Please register or sign in to remove these advertisements.
  • Wage Gap Myth... women execs actually earn MORE than men, not less.

    As much as feminists love to parrot the statistic that women earn only 76 cents on the male dollar, they rarely bother to provide an explanation or solid evidence for this claim. But fortunately a smart new book has hit the shelves just in time for Equal Pay Day to help them out.

    Equal pay for equal work has been enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act since it was made law in 1972. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also ban sex-based wage discrimination. So it seems pretty remarkable that the wage gap is so wide and pervasive even today. Attorneys should be having a field day with class-action lawsuits. But they are not. Could it be that even the legal establishment is complicit in this glaringly obvious patriarchal conspiracy?

    The 76-cent statistic (now actually 80 cents, according to the U.S. Census Bureau) is misleading because it is a raw comparison of all working men and women. Thus a female receptionist working 40-hour weeks is tossed in with the male orthopedic surgeon putting in 70-hour weeks.

    A study of the gender wage gap conducted by economist June O' Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that women earn 98 percent of what men do when controlled for experience, education, and number of years on the job.

    Warren Farrell, three-time board of directors member of the National Organization for Women New York City, exhaustively debunks the wage gap myth in his book "Why Men Earn More." Farrell documents occupations requiring bachelor's degrees in which women's starting salaries actually exceed men's. Female investment bankers and dieticians, for example, can expect to earn 116 percent to 130 percent of their male counterparts' salaries.

    The real reason than men tend to out-earn women is the choices they make. Men are far more likely to take unpleasant and dangerous jobs, what Farrell calls the "death and exposure professions." For example, firefighting, truck driving, mining and logging -- to name just a few high-risk jobs -- are all more than 95 percent male. Conversely, low risk jobs like secretarial work and childcare are more than 95 percent female.

    Farrell points out that in California, prison guards can earn $70,000 per year plus full medical benefits and retire after thirty years with a hefty retirement package. But it takes little imagination to figure out why California still has a difficult time staffing its prisons, and it goes without saying that most prison guards are male. Says Farrell, "As with most jobs, there's an inverse relationship between fulfillment and pay."

    Because men are more likely to take jobs that are unpleasant, dangerous or dull in exchange for higher pay, they reap the financial benefit. Farrell summarizes this phenomenon this way: "Jobs that expose you to the sleet and the heat pay more than those that are indoors and neat."
    Men have always supported women having equal pay - feminists lie by pretending men support inequality to women's detriment. Instead, we keep seeing feminists supporting inequalities to men's detriment.
    Another reason women's average earnings are less than men's is that they take more time out of the workforce for care-giving. Women, more so than men, adjust their work schedules to accommodate their families, and in poll after poll, they express a preference to do so.

    "Well, why can't men and women share domestic responsibilities 50-50 so women will be just as free and unencumbered as men are?" the conventional feminist argument goes. Such an arrangement is unrealistic as it requires both husband and wife to work part-time. Couples typically find it easiest for each partner to specialize and make the sacrifices required to sustain the family.

    Scholars can debate whether it is societal pressure or innate desire that makes women elect to spend more time with their children. But so long as these decisions are a reflection of women's expressed preferences, this isn't a problem that needs to be solved.

    Arrah Nielsen is a junior fellow at IWF.

    Independent Women's Forum - Gender Wage Gap Is Feminist Fiction
    This article was originally published in forum thread: Wage Gap Myth... women execs actually earn MORE than men, not less. started by Marx View original post
    Comments 55 Comments
    1. shaazam's Avatar
      shaazam -
      if wimyn are only getting a percentage of the wages or salaries that men earn for the same work why would not an employer exclusivley have female employees and save 24% of his major operating cost - the wage overhead

      what is the feminit spin to explain this !
    1. julie's Avatar
      julie -
      Thanks for sharing this.
    1. paul parmenter's Avatar
      paul parmenter -
      None of this is new, the reasons for the wage gap have been explained many times and anyone who does the research knows it is down to women's choices, not discrimination. But the myth is perpetuated by the feminazis because they have to keep portraying women as victims; and having made such huge capital out of their lies, they dare not admit them because that would expose their deceit. So they have locked themselves into perpetuating the myth in the teeth of the evidence. A pathetic and nauseating spectacle.

      But it is always good to expose their lies and remind ourselves of the mindset of those who are trying to deceive us.
    1. savethemales's Avatar
      savethemales -
      Ive had this discussion with several women and they believe the lies of feminists, even when I show them sources. They are blind to truth and logic and arguing is futile. It's another reason I don't want to be with women. Men are much better to talk to, much more logical and reasonable. Alot of the reasons men talk to women has to do with their sexual needs.
    1. julie's Avatar
      julie -
      Quote Originally Posted by savethemales View Post
      Ive had this discussion with several women and they believe the lies of feminists, even when I show them sources. They are blind to truth and logic and arguing is futile. It's another reason I don't want to be with women. Men are much better to talk to, much more logical and reasonable. Alot of the reasons men talk to women has to do with their sexual needs.
      I think you're right - well, of course you are, you're a man, you know.

      A week ago a woman at a party I attended turned around and said men must resent their sexual desire for women. That's really sad.
    1. savethemales's Avatar
      savethemales -
      Quote Originally Posted by julie View Post
      I think you're right - well, of course you are, you're a man, you know.

      A week ago a woman at a party I attended turned around and said men must resent their sexual desire for women. That's really sad.
      If I had sexual desire for women(im not gay), id resent that because it only complicates life when you make it your mission to get laid as much as possible. I don't think with my dick, but with my brain and it's telling me to be a MGTOW.
    1. MikeT's Avatar
      MikeT -
      Marx,
      I happened to be reading our local paper last week some time and there was an article about a woman who had left her job a couple of years ago to have a child and now wants to get back into the work-force.
      She used to be an Office Administrator (read "Secretary") before she left, things aren't quite the same on returning to work though, you have a lot more people out of work these days.
      It was pretty much a whinge about how hard done-by she thinks she is.
      I quote from the article (sorry it isn't on-line) :

      "I found my return to work an up-hill battle, I thought that I could get myself a reasonably good job, but no, it all seems to be about qualifications these days.
      I was at this interview and the guy there asked me what qualifications I had, it made me feel very uncomfortable, I never did get that job".

      "It seems like all of a sudden (M. 2 years+), you have to sell your soul to get a job, it's really unfair, I thought I would slot right back into the work-force.
      I reckon I'm going to have to look for work that could be lower paid or harder work".


      How many of you folks have ever been to a job interview, where you have NOT been asked about your experience and qualifications??
      Thinking like this makes me want to go and apply for a kick-arse job on $150K+ as a surgeon.

      Wow, imagine having to work harder for less money??!!
      I know guys at the chip factory where I do electrical work, that stack 18kg boxes of bagged french fries onto pallets, all manual work, they get paid just over minimum wage.

      See, this is the one thing that pisses me off about some office workers, you get a nice climate controlled office, get to sit down all day, laugh and carry on with your office mates, maybe even spend a few hours on Facebook and get a nice flash title like Systems Administrator.
      I'd be amazed to see what some of the REAL productivity levels out of these offices actually is, I honestly doubt it's up there with the guy on lower wages doing more work.

      Just my opinion.
    1. Marx's Avatar
      Marx -
      Hmm, well - I was out of work for a good while due to several factors; having been abroad for a while (immigration forbids working for several months), returned home and looked after sick mother (carer) until she passed away, then looked after my sister who was suffering depression and bad nerves (we actually helped each other a lot in many ways, it wasn't one-sided at all), and then went to college for a year...

      Try explaining a four year break from work! That's selling yourself.

      Each job wanted to know everything about every moment I was out of work. Eventually I did get a job, but it was a real hard job getting a job. Still, at least the woman in the above article didn't cry about sexism (when there clearly is none).
    1. Incognito's Avatar
      Incognito -
      Am I the only one who's SICK TO DEATH of the whole wage-gap debate? Even if prejudice/discrimination IS a part of the gap, how can anyone really prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt? The debate could go on forever, and probably will...but I'm tired of it. I'm not even going to get into what my thoughts are on it except to comment on this quote from the article posted by Marx:

      "Scholars can debate whether it is societal pressure or innate desire that makes women elect to spend more time with their children. But so long as these decisions are a reflection of women's expressed preferences, this isn't a problem that needs to be solved."

      I think that as long as there is a discrepancy that adversely affects, in the long run, the well being of children, then there IS a problem that needs to be solved. How to solve it is yet another matter of debate.
    1. Marx's Avatar
      Marx -
      Quote Originally Posted by Incognito View Post
      I think that as long as there is a discrepancy that adversely affects, in the long run, the well being of children, then there IS a problem that needs to be solved. How to solve it is yet another matter of debate.
      I don't disagree with this... What I disagree with is the feminist need to persistently blame men and paint women as victims of an imagined discrimination. Hiding behind children might win a battle in the short term, but as we're starting to see in other areas - it won't win any long term support.
    1. byslexic_danana's Avatar
      byslexic_danana -
      Wow, possibly a post of Tera's I quite like.

      Quote Originally Posted by Incognito View Post
      Am I the only one who's SICK TO DEATH of the whole wage-gap debate?
      No, you're not; try telling feminists this.

      Quote Originally Posted by Incognito View Post
      Even if prejudice/discrimination IS a part of the gap, how can anyone really prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt?
      More over, they CERTAINLY can't prove that it's ALL down to discrimination. But, hey, these are feminists, who perpetuate the myth, and we all know that feminists are above having to actually provide EVIDENCE to substantiate their claims, don't we? Anyone who questions this is just "misogynistic"!

      Quote Originally Posted by Incognito View Post
      I think that as long as there is a discrepancy that adversely affects, in the long run, the well being of children, then there IS a problem that needs to be solved. How to solve it is yet another matter of debate.
      Killing feminism would be a solution to the problem.
    1. Tyrael's Avatar
      Tyrael -
      Where is info about executive pay in the article?
    1. Marx's Avatar
      Marx -
      Quote Originally Posted by Tyrael View Post
      Where is info about executive pay in the article?
      Farrell documents occupations requiring bachelor's degrees in which women's starting salaries actually exceed men's. Female investment bankers and dieticians, for example, can expect to earn 116 percent to 130 percent of their male counterparts' salaries.
    1. Unregistered's Avatar
      Unregistered -
      This doesn't make much sense, and ignores the underlying issues. A gender can't make a "choice". I don't think the issue is in terms of jobs outright singling out women but because of deeper cultural reasons. The reasoning here is also atrocious. Women earning more in certain jobs means little to nothing if the overall trend is they earn less.

      I honestly believe as long as such a large majority of CEOs and politicans are male, you have no right to complain about things like this.
    1. Marx's Avatar
      Marx -
      Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
      This doesn't make much sense, and ignores the underlying issues.
      Actually, it's feminists who promote that the wage-gap is discrimination's fault that aren't making sense and ignore the underlying issues. This article demonstrates some of the reasoning outside of discrimination - the reasons that feminists continually ignore and marginalize in favour of pretending it's all men's fault.

      Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
      A gender can't make a "choice". I don't think the issue is in terms of jobs outright singling out women but because of deeper cultural reasons. The reasoning here is also atrocious. Women earning more in certain jobs means little to nothing if the overall trend is they earn less.
      I tend to agree... tell this to feminists when they blame the male gender for whatever is upsetting them that day, that you "can't blame a gender as a gender isn't entirely responsible for individuals' choices"

      Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
      I honestly believe as long as such a large majority of CEOs and politicans are male, you have no right to complain about things like this.
      Who is complaining? Do you class giving other reasons as 'complaining'? No one in this thread has complained that "women make more than men in xyz area - waaah it's unfair" - yet go to feminist sites and that is precisely what they do ... complain about men doing different jobs which pay better, as if it's our fault that women opt out of certain jobs.
    1. Celtic Druid's Avatar
      Celtic Druid -
      Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
      I honestly believe as long as such a large majority of CEOs and politicans are male, you have no right to complain about things like this.
      Sounds like you've bought into the despairing male vs female argument, which strays away from how corporations (really) operate and will exploit 99% of the population regardless of sex. The CEOs of these ruthless and soulless corporations could mostly comprise of short people, democrats, dog lovers, amputees etc. The point being corporations define direction and CEOs in productive outcomes. They're greedy fucks, they couldn't give a damn about sex or whatever description you give yourself as long as the profits are maximized. All this talk of numbers of men and women is the prattle of the uniformed.

      As for politicians, which is what I've mentioned elsewhere: politicians of all parties will obediently sing from the same gynocentric hymnsheet in order to secure the precious female vote. So having more or less men in politics is irrelevant. More men in gynocentric politics only means another transvestite in the making who'll spout the required agitprop as required to ensure men's concerns are sidelined.
    1. oz20x6's Avatar
      oz20x6 -
      Ungregistered is either trolling or ignorant. How many men are in politics is completely irrelevant, especially considering women are the voting majority.
    1. Marx's Avatar
      Marx -
      Quote Originally Posted by oz20x6 View Post
      Ungregistered is either trolling or ignorant. How many men are in politics is completely irrelevant, especially considering women are the voting majority.
      I agree, but it's often the *only* argument they have - more men in politics = discrimination, even though it is women's vote these politicians pander for, and it is women who vote in these men and it is also women who opt-out of running politically.
    1. byslexic_danana's Avatar
      byslexic_danana -
      This doesn't make much sense, and ignores the underlying issues.
      You just described feminism.

      A gender can't make a "choice". I don't think the issue is in terms of jobs outright singling out women but because of deeper cultural reasons.
      What, such as women CHOOSING to take lengthy career breaks, perhaps?
    1. Nikonian's Avatar
      Nikonian -
      One of the main problems merely is that Rosie refuses to be a riveter. She wants to be a sociologist instead...
    Comments Leave Comment

    Click here to log in

    spell "miss andry" correctly

1e2 Forum

LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO