not a single college student). Therefore, your view of what you believe is “mainstream” feminism is just as subjective as Eugene’s.

    Since there is no objective authority on the feminism movement, we must look to how feminism is perceived by “mainstream” culture to try and grasp what “mainstream” feminism is. Over the last decades, the media (one of the best ways to measure what is “mainstream” or not) has put a huge focus on covering the successes of women in overtaking men. Meanwhile, there has been little to no coverage on the issues that you listed that men face, or even a widespread media outcry when certain fields become exceedingly female at the expense of males. Based on this evidence, I find it hard to believe that you cannot understand where Eugene is coming from when he says that female achievement is being celebrated at the expense of male failure (whether you agree with him or not).

  9. Hello F.A.,

    Thank you for your response, it is the best one yet!

    I believe your point about unfair media coverage is a legitimate one. I agree with you that women’s issues are covered more. First, I disagree with your portrayal of these issues as “the successes of women in overtaking men”. While they are celebrating women’s achievements or gains in rights, its not like underneath most feminists and media reporters are thinking, “yay and we have overtaken men!” There isn’t this undercover, hidden agenda. Second, its important to remember that feminism isn’t just about creating equal representation (which yes, sometimes leads to a reversal of inequality and this should be discussed). My personal interest in feminism is more about media and interpersonal attitudes, discourse, assumptions, etc. about the nature of women.

    Also, good point about there being no one definition of feminism. I absolutely agree and am a big believer in subjectivity over objectivity. However, I totally disagree that my view is “just as subjective” as Eugene’s. First of all, my view more closely matches the theory and writings of feminists. Second, I do not think anyone who identifies as a feminist would identify with Eugene’s view. If you ask someone who identifies as a feminist to explain what that means to them and what their goals are, none of them would say what Eugene says.

    I want (but am not really expecting someone to do so because I believe they can’t) someone to give evidence that self-identifying feminists and mainstream contemporary writings “roots for women to do better than men at every turn and celebrates women’s achievements at the expense of male failure.” I am asking someone to prove the common anti-feminist and men’s rights movement argument that feminism is misandristic and want female supremacy.

    Perhaps Eugene meant to say that even if this is not what feminists believe in and want, it is an accidental byproduct of their campaigns. I’m not sure what he means though because based on MRM writings, they seem to believe that feminists literally believe in and want female supremacy.

    I also haven’t said this yet but I think one reason feminist issues get more coverage than men’s issues (not that it makes it right) and one reason why the movement is called feminism than gender-equality-ism (which I don’t have a problem with) is because oppression and inequality against women IS OVERALL a bigger deal than men’s ones. I hate comparing different forms of oppression with others because all forms of oppression and inequality are bad.

    But guess what, women’s oppression and inequality, unlike men’s, is systematic worldwide and in the United States. Violence against women, unfair media representations, unequal representations in certain academic and job fields, assumptions and judgments against women, etc. I will concede that there is systematic discrimination against men in certain instances: in child custody cases for example. But there is not the same worldwide, centuries old, systematic, discrimination. You see it in laws, in religious texts, in representation, in treatment towards women, and in assumptions about women.

    I wonder if MRMs and people who interpret things like Eugene also fail to understand things like the existence of white privilege (which I don’t want to get into here). I just feel like what we are arguing about aren’t beliefs, but interpretations. Which I find fascinating. I’m so interested in how people come to have such different interpretations in the first place, especially if they are exposed to the same data and information.


  10. This notion that mainstream feminism is composed of moderate individuals who are also deeply concerned about issues affecting millions of males is bogus and quite frankly laughable. While I would argue that the media has become excessively liberal over the years, I would agree with F.A. that it is still the best touchstone we have for determining what is mainstream. Keeping this in mind, let’s look at some of the “mainstream” feminists of the day. First we have Sandra Fluke, a former Georgetown law student who burst onto the scene in 2012 and ultimately was a key speaker at the Democratic National Convention. Her claim that birth control for female law students could cost more than $3,000 for 3 years is exactly one of the reasons why people like Eugene and myself cannot take feminism seriously. It has nothing to do with us being male proponents or against female progress. It’s merely a matter of looking at the issues in a logical, realist manner. I mean is it really logical for American taxpayers to have to subsidize $1,000 a year birth control…?

    And then we have Elizabeth Warren, the newly minted Democratic senator from Massachusetts, who has emerged as a progressive leader who some say could challenge Hillary Clinton in the 2016 primaries. To put all my cards on the table, I have to say I’m enormously impressed with her economic acumen (in today’s fragile economy raising the minimum wage to $22/hr and lowering student loan rates to the same levels that banks like Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan receive are no brainers!!!!). Sarcasm aside, I took offense to her recent claim that Republicans shut down the government so they could prevent Obamacare from providing mandatory contraception to females. Republicans are seeking to defund/repeal Obamacare because it is a fiscal nightmare which has done nothing but cause skyrocketing premiums and canceled millions of plans. Once again, it is hard to take feminism seriously when individuals like Elizabeth Warren are making ridiculous assertions and trying to invoke women’s rights into an issue like the government shutdown.

    Also, to assert that Eugene is too narrow-minded to understand concepts such as white privilege, etc. is ludicrous. I wonder if feminists and people who interpret things like Arielle also fail to understand the realities of the modern economy, specifically in relation to gender and race. Like Shannon, Eugene has a fully stocked bookshelf, yet his is filled with the likes of Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman. Please come by and educate yourself so you can become enlightened like Eugene.

  11. As a female, I really don’t find Eugene’s article that offensive and actually quite refreshing…

    To jump into this ongoing discussion about feminism, I believe they are 2 different types of feminism. One view maintains that women should have equal rights in terms of being able to vote, own a house, fair treatment in the workplace, etc. However, another faction of feminism believes women should be superior to men and has the tendency to take things to the extreme.

    What interests me is that a lot of women in the 21st century feel they must be superior to men. I am shocked/amazed why women are not content with embracing the unique qualities which make them female. I come from the South, where conservatism is simply a way of life. However, in the South women are more respected than women in the liberal North. Why? It’s not just because the South is filled with southern beaus and gentlemen who take pride in treating their lady in a courteous manner. It is also because they embrace their femininity and do not seek to antagonize males. However, now that I have moved up North, I have discovered most women (aka my fellow students) act and almost treat themselves in a masculine style. They are not proud of the innate qualities unique to women such as being caring and possessing greater common sense….after all women are statistically better investors than males. A lot of girls at my school feel inferior as women and are constantly trying to prove themselves to men. Instead, women should be proud, accept their strengths and weaknesses, and call it a day (men should do the same).

    I fear that radical feminism has unnecessarily created tension between the two genders. This tension causes men to respect women less and no longer treat them in a respectful manner. Unfortunately, in recent years, rape has become an escalating problem at my school. I have already encountered many friends and strangers who have been raped at my college and after long discussions, we have realized that feminism is doing nothing to alleviate this problem, and in fact might be a catalyzing force behind this tragic issue. I am in no way suggesting that feminism leads to rape. However, I am asserting that radical feminism is a detrimental force which can lead to males acting in an inappropriate manner.

    The bottom line is women are innately different from men in both a biological and psychological sense. Both genders should embrace their strengths and weaknesses, all while retaining a mutual respect that is rooted in equality. So seriously, let’s relax and not freak out just because Eugene raised the valid point that feminism has perhaps been taken a little far.

  12. Wow thats a lot of responses. I can’t respond now but hopefully I’ll have time later.

    I just want to encourage people to reach out to me via e-mail ( so we can meet up in person. I would love to continue this talk in person, specifically the question of why and how did we come to have such different interpretations of feminism in the first place.

    I really hope some people take me up on this offer because I feel like the only way I can explore this question is by talking with people with different viewpoints than me!


  13. I think most people in this thread have grossly misinterpreted the import and relevance of feminism. Feminists strive to counter systems of oppression that limit the kinds of expressions that all kinds of bodies experience. That is to say, the kinds of oppression that people of all gender identities and expressions experience. I say “all” because gender is non-binaristic; this is a simple way of saying that gender is a culturally and ideologically mediated set of beliefs, practices, and ways of expression.

    I find it sad that the author decided not to highlight analyses of the phenomenon he attempts to draw his readership’s attention to. Why? Instead of presenting analyses which focus on the criminalization of young boys in our country (most often boys of color), he instead elected turn the issue into the classic “feminists are actually ruining our country because if given the chance they would tear every man from ear to ear!” trope. Nope. It’s a gross misrepresentation of feminist ideology, one that makes you wonder whether the author has, with an open-mind, thoughtfully engaged with honest feminist thought. It’s a misunderstanding that is pervasive in all media, not just the Claremont Independent.

    The author also subscribes to a not-so-novel but not-so-accurate model of the way in which power mediates access to resources. We shouldn’t forget that on a global scale white people are a small minority, yet they hold the vast amount of privileges: means of production, access to local and global streams of capital, relative freedom from daily violent incursion, relatively high access to education, healthcare, and leisure. By the same logic: although women may be given access to the charmed circle of some previously male spaces, this doesn’t mean they don’t experience the daily bullshit that comes with dealing with a world that devalues their work and their bodies.

    I hope in the future I will be able to see a more nuanced discussion of the ways in which power circulates and, in its circulation, the ways in which power structures our daily experiences.

      1. good response derek, keep moving the effing goal posts so you can easily disregard everything chris just said!
        frankly it disturbs me to see the students of a prestigious liberal arts college employing some of the arguments here, specifically the notion that “radical” feminism (whatever that means. girls with unshaven legs? women with opinions?) somehow contributes to the prevalence of rape culture. some of you subscribe to the misguided notion that feminism promotes gender inequality by insinuating that maybe, just maybe, women can exceed in previously male dominated institutions like higher education and high income labor. sure, more women are receiving masters and doctoral degrees, but how has that really affected the professional landscape? i won’t provide links to every single one of these, but feel free to google how many women are employed in high salary fields, like medicine and law, compared to the number of men. note that women in the US are still, on average, paid less than men. if eugene is correct in his apocalyptic prediction of the future of men in america, shouldn’t these measures of professional success be skewed a little differently? don’t worry men, we still hold the majority of the power here. and most signs point to the fact that we are not in danger of losing it any time soon. unless of course those scheming, man-hating, women with their fancy DEGREES manage to mess it up for all of us before we stick them back where they belong.
        seriously WTF CMC this is 2013, we have all moved past arguments about the misconceptions surrounding feminism towards actually doing something to address true “pervasive gender inequality.” join us in the sun. read arielle’s and chris’s comments carefully and try to learn something.

        1. well this is stupid both in the argument and the name…

          there is a general problem with feminism in that most of the conceptual problem has mostly been solved (make me a sandwich is for the most part only a joke). Few “elites” are scared of women with degrees (you do realize you are creating a strawman). Essentially by 1960’s standards huge majorities are feminist, but ideologies within feminism are more contentious but use multiple definitions and histories opportunely to gather support. RE: Chris, the idea that something is a general stand against inequality does not negate the idea that x has defined inequality too far or echo chambers don’t exaggerate.

          There is a Jessie Jackson quote i cant find which goes something like “I if a white person is more qualified than a black person they should get the job but if a white person and a black person have equal merit the black person should get the job.* The idea being due to oppression formerly (and implicit currently), this should be used to rectify. I think a brand of “radical feminists” hold this view (or this view+) and its a view which can be fairly criticized.

          *The pay gap is problematic in that there are good arguments saying most of it is due to life decision differences (time off for family especially earlyish on). You could argue that that is inhererntly wrong and we need to rectify this (possible solutions include gov subsidized day care, etc. though not all who believe this believe that; also, rape culture not mentioned earlier, stupid inflamatory addition).

          1. Actually, in cmclol’s defense, there was a reference to rape culture in earlier comments. I believe he/she was referring to Southern Belle’s contribution, specifically this quote here:

            “I have already encountered many friends and strangers who have been raped at my college and after long discussions, we have realized that feminism is doing nothing to alleviate this problem, and in fact might be a catalyzing force behind this tragic issue. I am in no way suggesting that feminism leads to rape. However, I am asserting that radical feminism is a detrimental force which can lead to males acting in an inappropriate manner.”

            I do in fact find these statements rather disturbing, though that’s probably the only thing that cmclol and I would agree on.

      2. Sorry for tuning out after commenting — here are a few places to start.

        Chapter 10 of Jessica Valenti’s (wonderful) book Full Frontal Feminism, “Boys Do Cry”:

        Michael Kimmel (prolific male feminist author, check out some of his books too), “Solving the ‘Boy Crisis’ in Schools”:

        Soraya Chemaly, feminist journalist:
        “‘Boy Crisis’ in Education is a Microcosm of Women’s Lives”:

        …also by Chemaly, “Paycheck Fairness and the Boy Crisis: How Misguided Entitlement Hurts Everyone”:

        and since someone brought up birth control… Andrew Jenkins, “Bro-Choice: Moving Men From Passive Allies to Vocal Stakeholders in Ending Oppression”:

  14. Come on people. Let’s cut the rhetoric and get to the facts. Thomas Sowell, a world-renowned economist, clearly explains how this so-called inequality in terms of male and female pay is virtually non-existent. He explains how there are a plethora of differences between male and female work habits which have nothing to do with discrimination. For example, women usually work fewer hours per week and not as many consecutive years, which will obviously lead to a difference in their pay. However, Sowell explains that when comparing male and female salaries with equal parameters such as education, work hours, etc. females essentially make the same as males, and in some cases even make more. Once again, Eugene has a fully stocked bookshelf of not only Sowell, but also Smith, Friedman, Mankiw, and Smith to name just a few. So PLEASE come by and educate yourself.

    “Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.” – Ronald Reagan

  15. I think Eugene does an excellent job presenting the facts in this particular article. He does not say sexism or discrimination against women does not occur he says that the income gap that many feminists allude to simply does not exist. Studies have been done showing that if you look at women with the same lifespan as a man, never married, never took maternity leave off etc. you find that many women do in fact earn MORE than men in these situations. Going back to Shannon Miller’s article ( the perfect example lies therein. She argues that it is not suitable for a 44% female presence at CMC and 55% male presence or that “women should comprise more than 20% of the senate” what more does she want? If only 10 female candidates ran for the senate does she want all 10 to be elected? And if they aren’t is that another example of the misogynistic society we live in? As a female, I would answer NO it is not. Many females traditionally stay at home and raise children and that is what they would like to continue doing. This leaves an inherent imbalance in the working force which would lead to male domination. For example is it a cardinal sin that the majority race in the working force today is white? No it is not, because white is the dominant race today. The reason affirmative action has run into trouble is because of its inherent punishment of equally capable white students in favor of minorities I think that Eugene argues that where women and men are equal in capacity, they are also equal in pay. Furthermore the feminism movement wants to equalize the playing field for women but to what extent? If the senate should comprise more than 20% of women then tell more women to run but until then the feminist movement should cool their jets about income inequality.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *