"The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.”
Carpe Diem blog: "Single, Childless Women Now Earn MORE Than Men: Do We Really Need MORE Federal Legislation?" (via News Alert):
In 2009, the Consad Research Corporation conducted a comprehensive study on the gender wage gap for the Department of Labor, and produced a 95-page report titled “An Analysis of the Reasons for the Disparity in Wages Between Men and Women” ....
The study concludes that “the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.”
Labels: men's issues
posted by Helen at 2:03 PM
38 Comments:
It's wort noting that the study mentioned was immediately deep-sixed by the Obama crew after the inauguration -- as in, it disappeared from the DOL's website within a matter of days.
Nothing like denying the truth when it's politically inconvenient.
This is far from the first study to conclude that, but lefties and feminazis will continue to claim that "women aren't paid as much as men for the same work". Facts don't matter; only the narrative matters.
It's amazing how this women get paid less myth persists. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that it's bullshit. I'm really tired of hearing about how much teh wimminz need help; frankly, it's getting embarrassing.
I don't know anything about the Consad group, and whether it's an advocacy organization or partisan, but the findings sure comport with the reality I see.
Women have never wanted equality. They want the jobs and titles, they want equal pay, but like any entitled class (like aristocracy), on the average they've never actually wanted equal work, which is the tricky part.
In my office, a manager has just had a health emergency that will unexpectedly keep him out of action for a few months. The timing is terrible because of the holidays, of course. To compensate, we had one guy postpone a vacation week, and three of us are altering our schedules, our duties and are working extra hours.
The women? Too busy to help out. Among the affected management level, four are men and three are women. All of the brainstorming ideas for how to make it work came from, and involved work for, men. Anyone shocked by that?
I constantly see things about how women earn less than men (and I do think it's due to choices and not discrimination), but why don't I EVER read about the other side: Women get a transfer of money that men don't get in marriage (or even dating). The customary flow of money is from men to women.
No one ever discusses that. And it is substantial. I know several women who have hardly worked in their lives who are substantially rich.
Why is that never discussed?
My wife earned two degrees, in English, so she could be a teacher. I'm a land surveyor, at the top of my form, own a successful business, and work long hours in the (often) blazing sun.
Guess which one of us earns a lot of money. Is that really a discrepancy that needs correcting?
But you see, the fact that people are even forced to MAKE any choices is equivalent to oppression. Saying someone can't have everything they want is like saying they can't have both food AND air....
My sister teaches courses for students wanting to follow the "financial planner" career course at the University of Utah. She's said for years now that there are studies out already showing that when allowing for life-choices, men and women in the same positions do in fact have unequal pay -- the women earn more. She always leads into that by saying "the wage gap is a myth" and then going on to explain the studies she's seen.
She will be the 1st to allow that life choices change it all, but when a man and a woman have equal experience and the same job description, the woman almost invariably makes 10-15% *more* than the man does.
I am glad that truth in the pay gap myth is finally coming to light....that the pay gap favors women, not men.
Here is my analysis, to add to that already presented here, in support of such an assertion.
"Women get a transfer of money that men don't get in marriage (or even dating). The customary flow of money is from men to women."
Other transferring activities: WIC, welfare, health research government grants, and social security, in which women's 7-yr life span advantage means they reap more than men from the system, even though men contribute far more to it than women.
"Women get a transfer of money that men don't get in marriage (or even dating). The customary flow of money is from men to women."
---
An interesting study would be to compare how much work men do vis-a-vis how much they get in terms of a lifestyle. And then compare the same thing for women.
Feminists are approaching the "wage gap" in terms of society not being fair. It seems to me that if you want to determine if society is fair, you look at the OVERALL monetary picture.
And that's why a politically incorrect study like the one I suggested above probably won't be done. I can already guess the answer.
Men who work in sewers and mines and up on telephone poles have a lower lifestyle in many cases than women who don't work at all.
And that's fair?
I'll bet that once I point that out feminists will be chomping at the bit to correct that societal inequality.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Isn't it unsurprising how the major media isn't reporting on this?
An interesting study would be to compare how much work men do vis-a-vis how much they get in terms of a lifestyle. And then compare the same thing for women.
I believe studies like these have been done. I think Warren Farrell used them in his book. At the very least, I know he's discussed that fact in interviews about his book.
Since I haven't participated in marriage or dating, and since I haven't had kids, does this mean I'm due some compensation for not using all me female-type benefits? Is there a form I should be filling out?
:)
Good one banshee!
I had a day off and went shopping and was the only working age male I saw all day that was not working at a store.
How can it be that ALL the other shoppers were women if America is so unfair to them?
It can't be.
Trey
Feminist want money the Government is giving them and they want it to keep coming year after year. Government is using the Feminist to accomplish their goals keeping americans fighting and off balance. This way they can take our rights away and we will be to busy fighting each other to stop the corrupt government from taking total control over us! People that can't see this need to wake up. But, I fear they know it and are to greedy to stop helping them kill us as long as the money keeps flowing. This is short sightedness as it's best. God Help Us!!!!!
Years ago I saw an episode of Donahue on which the feminists started moving the goalposts from "equal pay for equal work" to "equal pay for comparable work". They were complaining that jobs traditionally held by women (like elementary school teacher) were paid less than jobs traditionally held by men (like garbage collector). They couldn't make the claim that female teachers were paid less than male teachers, but since we entrust our Precious Snowflakes™ to teachers, that makes the job at least as important as garbage collector. Then it's just a hop, skip, and a jump to the conclusion that the reason the teachers are underpaid is sexism.
If garbage collectors make more money than teachers, the teachers ought to go apply for the garbage collector job. Why don't they? Could it be the fact that school teachers normally get to work in air-conditioned and heated buildings, where their nice clothes will stay clean, for 9 months out of the year, with most summers off (except for when they take continuing ed classes), while the garbage collectors work year round, up before the crack of dawn freezing their butts off or roasting in triple-digit temps under the full force of the noonday sun, are subject to substantial risk of injury (including bites from rabid animals scavenging the garbage), and by the end of a shift they smell like the funkiest thing anyone's had in their trash for a week.... Naaah. Womyns are getting screwed by Teh Patriarchy!
In 2009 93% of work place fatalities were men. Maybe women are under-represented in some occupations and fields because they simply aren't interested in those fields? Why don't we recognize that women excel in some fields, and men in others. To deny a person because of their gender or race is wrong, just as promoting a person for those reasons is equally wrong.
Isn't it unsurprising how the major media isn't reporting on this?
I actually saw this reported on ABC News. I haven't seen it anywhere else, though.
The practice of paying more and more to women despite low productivity is the reason outsourcing of US jobs happen.
India and China do not require businesses to waste tons of money on feminism. Hence, businesses save money by moving jobs there.
See how simple it is? Don't get mad at Indian and Chinese workers for living in a country without absurd feminism. Instead grow a pair and confront feminists.
Why is that never discussed?
Simple. Because :
a) Women have no sense of fairness, reciprocity, or hesitations against hypocrisy.
b) Most men are too cowardly to hold women accountable for what they would never let a man get away with.
Google 'The Misandry Bubble', and read that.
KMG
Most men are too cowardly to hold women accountable for what they would never let a man get away with.
I correct you, that Most men that are able to and are in power to do anything about it are to cowardly to hold women accountable.
Which are elected officials and people in charge of paying the Feminist.
Most of us can only fight it on every day levels with women and some men that side with them.
Sad-Dad,
I would agree with you if I say 100 men protesting for father's rights.
Divorce laws are brutally rigged against dads, and clearly violate at least 2 parts of the US constitution.
So where are the protests of even 100 men??
The moral of this story is women are better off not getting married and not having kids. On another note, our friend Teen Mom is in a pile-o-trouble.
Correction : If I SAW 100 men protesting...
Cham : You meant MEN, not women. Women are biologically driven to have kids, and women with kids are always happier than women without.
It is MEN for whom marriage had been made unattractive in America, not women.
...per kmg's last post:
"Marriage is the beginning of a woman's dreams, and the end of a man's."
"Most men are too cowardly to hold women accountable for what they would never let a man get away with."
------------
Yup.
Nope.
If you need a woman, then you're not going to hold them accountable.
If you don't need woman, then you don't care.
The problem is that Men need Women far more than Women need Men.
Yup.
I think you are among the uninitiated ... think it through once again ....
If you need a woman, then you're not going to hold them accountable.
If you don't need woman, then you don't care.
The problem is that Men need Women far more than Women need Men.
That is exactly, completely 100% wrong.
Women are far more dependent on men than the reverse.
Plus, holding women accountable actually turns them on, while sucking up to them repels women. Pickup artists have mastered these concepts.
You have no idea how women think. And no, being a woman does not mean you know how women think - quite the opposite in fact.
kmg's posts remind me of a conversation I had a couple years ago in NJ with old friends.
Trying to fix me up on a date, my old friend (the wife, but not mine) gave me a lecture (a silly one) on what women look for in a man. I asked her how she'd know that.
"I'm a woman!"
"Okay," I replied. "That's just swell. Now tell me how many women you've ever dated in your life."
Stunned-deer-in-headlights-look on her face.
"Thanks ever so much for playing. Johnny has your parting gifts in the Green Room."
I'll spare you the finer calculus, but kmg's last post is 100% correct. And if you don't think sucking up to women makes them think they're dealing with a lesbian with a penis, read "No More Mr Nice Guy" by Robert Glover. Just chapter 1 and 2.
Whenever a man thinks he's being warm and endearing, she probably sees him acting needy, clingy, desperate and approval-seeking (George Castanza Syndrome). And boy does that turn them OFF!
Addendum: I don't give the entertainer "Doc Love" much credibility, but he does make one valid point.
Stating that a man should NEVER take relationship advice from a woman, he said his own research is directed toward studying the men with whom women will stay for long periods, even life-long.
Women say they like humor, style, romance, thoughtfulness, etc, etc. But the men with whom they remain for their entire lives exude four things: safety, security, strength and stability (and do so consistently).
Look at the list of things women say they like in a man, and list the characteristics of men who keep their women forever.
Two totally different lists. Small wonder so many men are baffled by women; women broadcast anything but what they actually want and love in men. And feminism has made them ashamed of admitting it.
Kevin M,
Yep. In fact, there is a whole body of knowledge devoted to men studying this and internalizing it. It is fascinating, even from an academic point of view.
It is called 'Game' or 'The Venusian Arts'. Google it. Google also for Roissy's 'Sixteen Commandments of Poon.'. You'll have a great time with those reads.
I often get a kick out of telling women 'You don't understand how women think'. After initial resistance, they actually don't protest my statement much, given that they actually get turned on by such authoritative confidence.
In reality, a woman is no more capable of discussing female psychology, than a 12-year-old is capable of writing a textbook on child psychology. Think about that for a minute...
Then the writings and instruction manuals created by top pickup artists really reveal themselves to be brilliant.
I often get a kick out of telling women 'You don't understand how women think'. After initial resistance, they actually don't protest my statement much, given that they actually get turned on by such authoritative confidence.
Well, that's certainly one interpretation!
In reality, a woman is no more capable of discussing female psychology, than a 12-year-old is capable of writing a textbook on child psychology. Think about that for a minute...
OK, let's think about that statement.
A 12 year old is generally considered incapable of writing a textbook on child psychology because:
1. He/she is still a child with a child's knowledge, experience, and understanding.
2. Textbooks are generally written by (adult) professionals who have extensive education, training, and experience in the field in question.
So... what, exactly, qualifies you to discuss female psychology authoritatively? Are you a woman (in which case you might be considered to have direct experience in how at least some women think)? No.
Are you trained in the field of psychology? Again, no.
Ohhhh... wait! You hang around pickup artist sites and quote universally respected sources like "The 16 Commandment of Poon".
Unbelievable.
safety, security, strength and stability.
do those four things well, firstly for yourself, and then on offer in a relationship with a woman, and you will have loyalty.
and comparing most women with a child nails it, pretty much.
who else fantasises about spending thousands (tens of thousands...) on shoes, hair, nails, trips and special occasions and expects someone else to pay or split the bill?
the narcissistic psychopath (hair and nails types) hates the discussion or even the idea of the pick-up artist information because it blows thier game right out of the water.
i am a certified nlp practitioner and hypntherapist and the majortity of pick-up methodology comes from those disciplines. it teaches men to be able to check thier state before being tripped up by women and end up paying for dinner, drinks and trips and get dumped for the man who quickly claims thier position with her.
Frilly, that was a pathetic and deliberate reframing of kmg's post, and you made it just to make yourself look more than you evidently are.
I would be the first to admit that, as a man, my "average" level of self-awareness, scant familiarity with over 100,000 years of evolutionary biology, my absence of a Ph.D. in human anthropology, no 30 year history as a family therapist and marriage counselor all conspire to make me laughably inept at knowing "how a man thinks" when he's engaging in a romantic relationship.
I just know tits turn me on, and pray all else falls into place.
And kmg's example of a child not being able to write a book on child psychology is precisely the same thing.
Look at women's magazines to see skank culture writ large. As soon as a girl turns 17, she learns more BJ techniques than a streetwalker. As far as PUA sites are concerned, if men listened only to women on the subject of relationships, we'd have gone extinct long ago. No, I don't consider them the kind of reading Frasier and Niles Crane would recommend to their patients, but they sure as hell beat women's magazines and Oprah Winfrey in the intelligence department. BY A MILE!
Your uncharitable nitpicking and self-congratulation are pathetic.
As for women, I only can retell my experience with my ex-wife. She was not happy, had not been happy for a number of years before she finally admitted it. She had previously stated that "If she had had any where to go, she would have left." (An admission of a true lack of independence and gumption. The only reason she didn't leave is she didn't have somewhere to go?) A few years later, after admitting how unhappy she was with her life, her life with me and me, she said the same thing. I said, "No problem. I'll leave." Once she saw I was sincere, she wanted to "work on the relationship." Her solution to our problems? I should toughen up and not let her criticism of me bother me so much, and we, or I, should do more to make her happy. After a few months, she complained that we hadn't done enough to make her happy. (The therapist recommended two books to the ex.She got one. I asked about the other. She said "Oh, well if you order $25 or more of books from Amazon, shipping is free. I was waiting for the book order to be larger so we wouldn't have to pay $4.95 shipping. An "lol" is appropriate here.) It was all about her.
Reason #4 for writing poetry: It is cold and lonely here: a) without you, or b) with you.
Frilly,
Yep. Men who study seduction techniques are vastly, vastly more capable of accurately describing how women think than most women are.
That is why men who listen to pickup artists get results, while men who take advice from women don't get results.
There are a fair number of women who actually admit this.
For starters, sometimes women flake out of dates, leaving a guy stood up. A woman might not know even 2 hours before the date that she will flake out, and thus CANNOT PREDICT EVEN HER OWN BEHAVIOR, but the pickup artist knows how to pretty fairly assess the chances of the woman flaking, and how to minimize these chances.
So yes, my point stands. You have a long way to go before you understand how women think.
Post a Comment
<< Home