It should come as no surprise that the wage gap myth pushed by feminists to argue their cause is easily refuted and absolute bullshit. Many studies show that women make about 75 cents for every dollar a man earns. Feminists say the gap is all about men wanting to oppress women (the bullshit glass ceiling argument)
Basically, if this really was the case, say a woman does equal work for 25 percent less money, businesses would get rich just by hiring women and should just fire all of their male workers, right? Why would any employer ever need to hire a man?
MND Guest Commentaries & News
Thursday, July 07, 2005
The Wage Gap Myth Is Hazardous To Men's Health
by Stephen Jarosek
A study in the May issue of American Economic Review (2003) had found that the wage gap between men and women was the result of lifestyle choices, and not discrimination. It was found that choice, not discrimination, is the determining factor in wage difference 97 percent of the time. The wage gap myth has been debunked numerous times -- for example, by the Independent Women's Forum, and the publication, "Women's Figures", by Furchtgott-Roth and Stolba (1999).
The wage gap fiction was derived from the median wages of all men and all women in the work force, without regard to age, education, occupation, experience or working hours.
It's pretty obvious, isn't it? You'd think that if you had to explain something so self-explanatory, you might as well not bother and go and live in an ashram in India.
We know how it goes…. Women are more likely to work fewer hours so that they can have more time to devote to the caring of children. Men are more likely to value career and therefore, work longer hours per day, devoting many more years to developing their expertise that makes them more valuable. Men are more likely to work in the death careers, such as mining (and therefore get paid more), whereas women are more likely to work in air-conditioned offices, regardless of their skill-level. Women are more likely to pull out of careers in order to raise a family -- the stay-at-home mom is a legitimate, fulfilling option and an ideal escape-hatch. No such fulfilling option is extended to men. The man who chooses the stay-at-home option becomes an invisible drone, of no interest to men or women, employers or government, God or country. And so on.
The various studies that have been coming out have been equalizing the wage-gap disparities, and so feminists no longer have any basis to claim discrimination on the basis of income.
As a further very dramatic example, there was the New York Times article by Lisa Belkin, "The Opt-Out Revolution", published on the 26 th of October, 2003. After arraying a formidable and damning indictment of a revolution choosing to opt out instead of persisting with the good fight, Ms Belkin asks the rhetorical question, "Why don't women run the world?" Her answer is "Maybe it's because they don't want to."
Precisely. The wage gap is not a wage gap at all. It is a choices gap. Put simply, women have more choices than men. In most cases, their additional choices (e.g., stay-at-home-mom) require men to continue providing for them, and this is the reason for the wages gap.
Let's take a closer look at some of Ms Belkin's observations.
* Stanford class of 1981 - 57% of mothers spent at least a year at home caring for their infant children in the first decade after graduation. One out of four have stayed home three or more years.
* Harvard Business School - In a survey of women from the classes of 1981, 1985 and 1991 it was found that only 38% were working full time.
* In surveys of professional women across the board - Between one quarter and one third are out of the work-force, depending on the study and the profession.
* The United States Census shows that the number of children being cared for by stay-at-home moms has increased nearly 13% in less than a decade, while at the same time, the percentage of new mothers who go back to work fell from 59% in 1998 to 55% in 2000.
* Working mothers between the career-building ages of 25 to 44 - Two thirds of them work fewer than 40 hours per week (i.e., part time). Only 5% work 50 or more hours weekly.
* Compare these trends with those of men. 95% of white men with M.B.A.'s are working full time, while only 67% of women with M.B.A.'s are working full time.
* Ms Belkin then turns her attention to the women in her Atlanta book club, and the roomful of women from Princeton University, "trained as well as any man. Of the 10 members, half are not working at all; one is in business with her husband; one works part time; two freelance; and the only one with a full-time job has no children."
* In a recent survey, the research firm Catalyst found that 26 percent of women at the cusp of the most senior levels of management don't want the promotion.
* Fortune magazine found that of the 108 women who have appeared on its list of the top 50 most powerful women over the years, at least 20 have chosen to leave their high-powered jobs, most voluntarily, for lives that are less intense and more fulfilling.
Perhaps the mechanism behind this trend can be explained in two words -- "escape hatch". Ms Belkin quotes one of her interviewees: ''I don't want to be famous; I don't want to conquer the world; I don't want that kind of life... Maternity provides an escape hatch that paternity does not. Having a baby provides a graceful and convenient exit.''
Ms Belkin refers to women social scientists who write about "how the workplace has failed women." And then she observes that "it is also that women are rejecting the workplace."
Closing off her article with a twist to her original question about women running the world, Ms Belkin again asks why don't women run the world, and has one of her subjects answer it for her: ''In a way,'' Amsbary says, ''we really do.''
Indeed. Women always have. Chivalrous, chauvinistic men (whose pro-feminism is a clever strategic move) believe that they wield the power -- the so-called "frontman fallacy." But in so many ways, they are deluded. Is a draft-horse pulling the cart more powerful than the driver wielding the whip? Does a guard dog patrolling the yard determine how its owner should live? How much power does a draft horse or a guard dog have over its own destiny? When a man dutifully and willingly subscribes to the provider role, he becomes a beast of burden whose first priority is to conform to the rules laid down not only by his employer but also by his wife and the social network that is her priority.
Ms Belkin concludes her lengthy article with a positive spin, by suggesting that "instead of women being forced to act like men, men are being freed to act like women... Looked at that way, this is not the failure of a revolution, but the start of a new one. It is about a door opened but a crack by women that could usher in a new environment for us all."
This is the basis of her message -- a new revolution for which women can claim the credit, that benefits both men and women.
While we would not wish to diminish the important and worthwhile goal of motherhood that must feature in every woman's life decisions at some point, what Ms Belkin's article points to is a demonstration of the baselessness of the wage gap assumption. Hers is a most important admission that yes, many women -- even once they have attained their status as equals among men (albeit, with the helping hand of affirmative action) -- do not really want to work. Even with all the qualifications, skill bases and social connections that might make them heads of national corporations and leaders of nations, many women choose to throw it all in. Nothing wrong with that in principle, except that every last woman in such a position has obtained her exulted status through affirmative action. That is, through the assumption that, as a woman, she has the right to make her claim for the millenia of patriarchal oppression foisted against women by men. It's payback time. Payback for what?
Irrespective of what we make of Ms Belkin's positive spin, we are left with very troubling questions.
What do we make of this collective arrogance? For these career grrrrls to decide that they've had enough, and then continue to disparage men and men's achievements by suggesting that they might have a more lofty purpose (motherhood). How insulting, to suggest that all this benefits men. These born-again moms are like occupying colonials trying to mollify the natives who have begun to show signs of becoming restless.
Whatever happened to the glass ceiling? Was it ever there to begin with? And now that progressive career grrrls have changed their minds, now that they realized that work was not all that it was cracked up to be, they white-wash it all with claims that everybody benefits, including men, because now men can be stay-at-home-dads if they want to.
All this might be well and good for some. But let us not forget the propaganda with which this new, purported vision was accomplished. Let us not forget the hatred that has been leveled against men and "The Patriarchy" in order to realize these goals. Now that we realize that the wage gap is in fact a choices gap driven as much by women as by men -- and Ms Belkin's article further confirms this already established fact -- how do we justify the hatred and systemic biases that have instituted against men over the past 40 years?
These career women that Ms Belkin writes about (and among whom she includes herself) might as well have said "hey, we never meant it." Or perhaps, "lighten up guys, we were just joking." Or maybe, "it's a woman's prerogative to change her mind."
How do we interpret the past 40 years of feminist hatred against an entire gender -- men and boys, husbands and sons -- how is this justified? Why have so many women remained silent accomplices? Whatever happened to respect? This fabricated claim, that a glass ceiling had been instituted in some secret conspiracy by "The Patriarchy" to deny women opportunities in the workplace, is the basis for affirmative action. But Ms Belkin's article further confirms that all this was a malicious lie -- a lie that denied the efforts and contributions that have always been made by men and a lie against which so few women have spoken out. Even now, Ms Belkin does not speak out against the lie, but seeks only to justify the choices that she and others like her have made.
There never has been any such thing as a glass ceiling preventing women from getting ahead. There has always been chivalry, placing the burden upon men to be provider, cannon fodder and all-round chump-horse doing the bidding of women, entertaining women and fulfilling women's every whim.
Comments
http://www.heretical.com/sheppard/equal.html
Here's an interesting book on the subject.