Across the western world, feminists decry the existence of a 'wage gap' as an excuse for all kinds of discrimination against men, from spending initiatives of millions on educating females even though males are already doing worse, to legislation denying men the opportunity of advancing on merit. The 'wage gap' or 'pay gap' shows that when you total all of the gross pay to men who work full time (typically, 35 hours a week or more) and all of the gross pay to women who work full time, it shows that men are higher earners. This fact is then used to pretend that for the same job, or doing the same work, women are paid less even though there has been legislation against doing so for almost everyone's working life (and such legislation is used but not much).
When you take any two demographics and compare their incomes, you are almost certainly going to find a difference. The demographics could be Young people compared to old people;Coloured people compared to colourless people;Religious people compared to atheists;Women compared to men;Children of single parents compared to those from two-parent families.Or just about anything else you think of. There will almost certainly be a difference.
There is then a choice. Do you want to take a political/ideological position and pretend that the difference is 'obviously' due to discrimination against those earning more? Or do you want to take a scientific view and look into the reasons for why there is a difference.
Obviously, if you don't take into account the hours worked by the two groups (including overtime), you don't have a proper comparison. Likewise the average occupational danger (reflected in the proportion of workplace deaths, for example); or the average time in the same company; or whether one group tends to look for flexible working hours while the other tends to go for higher-paid but less flexible jobs; or a comparison of job risk
While I don't stand by all that some people who consider themselves to be in the Men's Rights Movement (MRM) say or do, it needs to be understood that if "Men's Rights Movement" has any meaning, it is a movement connected with the promotion of the rights of men.
People might believe that men have all the same rights as everyone else, in which case the MRM would be rather pointless. They might even think that whatever rights men don't have are rather unimportant (to them, anyway). But who could really object to the idea of men having rights? A movement to give men rights is about granting men the rights that other humans have, or that are supposed to be theirs already according to documents such as the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, or the European Human Rights Charter, or the Pacific Island Human Rights Accord, or simply those rights that are supposedly everyone's according to their country's constitution. Only A Men-Hater Could Hate The Idea Of Men Having Rights
How could a Human Rights movement be claimed to be about hate other than by people who hate the humans being cared about?
Movements for rights of black people were called hate movements by those who hated blacks, especially white supremacists.
Movements for rights of religious people were (and are) called hate movements by those who hate religion, especially pagan or atheist supremacists.
Movements for rights of male people (men and boys) are now called hate movements by those who hate males, especially female supremacists.
Nothing seems to change. Hate groups exist. Movements arise to offset the hate group and get labelled themselves a hate group. It should be no big surprise that there are people who want to brand the Human Rights for men movement as a hate group.
In the UK at the moment there is a lot of justified rage at the way men are continuing to be discriminated against on state pension. Since 1946, there has been deliberate discrimination that set the age that men get a pension from the state at five years higher (65) than women (60) even though women have always lived longer. The gender death gap has increased since 1946, largely due to unequal gender health expenditure that now enables women to have an average life six years longer than men.
The UK government currently have a 'plan' to equalise the ages by 2018 but they have already shown a willingness to back-peddle on this date and have allowed the equalisation of retirement ages to be later and later. The mathematics of discrimination
I'm now going to explain why women having the same retirement age as men is NOT equality. My proof for this is based on the United Kingdom but I believe much the same result would come from looking at any other country's data.
Working from government statistics (197Kb - Xls) for the year 2008 (the latest year that nationwide statistics are available) it can be calculated that the average age of adult male death is 74 years and six weeks. Similarly, the average age of adult female death is 80 years and four weeks. So, for all but two weeks, the difference is that women outlive men by six years. (If we look at the difference based on average age of death of child and adult, the gap widens to over six years.)
The voting age; the ages of compulsory education; the age when people must start paying taxes and National Insurance (supposedly, state pension fund): all of these have affected the genders the same way for almost everyone alive today.
At a retirement age of 66, the average life expectancy after retirement is:
Males: 8.1 years
Females: 14.1 years
This means that the proportion of
Updated 14th-June-2012 at 06:56 AM by Douglas
antimisandry.com is a voluntary-sector organisation supported mainly by member reader donations.
If you wish to reduce the advertisements, sign up and log on as a registered member.