Chelsea Clinton continues the tradition of the “do as I say, not do as I do” Clintons with her declaration last week on female empowerment. This time she’s figured out what women need to do to gain equity in society. Apparently, that is to step aside and let men figure it out. Seriously, that’s what she said.
In a recent Q&A titled “Men have to lead the way to global gender equality,” in response to a truly odd segue about the flagging Japanese economy, Clinton noted, “We’ve seen some real cultural normative shifts—and candidly it often has to be men who lead the way.”
So, to see more women take charge we need men to take charge? Well, this would make sense if you look at the pathetic record of Chelsea’s “leadership” on these issues. Chelsea and her parents’ Clinton Foundation have previously made several pushes for more female science and math (STEM) majors.
‘There are fewer girls who are aspirational in the math and science fields in the United States than there were 20 years ago,’ Clinton said during a panel discussion Monday at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. ‘We have significantly fewer women graduating with computer science degrees.
‘We have significantly fewer women graduating with mechanical engineering degrees than we did in the mid and late 1980s,’ Clinton said. ‘We’re really losing ground in this area, which is why we have such a frenetic focus.’
Meanwhile, despite Chelsea determining that she needs to inform women what their majors should be, she personally majored in history at Stanford University and later pursued a master’s in public health at Columbia University. Just once, it would be wonderful to see a woman who laments the STEM major gap simply go out and obtain a STEM degree. One supposes that gutting it out as engineering major is for the little people, not folks who walk into a cushy post-college job at their parents’ foundation.
How About Cracking the Clinton Foundation’s Glass Ceiling?
With Chelsea now a major player at the Clinton Foundation, we’d expect some more action on areas she highlights as concerns, right? Here she is again in that recent interview.
Your report also recounts the dearth of women at the top of corporate America. What is your take on that?
Inertia is a very powerful force. We have made incremental progress because this has not been an area of concerted focus until very recently. It’s not hard to understand why—when you think of 1995 and where maternal health was, and where education rates were for girls around the world were. It’s not surprising that so much of the world’s attention was focused on those areas.
But now as we look forward, we need the norms to change from the top down on what a board member looks like, on what a CEO looks like.
One would expect the Clinton Foundation, with its laser-like focus on cracking that last “glass ceiling,” would be living those values. Well, the truth is another story. According to work done by The Weekly Standard, the foundation pays women less, and its top eight compensated individuals are all men.
In late February, Hillary Clinton, a self-proclaimed champion of women’s rights and gender equity, came under fire for a Washington Free Beacon analysis that showed women on Mrs. Clinton’s staff during her tenure in the Senate were paid an average of 72 cents on the dollar compared to male staff. Now, an analysis of the latest IRS filing for the foundation that bears her name, the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, shows a similar compensation disparity between men and women employees. Although compensation figures are available for only a limited number of Foundation personnel, the 2013 Form 990 filed with the IRS shows that out of eleven highly compensated individuals listed, the top eight are all men.
Lastly, per the phrase “change starts at home,” there’s a certain man in Chelsea’s orbit who might benefit from some of these treatises she and her family give in numerous public forums. Dad Bill Clinton’s long history of abusing power to gain access to female companionship appears to have continued.
How About Rejecting Donations from Pedophiles?
Certainly, Bill Clinton’s association with a convicted pedophile who in 2006 donated $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation might make one want to have a family sit-down.
On July 18, 2006, the Clinton Foundation was the recipient of $25,000 from the C.O.U.Q. Foundation, whose president was [Jeffrey] Epstein, the Weekly Standard reports.
The new information unravels the accepted narrative that Clinton’s friendship with Epstein, which included multiple flights on Epstein’s private plane and trips to his island resort, ended in 2005 when Epstein was accused of paying a 14-year-old girl for an erotic massage. Epstein would plead guilty to the charges in 2008 and spend 13 months in jail.
New court documents related to a lawsuit against Epstein claiming that he kept a different young girl as a ‘sex slave’ reveal that Epstein had 21 different phone numbers on his speed dial to reach Clinton with.
Nothing says female empowerment like the phrase “took private planes to a millionaire’s sex island where young girls were kept as sex slaves.” This might be one of the more perverse versions of “pay it forward,” if you consider that money from a man convicted of raping young girls funds talks on gender equality from the Clinton Foundation.
While it’s clear that Chelsea means well, it might serve women better to have a spokesperson who lives the values and the change they want to see in the world. Her talk is just that: talk. These efforts are just political games to position the Democratic Party as relevant to economic challenges by defaulting to social justice and identity politics.
This latest attempt by the Clinton Foundation to pretend the Democratic Party is interested in jobs despite promoting policy after policy hostile to growth, free enterprise, and free association is just a way to talk about the same old tired social-justice talking points that don’t amount to any real value for Americans. If these issues were so important to the Clintons, we’d see the Clintons demonstrating them daily. Perhaps one day the Democratic Party might be interested in jobs but, as of today, they remain more interested in empty talking points to frame themselves as superior elites.