Thursday, August 02, 2007

Double Standards

Here's some interesting news I read in the Star Tribune. In big cities, it seems that women's paychecks are outpacing men's:

The study by Queens College demographer Andrew A. Beveridge shows that all women from ages 21 to 30 living in New York City and working full time made 117 percent of men's wages, or a median wage of $35,653, and even more in Dallas, 120 percent. Nationwide, that group of women made much less: 89 percent of the average full-time pay for men. The findings were first reported in Gotham Gazette, published online by the Citizens Union Foundation.

The bad news for men?

Though the analysis showed women making strides, it also showed that men were in some ways moving backward. Among all men -- including those with college degrees -- real wages, adjusted for inflation, have declined since 1970. And among full-time workers with advanced degrees, wages for men increased only marginally even as they soared for women. Nationally, men's wages in general declined while women's remained the same.

The article quickly puts a kibosh on the good news for women by stating:

Typically, women have fallen further behind men in earnings as they get older. That is because some women stop working altogether, work only part time or encounter a glass ceiling in promotions and raises.

Well, if you stop working or work only part time, of course you don't make as much money--duh. What I find amusing or ridiculous--take your pick--is that many women's groups think women should make as much as men even if they have a family, don't work or work part-time. This is nothing but a sense of entitlement. And if women are single and working full time in the cities, then decide to have a family and move to small towns and work part-time or not at all, of course their wages will go down. That is called a trade-off, not necessarily discrimination.

If men's wages are declining, is this ever called discrimination? No, of couse not. Does anyone care about the reasons that men's wages declined while women's stayed the same? No, probably not. What I find interesting or perhaps hypocritical is that if women earn more than men, the reasons given are justified--smugly, women are seen as go-getters who have advanced degrees with the gumption to move to the big city to avoid the country bumpkins. But if men earn more, it is often because of rampant gender discrimation and not because of particular circumstances that would cause one to earn more such as working harder and longer hours, going where the opportunities are ripe etc. If women start to pull away from men in the earning department, I wonder if we will see any interest in helping men to increase their earnings? I won't hold my breath.
Ace has a very interesting post on The Toxic Self-Delusions of the Liberal Psychology. Read it.

Wednesday, August 01, 2007

Hanging Out with Austin Bay

Sooner or later, all roads lead to Knoxville, so Glenn and I were lucky to meet up for dinner with Colonel Austin Bay of and author of The Wrong Side of Brightness, who was on a whirlwind tour of the Southeast retracing the steps of his great, great grandfather who served in the Civil War. We interviewed him about his journey, American's fascination with the Civil War, and why many American universities no longer teach military history.

You can listen directly -- no downloading needed -- by going here and clicking on the gray Flash player. You can also download the file and listen at your leisure by clicking right here, and you can get a lo-fi version suitable for dialup by going here and selecting "lo-fi." And, of course, you can get a free subscription via iTunes -- never miss another episode!

This podcast was brought to you by Volvo USA. Music is by Doug Weinstein's band, XTemp. You can see our archives at

This podcast is sponsored by Volvo at Volvocars.US.


Tuesday, July 31, 2007

The New York Times on Albert Ellis

The New York Times had an article the other day on Albert Ellis entitled "Sex, Love and the Scolding Psychotherapist" (Hat Tip: Soccer Dad). The article had some poignant excepts from Ellis's previous books that caught my eye. From The Art and Science of Love:

Where one mate has strong prejudices in favor or against certain sex practices, the other partner should try to be unusually understanding and uncritical, even if the practices that are favored or disfavored seem to be outlandish. If the presumably more reasonable mate will at least give the “outlandish” procedures an honest try, he or she may find that they are really not as bad as they seem to be.

From How to Make Yourself Happy and Remarkably Less Disturbable:

If you are still very upset about being abused as a child, you are now, probably, irrationally thinking, “My early abuse absolutely should not have occurred!” “Such unfairness is awful and I can’t stand even thinking about it now!” “The people who abused me are completely rotten! I’m going to spend the rest of my life hating them and getting even with them, if it’s the last thing I do!”... These Irrational Beliefs will keep your original upsetness vividly alive — instead of letting it die a natural death, as disturbance gradually does if you don’t dwell on it and reinforce it by continual crooked thinking.

You can read more except's on Ellis's work here.

Ask Dr. Helen

My column is up at PJM:

Is everyone motivated by some sort of self-interest when they engage in an altruistic act? Does that mean no charity or volunteerism is truly noble? PJM advice columnist Dr. Helen Smith offers her opinion. (Hmmm, why is she offering it?)

Also, find out why some women are into serial sperm donors and more.

Monday, July 30, 2007

When Being a Boy Hurts

Several readers sent me this story of two thirteen year old boys who were charged with a felony for slapping girls' rear ends at a middle school:

Two 13-year-olds facing sex abuse charges for slapping the bottoms of girls in a school hallway probably won't do jail time or be required to register as sex offenders, according to Yamhill County, Ore., District Attorney Bradley Berry.

"From our perspective and the perspective of the victims, this was not just horseplay,'' Berry said. "People may disagree, and I understand that.''

But based on his experience in similar cases, he says it's unlikely the boys, if convicted, would be sentenced for the maximum jail time.

Each count carries a maximum one-year sentence. Lawyers for the boys say they also would face mandatory registration as sex offenders.

I saw one of the boys talking on Fox News last night about his experience and how he understood that what he did was wrong. There was also mention in this news story that girls were also participating in hitting the other student's rears, but apparently girls can only be represented as victims and never as perpetrator's of harassment.

Not that I am saying they should be. Middle schoolers hitting people's rears and engaging in other juvenile antics is as common as well, middle schoolers, and to criminalize juvenile behavior to the extent that a 13 year old boy is sitting in juvenile detention for five days for common (albeit stupid and offensive) behavior is in itself, criminal.

Update: Mark Steyn has more on this case (Hat Tip: Fred Ray).

Update II: Not related to the above post, but you can check out my column at PJM on why women hook up with serial sperm donors and altruism here.