Guess who owns the majority of tanning salons? The majority of tanning salons are small businesses owned by women. According to CNN Money:

“This is going to close tanning salons,” said Joseph Levy, vice president of the International Smart Tan Network, which has 3,000 member salons. “You can’t just pass on a tax like this to customers and not have it hurt your bottom line.”

Levy estimates that about 9,000 jobs are in jeopardy and more than 1,000 salons are at risk of being forced to close their doors. The tax also targets middle-class and female business owners, with about two-thirds of tanning salons in the U.S. owned by women, he said.

In addition to putting thousands of employees out of work, Levy predicts the tax will ultimately generate 40% to 50% less than the projected $2.7 billion.

“There was no due diligence done on how much money this will raise, and it’s going to be nowhere near what they are expecting,” he said. “After taxing female entrepreneurs and primarily female customers, this is the other part of what’s so repulsive about this tax.

Wait. I thought we had to pass Obamacare because being a “woman is an pre-existing condition?” (That’s incorrect. Women are statistically more likely to go to the doctor and have major illnesses. When you use a service more, it costs more. You can could also opt out of expensive maternity riders on most plans.) Women overwhelmingly voted for Obama, yet in his first major legislative win, he directly targets businesses owned by women? Why the hate, Barry? Do you have issues with women?

Tanning salon owners are also largely middle class. What was that promise about no new taxes on the middle class? I’m fairly certain that the average tanning salon owner is not making $250,000 or more per year.

These facts are probably a surprise to most Democrats and Obamacare supporters. Since the majority of tanning salons are in middle class neighborhoods in fly-over country, I doubt that those swanky policy makers have ever deigned to walk into one. They probably thought this is a magic revenue stream that would bring in funds for the largest tax increase in history. That’s how taxes work, right? The money just rolls into the government’s coffers without negatively hurting anyone. I keep forgetting that the Anointed One is capable of making money grow on trees in Michelle’s kitchen garden.

Via Feministing and Broadsheet, I watched this video that the Daily Caller put together. Not only did it feature several of my former co-workers, but it was also silly. The premise was dumb, yet the women interviewed tried to explain why they were there.

No where in the video did the women say that their reason for attending was “boys, boys, boys” as Tracy Clarke-Flory alludes. Actually, if you listen to the video, the majority of the women are attending for work. The college students articulate that they are attending to learn about the issues and support candidates.

Even in the twisted world of feminism, I thought learning about issues and supporting candidates was supported. Oh, silly me. I forgot that different rules apply to conservatives. We’re supposed to shut up and pretend we don’t exist.

Oh crazy feminists, get over yourselves and do the math. CPAC proactively reaches out to college students with steep discounts on ticket prices. Traditionally 50% or more of the attendees  are college students. Since more women are now matriculating than men…connect the dots. Also, attendance was up 20% overall this year with at least 10,000 people registering.

I realize that this this is difficult to swallow since it proves:

1. CPAC, the representation of all that is evil to the universe of liberals, is growing. 10,000 is a lot for any conference on any subject or political ideology.

2. Women are actually conservative, including college-aged women.

3. Conservative women aren’t ashamed of being attractive.

4. With more and more conservative organizations targeting women and inviting them to attend events like CPAC, it’s hardly surprising that they would show up.

It really is amusing to read through liberal blogs and newspapers and see what the left pulls out of CPAC. It’s like they attended a completely different conference than the one that I saw.

I think I make it pretty clear that I have zero respect for both Jessica Valenti and Meghan McCain here, but Jessica really out did herself with saying “just when you think CPAC can’t get any creepier.” Really? Just Really? This video freaked you out that much? With all the actual evil in the world done to women, those women at CPAC are the worst?

We’ve seen the debate that insurance is more expensive than women. That’s frankly a silly debate since women’s bodies have a few more complicated parts that birth babies, get hurt, diseased or are more likely to get cancer. Women are also far more likely to go to the doctor, so it makes sense that our health insurance cost more. But does it generally cost more to be a woman?

MSN Money (via NeW ) published an article last month that found consumer products aimed at women cost more based on a study conducted by Consumer Reports. Gasp! Pink packaging and nice fragrances cost more:

Consumer Reports compared six products that come in his-and-hers versions (or a neutral edition and a feminine one): shaving cream, antiperspirant, pain reliever, eye cream, body wash and razors. The magazine found that products aimed specifically at women can cost more than 50% extra.

Is this shocking? If you’re a savvy shopper, shouldn’t you have noticed this before? Just how different is shaving cream, body wash, deodorant and soap? I’ve always wondered if there’s an actual difference between a Venus razor and a Mach 3? Both are made by Gillette. Walgreens lists the Mach 3 at $8.79 while the Venus is $11.49.

Consumer products are driven completely by the market. Since women are willing to pay more for thes these products, should Madison Avenue be slammed? Isn’t it up to the customer to make the smarter purchase? As Consumer Reports reveals:

Each “express gel” of Excedrin Extra Strength and Excedrin Complete Menstrual contains 250 milligrams of aspirin, 250 mg of acetaminophen, and 65 mg of caffeine. But Excedrin Menstrual cost 50 cents more at Walgreens. Julie Masow, spokeswoman for Novartis Consumer Health, Excedrin’s parent, says it was Walgreens’ decision, noting the suggested retail price for the products was the same.

Basically if you put the words “menstrual” or “PMS” on the label, you pay more. As a someone who has suffered from migraines (which went away after I stopped drinking Diet Coke), I’ve tried nearly every type of over-the-counter pain medications. I never noticed a big difference between “migraine” and “extra strength,” so I started buying the cheaper one.

Most of this is consumer ignorance. If women are smart, they should compare the products. Look at the ingredients and see if there is an actual difference. Do some research. Prices reflect what the market will pay. If women demanded that equality reaches as far as bodywash and razors, they should stop buying the pretty pink kind.

Is this sexist as MP Dunleavy alludes?

…consider that, on average, a woman still earns about 78 cents to a man’s dollar (or $78,000 compared with $100,000 paid to a male colleague with the same level of experience). And women with children are less likely to be hired and are offered lower salaries than are fathers or women without children, according to Stanford University researcher Shelley Correll.

So why are women being charged more? Ellen Galinsky, the president of Families and Work Institute, a nonprofit policy-research group in New York, speculates that companies play to female tastes because they are aware that women make most household consumer choices, “so it’s a way for them to increase their revenue.”

I fail to see this as a mark of discrimination against women. If a woman is paying more, it’s her own fault for not shopping around and researching what she should be paying. Manufacturers set prices higher on products aimed towards women because they know that we’re willing to pay more. This isn’t a grand conspiracy. This is years and years of market research that documented what women will pay for a product.

Since my college years almost 20 years ago, I’ve considered myself a feminist. It is usually assumed that feminists are left-leaning liberals, but I am a feminist who is politically to the right of center. So, at many feminist gatherings – especially as my politics have changed – I’ve often felt like an ideological version of the ‘sister outsider’ outlined in the work of the late lesbian feminist Audre Lorde: theoretically part of the group, but a case apart. However, there are many other black feminists like me.

While abortion and LGBT issues are the focus of feminism in America, the economy and government intervention are concerns in other countries. Today, I stumbled upon this article about conservative black feminists from around the world. Now, right, left, conservative and liberal mean many different things outside of America, but the feminists mentioned in this article emphasize personal responsibility, limited government and capitalism.

There is an opportunity for us black center-right feminists to build upon Hurston’s work and to continue to bring different perspectives to black feminism. Liberal feminists often ask for big government goodies, but that can’t happen without production and wealth creation by individuals freely trading their products and services.

As a social conservative in America, you would think that my main issue with feminism would be abortion. However, it is feminism’s deep commitment to socialism that bothers me the most. Feminists believe that to empower women, you need to weaken men. In order to help the poor, you have to take away resources from the rich through taxes, lawsuits, anti-discrimination laws or quotas. Feminists believe that in order to change society, the federal government has to step in and pass a law. It’s as though freedom, wealth and liberty are in limited quantities and must be rationed out to the masses in different levels determined by arbitrary perceptions of discrimination.

If feminists spent more time trying to alter society’s perceptions instead of bullying people through lawsuits, mandates and laws, I believe that a lot many more Americans would embrace the movement. However, feminists have allowed their cause to be co-opted by the Democratic party in order to maintain political power and relevancy. They’ve sacrificed the “principles” of their movement for short-term gains. Allowing a political party to take oever your movement only weakens it. (Sadly, that comes from watching Republicans all but destroy the fiscal conservatism on the right. )

In developing countries, it’s the much-hated “patriarchal” capitalism that is liberating women. Micro-loans and social entrepreneurship are helping women in the most impoverished countries develop businesses and establish better lives for their families and communities. Think the Girl Effect* or Ten Thousand Villages.

While I disagree with the author’s views on abortion and gays, I can’t help but want to shout a third wave “you go girl” here:

Another area that libertarian feminists look at is how more modest dress is now the counterculture, and how hip-hop culture has undermined the richness of black American culture that once placed more value on black women. We are also interested in how government policies – such as the Great Society, the war on drugs, prostitution laws that prosecute women but not the male customer, military rules barring women from certain positions, the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military and state crackdowns on informal babysitting arrangements – have disproportionately impacted black women’s lives and undermined black women’s freedom.

Choice is an underlying theme running through black center-right feminism. However, this pro-choice stance doesn’t end with abortion, but extends to economic issues and other social issues.

We believe that women should have the right to make any choices that we desire (while enduring the full repercussions of those choices), so long as it doesn’t harm others. With our choice mantra, black center-right feminists can increasingly bring more energy and vigor to the feminist arena.

If feminism believes that women should be empowered by choices, we need to stop the nannystate encroachment. Fewer laws, less government intervention, greater freedom and liberty are the answer. In the words of my college roommate, that requires you to put on your big girl panties and take responsibility for your own actions. Liberty and capitalism make a better society for everyone rather than a rigid, litigious society that all but mirrors the far reaches of the right that feminists so eschew.

*I really like the Girl Effect video not only because it’s one of the best web videos out there, but it has a strong capitalistic message. Through education and capitalism, a girl helps her family and village. It’s not through the government or the UN, but through investing in a small business and giving her the freedom to make choices with that business.