Sexual Wage Gap "An Urban Myth"
Masculist
Gordon Finley Phd wrote:
"What Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Maloney and the National Organization for Women
overlook is the reality that men and women differ from one another not
only in mean and median total income but also in number of hours
worked per week, danger and travel requirements of their jobs, years
of education, years in the field, and many other characteristics. The
more pay-relevant job characteristics that are entered into the
analysis of covariance, the smaller the purported pay gap becomes
until it vanishes."
The pay gap is actually expanding in women's favor at the lower ends
of the economy...
Tom
-------------
This is a bit off the core topic of this group but is relevant to the
broader movement.
Gordon
---------
The Disappearing Gender Pay Gap
The letter below was published in The Washington Post on Monday, April
16, 2007 responding to a letter by Sen. Edward Kennedy and Rep.
Carolyn Maloney. They, in turn, were responding to a column by George
Will. All follow below.
Gordon
----------
http://www.washingt onpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/ article/2007/ 04/15/
AR20070415 00780.html
The Disappearing Gender Pay Gap
Monday, April 16, 2007 ; A16
While politically correct, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Rep.
Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) are statistically incorrect [letters,
April 8]. Two quite different statistical techniques -- sample
matching and analysis of covariance -- have both revealed as an urban
myth the statement that women earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by
men.
What Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Maloney and the National Organization for Women
overlook is the reality that men and women differ from one another not
only in mean and median total income but also in number of hours
worked per week, danger and travel requirements of their jobs, years
of education, years in the field, and many other characteristics. The
more pay-relevant job characteristics that are entered into the
analysis of covariance, the smaller the purported pay gap becomes
until it vanishes.
GORDON E. FINLEY
Miami
-----------
http://www.washingt onpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/ article/2007/ 04/07/
AR20070407 00819.html
A Needed Amendment for Women's Rights
Sunday, April 8, 2007 ; B06
George F. Will's vitriolic April 1 column, "The Return of That '70s
Thing," which rejected the constitutional amendment we have proposed
regarding equal rights for women, ignored the strong case that the
amendment is needed to guarantee that the Constitution applies equally
to men and women. From our nation's beginning, women have had to wage
a constant and difficult battle to win the basic rights granted to
men. That battle continues today.
Despite enactment of equal pay and civil rights laws, discrimination
against women still permeates the workforce and parts of the economy.
Today, women earn only 77 cents for each dollar men earn, and the gap
is greater for minorities. In 2004, African American women earned only
67 percent of the earnings of white men, and Hispanic women earned
only 56 percent.
Women with college and professional degrees have achieved advances in
many professional and managerial occupations in recent years. Yet more
than 60 percent of working women are clustered in a narrow range of
traditionally female, traditionally lower-paying jobs, and households
headed by women still make up the bulk of the bottom rungs of the
economic ladder.
A stronger effort is needed to finally meet our commitment to full
equality. A constitutional amendment alone cannot remedy all
discrimination, but it will strengthen women's efforts to obtain equal
treatment.
EDWARD M. KENNEDY
U.S. Senator (D-Mass.)
CAROLYN B. MALONEY
U.S. Representative (D-N.Y.)
Washington
-----------
http://www.washingt onpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/ article/2007/ 03/30/
AR20070330 01924.html
The Return Of That '70s Thing
By George F. Will
Sunday, April 1, 2007 ; B07
Liberals, dolled up in love beads and bell-bottom trousers, have had
another bright idea, one as fresh as other 1970s fads. Sens. Ted
Kennedy and Barbara Boxer and Reps. Carolyn Maloney and Jerrold
Nadler, high-octane liberals all, have asked Congress to improve the
Constitution by adding the Women's Equality Amendment, which, like the
Equal Rights Amendment before it, says: "Equality of rights under the
law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any
state on account of sex."
Although it was first introduced in Congress in 1923, the ERA went
nowhere until March 22, 1972 . Then Congress sent it to the states to
be ratified or rejected by March 22, 1979 , the standard seven years
stipulated to ensure that there is a contemporaneous consensus for any
constitutional change.
Thirty-five years ago, as now, the argument for the amendment was a
pastiche of peculiar thoughts: It was needed to "put women into the
Constitution" and for the expressive function of "raising the nation's
consciousness. " March 1972 was a year after the Supreme Court cited
the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment when invalidating a
law that involved discrimination on the basis of sex. And March 1972
was 10 months before the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade.
The full inclusion of women in America 's regime of rights was
accomplished in the 20th century without an ERA, a constitutional
redundancy that would have added nothing to the guarantees of equal
protection of the laws and due process for all "persons." And what
mature person thinks the Constitution should be cluttered with
consciousness- raising pieties or affirmations, on the theory that, by
some mysterious causality, the social climate will be improved?
Beginning March 22, 1972 , many state legislators -- mostly men --
acted cavalierly, in several senses of that word. Hawaii ratified the
ERA that day, in 32 minutes. The next day Nebraska ratified it, but so
hastily that it made mistakes and had to repeat the process. Six
states ratified in the first week, 20 within three months, most
without hearings.
But by 1977, the drive had stalled. Thirty-five states had ratified
it, three short -- not really; read on -- of the required three-
fourths. So ERA supporters, their constitutional carelessness apparent
in the ERA itself, turned to rigging the ratification process.
They asked Congress to extend by three years the time allowed for
ratification -- although the first 10 amendments (the Bill of Rights)
had required only 27 months and no amendment had to that point
required even four years. In doing so, Congress disregarded the
constitutional morality that an amendment should succeed only if a
predetermined period of deliberation produces a consensus that is (in
the Supreme Court's words) "sufficiently contemporaneous" to reflect
the will of three-fourths of the states "at relatively the same
period."
ERA supporters insisted that any state legislature that rejected the
ERA could reconsider that vote, but any ratification, however slapdash
or stale, is a sacramental act that can never be reconsidered. Under
the Constitution' s Article V, properly read, Congress is divested of
all power over an amendment once it is submitted to the states. But
when Congress extended the ratification period, it stipulated that the
ERA could henceforth be considered only by states that had not yet
ratified it. This was because three state legislatures had rescinded
their ratifications, as Kentucky and South Dakota would later do. So
the amendment actually fell eight, not three, states short.
Most debates about proposed amendments concern whether the amendments
are necessary or would be beneficial. Debate about the ERA has always
concerned what it might mean. For example, would it forbid treating
the sexes differently in pension and insurance plans because of
actuarial data about sex-related differences in health problems and
life expectancy? Presumably, judges would, over time, tell the nation
what it had ratified.
All amendments generate litigation, but the ERA's purpose is to
generate litigation. It is a device to get courts to impose social
policies that supporters of the policies cannot persuade legislatures
to enact. ERA -- now WEA -- supporters, being politically lazy, prefer
the shortcut of litigation to the patient politics necessary to pass
legislation.
If Kennedy and like-minded legislators think that the condition of
American women needs improvements, they should try to legislate them.
Instead, they prefer to hope that liberal judges will regard the ERA's
language as a license to legislate. But, then, support for the
amendment testifies to the supporters' lack of confidence in their
ability to persuade people to support such policies.
georgewill@washpost .com
Viking
>A Needed Amendment for Women's Rights
>Sunday, April 8, 2007 ; B06
>
>George F. Will's vitriolic April 1 column, "The Return of That '70s
>Thing," which rejected the constitutional amendment we have proposed
>regarding equal rights for women, ignored the strong case that the
>amendment is needed to guarantee that the Constitution applies equally
>to men and women. From our nation's beginning, women have had to wage
>a constant and difficult battle to win the basic rights granted to
>men. That battle continues today.
>
>Despite enactment of equal pay and civil rights laws, discrimination
>against women still permeates the workforce and parts of the economy.
>Today, women earn only 77 cents for each dollar men earn, and the gap
>is greater for minorities. In 2004, African American women earned only
>67 percent of the earnings of white men, and Hispanic women earned
>only 56 percent.
Kennedy is a MORON. Can he really think this??? The pay gap is due to
females' choices: choosing less difficult jobs, working fewer hours,
having less on-topic education, etc.
>Women with college and professional degrees have achieved advances in
>many professional and managerial occupations in recent years. Yet more
>than 60 percent of working women are clustered in a narrow range of
>traditionally female, traditionally lower-paying jobs
By CHOICE, you moron!
>A stronger effort is needed to finally meet our commitment to full
>equality.
Yes. REPEAL AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.
Viking
against women--something that has been disproved dozens of times--and
proposes the ERA on that basis. He's utterly out of touch, and seems
to have formed his opinions in the 1970s. The truth is that the "wage
gap" comes from women's CHOICES: the choice to work less difficult
jobs, the choice to work part-time more, the choice not to relocate
when asked, the choice to take less job-specific education, the choice
to work fewer hours, and so on.
Send an email to Kennedy setting him straight:
M_P
> Sen. Kennedy [...] seems
> to have formed his opinions in the 1970s.
You give him too much credit ... he was spoonfed his opinions in the
1970s.
Masculist
Ah, I think it's time to chuck the whole civil rights nonsense except
for the disabled or folks like them. This spectacle with Imus should
be the death knell of Civil Rights.
Tom
Avenger
"Masculist" <MASC...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176833563.4...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Angry Dave
> AR20070415 00780.html
>
> The Disappearing Gender Pay Gap
>
> Monday, April 16, 2007 ; A16
>
> While politically correct, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Rep.
> Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) are statistically incorrect [letters,
> April 8]. Two quite different statistical techniques -- sample
> matching and analysis of covariance -- have both revealed as an urban
> myth the statement that women earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by
> men.
>
> What Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Maloney and the National Organization for Women
> overlook is the reality that men and women differ from one another not
> only in mean and median total income but also in number of hours
> worked per week, danger and travel requirements of their jobs, years
> of education, years in the field, and many other characteristics. The
> more pay-relevant job characteristics that are entered into the
> analysis of covariance, the smaller the purported pay gap becomes
> until it vanishes.
>
> GORDON E. FINLEY
>
> Miami
>
> -----------
>
Women complain about pay inequity, and cite this "75 cents for every
dollar" crap, but IMO it should state women only work 75% as much as
men.
On the other hand...
It is pretty much known that for years mass media marketing
(particularly daytime TV) is severely slanted towards women
consumers.
Why?
Well, obviously, women spend more money than men...
Now how would that be possible with such a wide gender pay gap?
Can you say ... dating, marriage, divorce, alimony, child support,
women's general expectation to be "taken care of" by men, etc.
They need to factor in the dollars that women screw men out of,
literally and figuratively.
Masculist
> > AR20070415 00780.html
>
> > The Disappearing Gender Pay Gap
>
> > Monday, April 16, 2007 ; A16
>
> > While politically correct, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Rep.
> > Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) are statistically incorrect [letters,
> > April 8]. Two quite different statistical techniques -- sample
> > matching and analysis of covariance -- have both revealed as an urban
> > myth the statement that women earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by
> > men.
>
> > What Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Maloney and the National Organization for Women
> > overlook is the reality that men and women differ from one another not
> > only in mean and median total income but also in number of hours
> > worked per week, danger and travel requirements of their jobs, years
> > of education, years in the field, and many other characteristics. The
> > more pay-relevant job characteristics that are entered into the
> > analysis of covariance, the smaller the purported pay gap becomes
> > until it vanishes.
>
> > GORDON E. FINLEY
>
> > Miami
>
> > -----------
>
I think that the pot of gold they are sitting on should be figured in
as well, which accounts for much more than just the money they rip off
from us men. The feminists took over the society using that and
that's why "Ho" and "whore" are political speech.
Tom
Marcus Aurelius
implies logically that men are significantly more competent than women
in those profession which require intellectual competency and skills
to a higher degree.
Clearly, this is indicative of the "social promotion"of women, based
upon the democratic "spoils system" over more qualified and competent
men in many fields.
Further, studies, as I remember it, have shown that women, on an hours
worked basis, earn more than equally qualified males
Masculist
> The fact that at the moderate I.Q. of 120 men outnumber women 20 to 1
Marcus, where are you getting this from? I've worked with IQ tests
and studied it a bi and I never heard this.
There is one important fact in this respect that I have new info on.
Men's IQ bell curve has a hard to explain anomoly where there's too
few, but more than women, high IQ's at the high end and too many on
the low end. the explanation is men are born with more intellectual
disabities than women, ie retardation. My and others work with
severe autistics has revealed that they are actually off the charts
genius'. The idiot savant syndrome is the tip of the iceberg and
their skills aren't "splinter" skills but the result of an overall
high IQ. This hasn't been proven scientifically yet but anecdotal
evidence is mounting and gives pause to even the most strident of
skeptics. It will be proven eventually. It appears that this high IQ
phenomenon with autistics is also in the PDD population, the
traditionally "retarded", but for proving the phenomenon the autistic
category is the best place to start for scientiifc reasons.
Tom
Marcus Aurelius
with regard to mens v womens IQ. As the IQ score increases the
disparity between men and women increases significantly.
> > worked basis, earn more than equally qualified males- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Marcus Aurelius
another subject:
"Viking" <n...@goodgoodbye.com> wrote in message
news:ssa72310c65g27lnq...@4ax.com...
> On 16 Apr 2007 09:24:36 -0700, "Marcus Aurelius"
> <alexander...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Given that at the moderately higher I.Q. of 120, men outnumber women
>>20 to 1, it is not surprising that men outnumber women at being good
>>writers.
And in the genius range it's 50 to 1. Yes, only 2% of geniuses are
female.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> My sweetie has an IQ of 160. Imagine how rare that makes her. She's
> smart enough to see through feminism as the one-sided power grab that
> it is; seems to take a high IQ in women to be able to do that.
On Apr 18, 3:29 pm, Masculist <MASCUL...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 18, 1:10 pm, Marcus Aurelius <alexander...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The fact that at the moderateI.Q.of 120 men outnumber women 20 to 1
>
> Marcus, where are you getting this from? I've worked withIQtests
> and studied it a bi and I never heard this.
>
> There is one important fact in this respect that I have new info on.
> Men'sIQbell curve has a hard to explain anomoly where there's too
> few, but more than women, highIQ'sat the high end and too many on
> the low end. the explanation is men are born with more intellectual
> disabities than women, ie retardation. My and others work with
> severe autistics has revealed that they are actually off the charts
> genius'. The idiot savant syndrome is the tip of the iceberg and
> their skills aren't "splinter" skills but the result of an overall
> highIQ. This hasn't been proven scientifically yet but anecdotal
> evidence is mounting and gives pause to even the most strident of
> skeptics. It will be proven eventually. It appears that this highIQ
> phenomenon with autistics is also in the PDD population, the
> traditionally "retarded", but for proving the phenomenon the autistic
> category is the best place to start for scientiifc reasons.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> > implies logically that men are significantly more competent than women
> > in those profession which require intellectual competency and skills
> > to a higher degree.
> > Clearly, this is indicative of the "social promotion"of women, based
> > upon the democratic "spoils system" over more qualified and competent
> > men in many fields.
> > Further, studies, as I remember it, have shown that women, on an hours
Masculist
> Here is corroboration from another poster on soc.men with regard to
> another subject:
>
> "Viking" <n...@goodgoodbye.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ssa72310c65g27lnq...@4ax.com...
>
> > On 16 Apr 2007 09:24:36 -0700, "Marcus Aurelius"
> > <alexander...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>Given that at the moderately higher I.Q. of 120, men outnumber women
> >>20 to 1, it is not surprising that men outnumber women at being good
> >>writers.
>
> And in the genius range it's 50 to 1. Yes, only 2% of geniuses are
> female.
This stuff isn't "corroboration" Marcus, it's anecdote for crissakes.
I did find this study which did show a great descrepancy between male
and female IQ's that I wasn't aware of. When I worked with IQ's i
somehow missed this stat, I just assumed that there was relative
equality in IQ's by sex. Man, did I get that wrong. I had no idea.
There's a 10 point descrepancy between men and women with women
scoring lower. That's huge by anyone's standards.
Gee, maybe this feminism thing isn't such a bad idea. I had no idea
how disadvantaged women are biologically AND intellectually. At least
my cogntive dissonance between what I have observed and what I thought
was fact is now resolved. Women ARE dumb little things! <smile>
Here's the study:
http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/essayrev/mfdifflt.html
Smitty