Talk of twisted priorities....
People spend countless hours and pages and inks wondering how a small number of girl valedictorians, who were virtually assured of success in future one way ro another, could increase earning potential by another thouands of dollars, just so that they catch up with men.
I think it is more beneficial and practial for feminists to view the problem of boys failing schools more seriously. Those boys are far more likely to become criminals, and engage in criminal activities such as theft, burglary and oh yes, sexual assault. If feminists want (or want other women and girls-I know the welfare of men and boys are not in their radar screen in the slightest) to live in a safer society, and reduce sexual assault, etc., then it is also in their best interest to tackle the problem more seriously, not just looking at the problem with a gleeful smile.
This is much more practical measures if feminists really wish to reduce crimes against women. It is much more practical than attacking culture, mass media, TV and movie as inciting men and boys to be violent against women, or even social and (alleged) patriarchal struture as root cause of violence against women. But in reality of course I know they won't, because they need certain number of violent men and victim women if they were to keep portraying society as oppressing, victimizing women.
Showing posts with label pay gap. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pay gap. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Monday, June 01, 2009
Urgent help needed in elevating career ambitions of girl valedictorians
Why we care about valedictorians? First of all, there are so many more girl valedictorians than boy valedictorians. Second of all, they are smart enough (-if they have enough brain to be the number one in the class) to see what jobs/career/major suits them best, without people like Ms. Steinberg telling them what suits best for them (or what suits best for Ms. Steinberg and other fellow feminists' grand strategy for social engineering - to statistically equalize wages between men and women), that they should be majoring not in English literature nor social sciences but in engineering and computer sciences. .
What about boys who were dropping out from high schools at a far higher rate than girls? Shouldn't this be a much more important issue than wondering the ambition level of girl valedictorians, who have bright fututre anyway, no matter what career they choose? What NY Times is spending so much space and readers' time for is whether girls with bright future could beat out equally bright boys in future earning power - I guess there are many more things in the world deserving more immediate attention. This clearly shows that prioroties and concerns of NY Times is so twisted and could only care about beating out males.
For feminists, boys falling in school system isn't a problem that needs to be addressed, it is a triumphant sign for girls, it is simply a proof that girls are smarter, that males are dumber, that more girls should be in higher positions and outearning males as a whole.
What about boys who were dropping out from high schools at a far higher rate than girls? Shouldn't this be a much more important issue than wondering the ambition level of girl valedictorians, who have bright fututre anyway, no matter what career they choose? What NY Times is spending so much space and readers' time for is whether girls with bright future could beat out equally bright boys in future earning power - I guess there are many more things in the world deserving more immediate attention. This clearly shows that prioroties and concerns of NY Times is so twisted and could only care about beating out males.
For feminists, boys falling in school system isn't a problem that needs to be addressed, it is a triumphant sign for girls, it is simply a proof that girls are smarter, that males are dumber, that more girls should be in higher positions and outearning males as a whole.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
New "wage gap"
People seem to be coming up with more and more new, creative and inventive ways to stigmatize men and corporations, and put the dead-old gender wage gap issue on the news.
It’s interesting to see in this article how Neandelthaal men actually out-earn egalitarian tree-hugging type male in the workplace. Forget all the circular and self-serving reasonings for this wage gap between traditional and egalitarian males that these scientists tried to come up with to cozy up to power-feminist type; may be one of the reason for this is that egalitarian male put brake on themselves - they might be thinking, “if I perform at my full potential, I would be so far ahead of women in the next performance review and that is so against my egalitarian view; I will perform on a par or below my female colleagues so that women will be promoted ahead of me, get higher wage, and I can show with my own example that women can be as good as men, or men can be as bad or even worse than women”.
Or the other reason would simply be that these egalitarian men are simply not as good as traditional men. Even if you control for IQ or education, you cannot control for their ability or performance; it may not simply be that these testosterone-ridden traditional males were aggressive during salary negotiations only, they may have been aggressive in their work also, aggressive in completing the task, achieving goals, etc., and these may have led to higher performance review, hence faster promotion and higher salaries. On women’s side, whether they have traditional or progressive views on gender roles would have little to do with their testosterone level (which is low across the board), and therefore resulted in little difference in wage-gap=performance gap between them.
Why do you have to assume that men (or women) with similar IQ or similar education, background will have identical performance?
It’s interesting to see in this article how Neandelthaal men actually out-earn egalitarian tree-hugging type male in the workplace. Forget all the circular and self-serving reasonings for this wage gap between traditional and egalitarian males that these scientists tried to come up with to cozy up to power-feminist type; may be one of the reason for this is that egalitarian male put brake on themselves - they might be thinking, “if I perform at my full potential, I would be so far ahead of women in the next performance review and that is so against my egalitarian view; I will perform on a par or below my female colleagues so that women will be promoted ahead of me, get higher wage, and I can show with my own example that women can be as good as men, or men can be as bad or even worse than women”.
Or the other reason would simply be that these egalitarian men are simply not as good as traditional men. Even if you control for IQ or education, you cannot control for their ability or performance; it may not simply be that these testosterone-ridden traditional males were aggressive during salary negotiations only, they may have been aggressive in their work also, aggressive in completing the task, achieving goals, etc., and these may have led to higher performance review, hence faster promotion and higher salaries. On women’s side, whether they have traditional or progressive views on gender roles would have little to do with their testosterone level (which is low across the board), and therefore resulted in little difference in wage-gap=performance gap between them.
Why do you have to assume that men (or women) with similar IQ or similar education, background will have identical performance?
Monday, November 12, 2007
Reverse pay gap - borad directors
Uhhhh… where’s the outrage?? Where is NEWSWEEK’s 20-page special report on appalling wage discrimination against male corporate directors who were so discriminated against that they earn only 87 percent of what female directors earn?
I also looked through New York Times, Washington Post and the Time magazine for any special reports, article, or op-ed that bring the nation’s attention to this outrageous discrimination, but I found none. And then I realized, - oh, yes, it is WOMEN who is outearning men, not the other way around – of course in this case the whole media would go silent.
But why is the disparity? I could speculate a few reasons behind this.
Maybe the board has to put token women director in senior posts, which would come with higher compensations than the rest of directors – this would be understandable as corporations would naturally want to advertise their diversity efforts by putting the token hires in more visible, senior positions.
Also, a larger corporation are more likely to have additional financial resources to place token directors, who cannot contribute to substantive works but could contribute, by their very presence, to meet diversity goals and satisfy diversity-compliance monitors, and one could expect that compensations for directors at large corporations are higher than that of smaller corporations who may not have much room for diversity hires.
Of course, these are my mere speculations and do not have nay data to back up, but looks quite plausible. Maybe I should look into the data someday.
I also looked through New York Times, Washington Post and the Time magazine for any special reports, article, or op-ed that bring the nation’s attention to this outrageous discrimination, but I found none. And then I realized, - oh, yes, it is WOMEN who is outearning men, not the other way around – of course in this case the whole media would go silent.
But why is the disparity? I could speculate a few reasons behind this.
Maybe the board has to put token women director in senior posts, which would come with higher compensations than the rest of directors – this would be understandable as corporations would naturally want to advertise their diversity efforts by putting the token hires in more visible, senior positions.
Also, a larger corporation are more likely to have additional financial resources to place token directors, who cannot contribute to substantive works but could contribute, by their very presence, to meet diversity goals and satisfy diversity-compliance monitors, and one could expect that compensations for directors at large corporations are higher than that of smaller corporations who may not have much room for diversity hires.
Of course, these are my mere speculations and do not have nay data to back up, but looks quite plausible. Maybe I should look into the data someday.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Feminization of a profession
This is quite an interesting article. By the way, both for and against the original idea by professor Clark - that feminization of medicine profession could lead to losing of influence and status - could be labeled as pro-women, and therefore, of course, anti-women. It depends on the gender of the speakers primarily and also on which side of the political spectrum you are coming from. Thus, men can always be labeled “sexist” whether you are for or against the original position – if you agree with Prof. Clark, you are sexist since you think that occupations consisting primarily of women have less stature, and if you oppose her view, you are denying the fact that those feminine fields are regarded in lower status than predominantly male profession, thus wanting to perpetuate the inequality.
Anyway, there is also a feminists’ favorite line that teachers’ salaries are low because it is a predominantly female occupation. I wonder if they ever care to consider some facts and numbers (which maybe difficult for women as Lawrence Sommers explained);
-Do the salary of teachers decline in real terms since the time when it was primarily male occupation?
-Or is it when compared to private sectors that teachers’ salaries are considered to be low?
-Or is it when compared to other public, government sectors?
-Would local governments be able to afford to pay law firm or hedgefund companies-like salaries to teachers?
-Do teachers and schools make huge financial profits from which they could be reimbursed as their salaries and bonuses?
-What are the qualifications of teachers and difficulties of getting in the field?
But of course, crunching numbers and talking data would not be as sexy and has as much headline-grabbing potential as simply shouting at the top of their voice that “Teacher’s salaries are low because of gender discrimination against predominantly female profession!”
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/329/7463/412
Anyway, there is also a feminists’ favorite line that teachers’ salaries are low because it is a predominantly female occupation. I wonder if they ever care to consider some facts and numbers (which maybe difficult for women as Lawrence Sommers explained);
-Do the salary of teachers decline in real terms since the time when it was primarily male occupation?
-Or is it when compared to private sectors that teachers’ salaries are considered to be low?
-Or is it when compared to other public, government sectors?
-Would local governments be able to afford to pay law firm or hedgefund companies-like salaries to teachers?
-Do teachers and schools make huge financial profits from which they could be reimbursed as their salaries and bonuses?
-What are the qualifications of teachers and difficulties of getting in the field?
But of course, crunching numbers and talking data would not be as sexy and has as much headline-grabbing potential as simply shouting at the top of their voice that “Teacher’s salaries are low because of gender discrimination against predominantly female profession!”
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/329/7463/412
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Immigrant women
A typical “You go, girl” advocacy article, with a hint of “what’s yours is mine, what’s mine is mine” mentality el Latino version.
Of course what husbands earn in foreign countries in hard and often dangerous labor remitted back home should totally belong to women, so that they can make important financial and household decisions, which may have been traditionally done by men, and thereby “empowering’ women, when these women do go to work in foreign countries, money is not going to flow to men back in their home countries, but of course, to other women, women relatives or friends. To put it simply, “Men’s money is mine, and my money is mine, or in the temporary custody of other female members of the family.” This is justified by one study done by some obscure organization that belongs to feminist-pandering United Nations (upon closer look it is an UN research institute that deal exclusively with women’s issue - so much for independent, objective study) since men are lazy and tend to squander money on unworthy things.
Wait, the radical feminist is not done with her one-sided gender bashing yet, she went on to complain that those men who are left behind do not take up new role of child rearing, in the mold of feminists’ ideal “new feminine-men”, and laments that the gender wage gap in “comparable works” (these words sound familiar, don’t they?) is persistent even in country like Argentina who is otherwise happy to elect the wife of current President as a new President and establish gender quota for women in the parliament. Their goal: use whatever resources and social phenomena, including men’s remittance from abroad, more female immigrants, to re-engineer society in the image of feminist utopia.
What's troubling here is this kind of gender-feminist's proponsity to look for every opportunity to "empower" women and blame patriarchy. If men work in foreign countries, it is not seen as sacrifice by men to earn money for families back home (by the way, "families" include not only wives, but children also, remember!), but opportunity to be capitalized, with the money men remit,and the void in household decision making authority. And if women work abroad and need to remit home, money is to go to female members of families, so that these women and the women immigrant themselves when they return home could use the resource as basis for further women's economic empowerment. What is entirely lacking throughout in the article is a viewpoint of, and the need of, "family", but in radical feminist's myopic world where outdoing men gets the ONLY priority, economic empowerment of women by whatever means takes precedent.
Of course what husbands earn in foreign countries in hard and often dangerous labor remitted back home should totally belong to women, so that they can make important financial and household decisions, which may have been traditionally done by men, and thereby “empowering’ women, when these women do go to work in foreign countries, money is not going to flow to men back in their home countries, but of course, to other women, women relatives or friends. To put it simply, “Men’s money is mine, and my money is mine, or in the temporary custody of other female members of the family.” This is justified by one study done by some obscure organization that belongs to feminist-pandering United Nations (upon closer look it is an UN research institute that deal exclusively with women’s issue - so much for independent, objective study) since men are lazy and tend to squander money on unworthy things.
Wait, the radical feminist is not done with her one-sided gender bashing yet, she went on to complain that those men who are left behind do not take up new role of child rearing, in the mold of feminists’ ideal “new feminine-men”, and laments that the gender wage gap in “comparable works” (these words sound familiar, don’t they?) is persistent even in country like Argentina who is otherwise happy to elect the wife of current President as a new President and establish gender quota for women in the parliament. Their goal: use whatever resources and social phenomena, including men’s remittance from abroad, more female immigrants, to re-engineer society in the image of feminist utopia.
What's troubling here is this kind of gender-feminist's proponsity to look for every opportunity to "empower" women and blame patriarchy. If men work in foreign countries, it is not seen as sacrifice by men to earn money for families back home (by the way, "families" include not only wives, but children also, remember!), but opportunity to be capitalized, with the money men remit,and the void in household decision making authority. And if women work abroad and need to remit home, money is to go to female members of families, so that these women and the women immigrant themselves when they return home could use the resource as basis for further women's economic empowerment. What is entirely lacking throughout in the article is a viewpoint of, and the need of, "family", but in radical feminist's myopic world where outdoing men gets the ONLY priority, economic empowerment of women by whatever means takes precedent.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Reverse pay gap - opportunity for feminists!
This is a follow-up article on the study done by New York college professor that was originally brought up by the New York Times a while ago.
Earlier on the same issue I wondered why there is no outrage and call for governmental programe to correct the gender pay imbalances but of course there is going to be none as long as women are on the upper hand. There would be rather much pondering and scheming on how to spread that superiority of women in other areas of world so that matriarchy could be established. The outrage and call for governmental plan is heard only when women are in disadvantage.
Note how the usual compassion that NYT exhibits toward economically disadvantaged is totally lacking in the article throughout, and the overall tone implicit in the article is a sort of ”how to deal with the men’s ingrained main-breadwinner mentality that is a legacy of patriarchy and condition them into accepting women’s superiority and the role of subservient partner in this new matriarchy where women dominate economy?”
Earlier on the same issue I wondered why there is no outrage and call for governmental programe to correct the gender pay imbalances but of course there is going to be none as long as women are on the upper hand. There would be rather much pondering and scheming on how to spread that superiority of women in other areas of world so that matriarchy could be established. The outrage and call for governmental plan is heard only when women are in disadvantage.
Note how the usual compassion that NYT exhibits toward economically disadvantaged is totally lacking in the article throughout, and the overall tone implicit in the article is a sort of ”how to deal with the men’s ingrained main-breadwinner mentality that is a legacy of patriarchy and condition them into accepting women’s superiority and the role of subservient partner in this new matriarchy where women dominate economy?”
BREAKING NEWS!! MEN EARN ONLY 80 CENTS FOR EVERY DOLLAR WOMEN EARN!!
discrimination, BREAKING NEWS!!
MEN EARN ONLY 80 CENTS FOR EVERY DOLLAR WOMEN EARN!!
At least this would be a logical conclusion that one would get from the study on income gap of young men and women in Dallas, if you were to employ the same method of women—earn-xx-cents –to-every-dollar-men-make myth (you can insert in any number you want in xx, it’s just up to feminists’ whim)
But of course everyone, at least men and most of women who are not infected by feminists disinformation and who could do some basic math (which feminists can’t – remember, women, or feminists, are not good at math) know that this kind of argument is completely fraud. Interestingly (and quite expectedly) feminists didn’t resort to this fraud math tactics this time, though the famous figure is still being recycled here without shame.
Instead, just like a broken record, feminists know to do only one thing - cry discrimination. How to cry discrimination in this kind of seemingly impossible situation (to cry discrimination) you ask? Pretty easy, if you are seasoned feminist.
One sayS, “middle-class black and Latino women who are making similar advances in income but are dealing in many cases with much more deep-rooted male prejudices.”
Another goes;
“When she comes back (from giving birth and child-rearing) she will find herself a year or two behind the rest of the workforce in terms of training, or might have missed on wage increases. In other words, the so-called "mommy trap" remains largely intact - and is waiting to ensnare the new batch of urban and educated 20-something women when they do decide to marry and raise a family, just as it has their predecessors.”
So the conclusion of this study inevitably is;
"The root causes of the pay gap between men and women still exist and could kick in later. This is not an occasion to stop talking about this problem."
In other worlds, their message is clear; don’t be complacent women, keep working and do not get married and take time off from career, outearn men and beat in promotion race, and tear down patriarchy!”
MEN EARN ONLY 80 CENTS FOR EVERY DOLLAR WOMEN EARN!!
At least this would be a logical conclusion that one would get from the study on income gap of young men and women in Dallas, if you were to employ the same method of women—earn-xx-cents –to-every-dollar-men-make myth (you can insert in any number you want in xx, it’s just up to feminists’ whim)
But of course everyone, at least men and most of women who are not infected by feminists disinformation and who could do some basic math (which feminists can’t – remember, women, or feminists, are not good at math) know that this kind of argument is completely fraud. Interestingly (and quite expectedly) feminists didn’t resort to this fraud math tactics this time, though the famous figure is still being recycled here without shame.
Instead, just like a broken record, feminists know to do only one thing - cry discrimination. How to cry discrimination in this kind of seemingly impossible situation (to cry discrimination) you ask? Pretty easy, if you are seasoned feminist.
One sayS, “middle-class black and Latino women who are making similar advances in income but are dealing in many cases with much more deep-rooted male prejudices.”
Another goes;
“When she comes back (from giving birth and child-rearing) she will find herself a year or two behind the rest of the workforce in terms of training, or might have missed on wage increases. In other words, the so-called "mommy trap" remains largely intact - and is waiting to ensnare the new batch of urban and educated 20-something women when they do decide to marry and raise a family, just as it has their predecessors.”
So the conclusion of this study inevitably is;
"The root causes of the pay gap between men and women still exist and could kick in later. This is not an occasion to stop talking about this problem."
In other worlds, their message is clear; don’t be complacent women, keep working and do not get married and take time off from career, outearn men and beat in promotion race, and tear down patriarchy!”
Friday, March 24, 2006
UK gender feminists
Feminists are the same. I mean, whether they whine in the United States or Britain or Europe or Asia or Africa or Latin America, they all whine about the same thing ・more power and more money, and the tactics they use are the same. Or in UK maybe they go a little bit further.
The rough average of difference of the total sum of money earned by men and women in the entire labor force, or the so-called "pay gap" of about 17 percent, was further twisted and now verbally transferred in this article by the hand of a militant feminist to "(money that) we're due" as if something we need reimburse to the entire female population.
In the article seemingly written out of estrogen-driven hysteria and dearth of mathematic and logical thinking (remember it was written by a feminist?) called for holding back top salary only for men, so that average earning between men and women will be closer. Exactly who will benefit from this kid of absurd proposal? Nobody. Except militant feminists whose only concern are statistical figures of men and women's average salary. Militant feminists who can reach organism by just looking at the bar chart showing equal pay for men and women in the entire society.
Further, the author pretend to be shocked or (genuinely shocked - then I feel sorry for her mental state) at the whopping 41 percent pay gap between full-time worker and part-time worker ・is anyone with right mind shocked at all? Why should there be pay parity between full-time and part-time worker? The only thing this shows it the level of hatred against men that these militant feminist have - if they were to compare female full-time and part-time worker and discover the gap, would they be "shocked"? - my guess is that even feminists are genetically not as good as men in doing math, they wouldn't be so "shocked". She was "shocked" because for them the fulltime employee represented men (although in reality needless to say there are many female full time worker) and part-time employee represented women, and in her mind the gender war has to go on and it has to be won.
At one point the author seems to correctly blast at the thought-programming of female students, but later she flipflop (another feminist's forte) and refers to this as a good recommendation. If thought-programming is good, why not go one step further and ban all female students from taking such major as literature and sociology and force them to take engineering, etc.?
No wait, the government was also supposed to look at the structural societal gender discrimination, that is, job overrepresented by men, such as engineering and construction, being paid much more than female-dominated occupation (such as teacher, social worker). So if the government succeeded in its grand social-engineering scheme and lowered the overall pay for the former and raise the latter to ç”°lose・the pay gap between gender, what would happen to all those women who were forced to take up engineering jobs by the government under this new plan, only to see their jobs devalued and whose pay were artificially capped by the government at lower rate than market dictates? Only women can keep the traditional lavish engineering pay?
Familiar line of the women's work paid less than men's work simply because women are valued less is repeated here. This is based on the concept of thoroughly-debunked "comparable worth" theory, which asserts that pay level should be a function of a "worth" to society, to be determined by committee of wise women (no men are going to be included, I guess), rather than a function of free market. The reason for men's jobs' 'better pay is because, among other myriad of reasons, men's jobs tend to be far more dangerous and harder - over 90 percent of occupational deaths occurred to men (yet there is no outcry for "gender imbalance" here), while women's job is much safer and more comfortable. I think it would be a benefit for women if the author does not display this kind of complete lack of mental ability to reason or analyse the economic factor as she did in this article. People will start not believing that women could handle economic or other important public mater anymore, if she seriously beliee that employer and union are colluding to keep women's pay low.
The rough average of difference of the total sum of money earned by men and women in the entire labor force, or the so-called "pay gap" of about 17 percent, was further twisted and now verbally transferred in this article by the hand of a militant feminist to "(money that) we're due" as if something we need reimburse to the entire female population.
In the article seemingly written out of estrogen-driven hysteria and dearth of mathematic and logical thinking (remember it was written by a feminist?) called for holding back top salary only for men, so that average earning between men and women will be closer. Exactly who will benefit from this kid of absurd proposal? Nobody. Except militant feminists whose only concern are statistical figures of men and women's average salary. Militant feminists who can reach organism by just looking at the bar chart showing equal pay for men and women in the entire society.
Further, the author pretend to be shocked or (genuinely shocked - then I feel sorry for her mental state) at the whopping 41 percent pay gap between full-time worker and part-time worker ・is anyone with right mind shocked at all? Why should there be pay parity between full-time and part-time worker? The only thing this shows it the level of hatred against men that these militant feminist have - if they were to compare female full-time and part-time worker and discover the gap, would they be "shocked"? - my guess is that even feminists are genetically not as good as men in doing math, they wouldn't be so "shocked". She was "shocked" because for them the fulltime employee represented men (although in reality needless to say there are many female full time worker) and part-time employee represented women, and in her mind the gender war has to go on and it has to be won.
At one point the author seems to correctly blast at the thought-programming of female students, but later she flipflop (another feminist's forte) and refers to this as a good recommendation. If thought-programming is good, why not go one step further and ban all female students from taking such major as literature and sociology and force them to take engineering, etc.?
No wait, the government was also supposed to look at the structural societal gender discrimination, that is, job overrepresented by men, such as engineering and construction, being paid much more than female-dominated occupation (such as teacher, social worker). So if the government succeeded in its grand social-engineering scheme and lowered the overall pay for the former and raise the latter to ç”°lose・the pay gap between gender, what would happen to all those women who were forced to take up engineering jobs by the government under this new plan, only to see their jobs devalued and whose pay were artificially capped by the government at lower rate than market dictates? Only women can keep the traditional lavish engineering pay?
Familiar line of the women's work paid less than men's work simply because women are valued less is repeated here. This is based on the concept of thoroughly-debunked "comparable worth" theory, which asserts that pay level should be a function of a "worth" to society, to be determined by committee of wise women (no men are going to be included, I guess), rather than a function of free market. The reason for men's jobs' 'better pay is because, among other myriad of reasons, men's jobs tend to be far more dangerous and harder - over 90 percent of occupational deaths occurred to men (yet there is no outcry for "gender imbalance" here), while women's job is much safer and more comfortable. I think it would be a benefit for women if the author does not display this kind of complete lack of mental ability to reason or analyse the economic factor as she did in this article. People will start not believing that women could handle economic or other important public mater anymore, if she seriously beliee that employer and union are colluding to keep women's pay low.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)