Get PJ Media on your Apple

Dr. Helen

Christina Hoff Sommers, author of The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men, has an interesting article in the New York Times on the pay gap:

A serious dialogue about parity in the workplace can begin only when we liberate ourselves from the widely propagated but utterly false assertion that “for the same work, women receive 77 cents for every dollar a man earns.” The 23-cent wage gap does not take into account the factors that justify different pay, like occupation, education, tenure on the job, and hours worked per week.

Talented young women who aspire to be rich and powerful would be advised to major in economics or electrical engineering rather than psychology or social work. They should be prepared to work 60 hours a week at the office rather than combining shorter hours with home, family, and other pursuits they find fulfilling. Those who stick with this course will find that their W-2s are equal to those of their male counterparts.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
I understand that. I said it was fair. My husband also got to travel extensively for work and know that his home and kids were all set. We chose for me to stay home. And he has had employment 'issues' through this recession. My job is our earnings right now. That is why marriage is a partnership. We support each other.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Been saying this for years. If the pay gap were real, CEOs would have to be morons not to hire 100% women. They would destroy their competition on cost. Unfortunately, once the other CEOs discovered the reason for their competitive disadvantage, they too would hire women in droves--thereby raising women's salaries.

Even a marginal understanding of the labor marketplace would expose the 'pay gap' as liberal claptrap. Liberals are too stupid to know what they don't know.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I am a female electrical engineer. I don't make what other EEs my age make because I took 9 YEARS OFF to raise my kids. My choice. When I went back into the work force in 2007, my starting salary was just about what it had been in 1998 when I left. Seems fair to me.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (21)
All Comments   (21)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Thomas Sowell has been saying that when women were more like men in the choices they made regarding occupation, time at work, not getting married or not having children, etc. the pay differential basically disappears. Women rationally may make different choices in their lives, perhaps in particular whether to have children, that affect what careers they choose to follow and how much they can make.

Another thing that Sowell says is what reason was there to expect that two different groups would have the same outcomes? But that is the contention when the pay disparity between women and men is discussed, among other groupings.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I worked my way up the ranks, through meritocracy, in the engineering field.
I have patents, products, and plenty of cost-savings that my projects can show for it.
I am happy to say that I got where I am today due to my skillset, not my gender. And I am paid what I am today because I asked for the salary that I did. The companies that hired me knew that the $$ was in the range I should be asking, and I educated myself on this salary. It wasn't a male/female thing. I pull a "fair" salary for someone at my level who works their tail off, and doesn't have much work-life balance.
If I chose to have children, I know that I'd probably have to choose a different job/salary/industry/career path.
And I am not complaining at all. This is the path I chose. Completely fair.
The men at my level who are paid the same, often have wives at home who take care of the kids and household. This is how they are able to keep a "family" and still travel like we do, work the crazy hours like we do, and still have a family.
I also know a few women in roles like mine, whose husbands stay home. Just a few. And know a few women and men that BOTH work 60+ hour weeks, who either have an in-law staying or full-time nanny to take on the duties...
Like Type1 Mom said, someone to make sure the "home and kids were set"...

Funny, I mentioned in Dr. Helen's last post that we can't alwayas rely on statistics to tell the whole story... I don't know if the gender pay gap still exists... Or correlation versus causation.
For instance, Type1 Mom's reason is a perfectly plausible reason for a pay-gap...
Or, as I read on a different blog a few months back, somone pointed to a study that showed women still do not hold Engineering or high-level managment positions 50/50. So if the study is not fully measuring 1-for-1, the same engineering role male vs. female with same years experience in the field, then it is not an "accurate" comparison, just as Dr. Helen notes...
And MAY not take into account the flexible work hours the worker wants to employ either, or so many other factors.
As a woman, I am not defending this original article of pay-gap. I think it further drives the "victim" mentality. Instead, women should educate themselves on the wage they should earn, and then find an employer that can afford this. Take into account the local economy any time one is looking for a job, and take into account the amount of desperation you may have at the time of interview, as this will draw a smaller offer within the salary range from even the most "fair" employer)
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I wish that everyone understood how much the choices we make influence the results. You worked hard, produced results, and then asked for more, so you got more. Makes sense to me.

I am teaching my children about trade-offs. I ask, what does success look like to you? Will you be able to afford what you want on the salary that career will provide? If you want flexibility, can you have it? Follow your dreams is crap advice if your dreams won't get you where you want to go!

My one daughter jokes that when I say 'she can be whatever she wants' what I really mean is that she can be 'whatever kind of engineer' she wants. (This isn't true by the way - she is a dramatic 14 year old girl). However, I cannot discount what engineering has given me. I've worked full time, part time, and not at all. Moving in and out of the workforce quite easily over the years.

My boss now would like me to take on more responsibility. But she, a single woman with no kids, is letting me decide. I appreciate that she finds me valuable just the way I am and will let me chose if I want to do more.

For what it's worth, my boss, her boss, and her bosses boss are all women. And I work at an engineering company. The first man you hit in my reporting chain is the CEO.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Or, as I read on a different blog a few months back, somone pointed to a study that showed women still do not hold Engineering or high-level managment positions 50/50."

------

And they never will, because around lots and lots of women drop out of the workforce to be supported by a man - even today (I read 1/4 quit work entirely and 1/4 work an easy part-time job). Men, on the other hand, are lazy bums if they sit at home, getting supported by some woman (and probably rightly so - all sit-at-homes without small children are lazy, it's just that women can get away with it).
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
t's also almost funny to me at this point that NO ONE will acknowledge that women also get substantial amounts of money via family transfers. Either through family court or probate court or just having the lifestyle of a CEO by marrying a CEO.

NO ONE seems to want to focus on this. It really is a substantial money source for women. Substantial. Feminists ignore it (of course) because women have an advantage there over men. Conservatives ignore it because the little lady shouldn't be bothered. Manginas ignore it because it will tick women off. Women in general ignore it because it makes them look like whores.

Add up all the money that women get today - because of men paying more taxes and women getting more services, or alimony or the portion of child support that is really mommy support or "dating" or informal prostitution or women generally getting the man's assets when he kicks the bucket or family court decisions or all the rest.

I know lots of rich older women who never worked. I know lots of fairly poor men who worked their entire lives. But not really the reverse in each case.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It's also almost funny to me at this point that NO ONE will acknowledge that women also get substantial amounts of money via family transfers. Either through family court or probate court or just having the lifestyle of a CEO by marrying a CEO.

NO ONE seems to want to focus on this. It really is a substantial money source for women. Substantial. Feminists ignore it (of course) because women have an advantage there over men. Conservatives ignore it because the little lady shouldn't be bothered. Manginas ignore it because it will tick women off. Women in general ignore it because it makes them look like whores.

Add up all the money that women get today - because of men paying more taxes and women getting more services, or alimony or the portion of child support that is really mommy support or "dating" or informal prostitution or women generally getting the man's assets when he kicks the bucket or family court decisions or all the rest.

I know lots of rich older women who never worked. I know lots of fairly poor men who worked their entire lives. But not really the reverse in each case.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The problem is that working harder and making sacrifices for one's career empowers the woman who does these things. It is hard to convince such a woman to feel like a victim.

This will not do.

If women can't be cast as victims, can't be convinced that men are oppressing them, can't be inspired to fight against an imaginary patriarchy, then how can the Democrats hope to inspire animosity and distrust between the sexes? How can they hold themselves out as the "Party for women" when being a woman no longer has any political significance, when women can no longer be cast as a "minority."

It is these sorts of ideas, ideas that truly empower people, that bring people together and create more cohesive and harmonious societies. Without tribalism, without people fighting each other and attempting to undermine each other on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, and other arbitrary and irrelevant criteria, the left's long dreamt of Revolution to usher in a new Marxist utopia will never come to pass. Divide and conquer is the name of the game. Without division to destroy our society, there is no chance of fundamentally changing America.


1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I believe you're wrong. Far too many women have no limits to their victimhood. For example, the more successful they are, the more men become invisible. Hence the cry of "where are all the good men?". Whose fault is that? Men, of course.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Those who stick with this course will find that their W-2s are equal to those of their male counterparts."

If what Ms. Sommers writes is true, I expect that these women's W-2s will exceed those of their male counterparts.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I've worked with two women who had the talent to be top managers. One of them quit working for two years to have a baby and now works at a tiny "mom 'n pop" kind of business in the suburbs, which I'm sure makes her life very flexible. The other one has quit work entirely to be a homemaker.

Good for them, but that is hardly the fault of men. Also note how scarce few men have any choice but to work. As an experiment, young men should start telling their fiancees and wives "Hey honey, you have a good job. Why don't you be the breadwinner and I stay home to be Mr. Mom?"

Female hypergamy (desiring mating with a man of higher status than her) will simply not tolerate that.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Dr. Smith, I am the (male) boss in an environment where female executives are common. However, to do my job, and theirs, well they need to as you say be willing to put in long hours and bust their fannies during those hours. I had a female assistant a few years ago who now is city manager for a mid-sized city in Michigan. She was a hard worker and willing to do what it took to get the job done right. That is exactly why she moved on to bigger and better things in her career.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Silly nonsense. The richest women in my extended family are rich because of who they married. The richest woman I know divorced the first husband, then had two rich ones die on her. Men usually croak way before the women, and you can also clean up in a divorce if he isn't dancing to your tune. Patricia Kluge got nearly 1 billion dollars.

For some reason, people just want to ignore reality and spout their crap. The reality is that a woman who develops a talent for taking money away from men will get far richer than some woman who does the 60-hour-a-week grind.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Been saying this for years. If the pay gap were real, CEOs would have to be morons not to hire 100% women. They would destroy their competition on cost. Unfortunately, once the other CEOs discovered the reason for their competitive disadvantage, they too would hire women in droves--thereby raising women's salaries.

Even a marginal understanding of the labor marketplace would expose the 'pay gap' as liberal claptrap. Liberals are too stupid to know what they don't know.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
So true. But reality doesn't fit the "women are victims" narrative so reality is ignored for a pleasing lie.

Also, if the "equal work" part of the pay gap mantra were real the on the job rates of injury, disability, maiming, and death wouldn't be markedly higher for men as it is IN VIRTUALLY EVERY JOB CATEGORY. Even in what the US Labor Department categorizes as office work, men suffer a notably higher death and injury rate than females. So much for female-ist claptrap about "equal"!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I am a female electrical engineer. I don't make what other EEs my age make because I took 9 YEARS OFF to raise my kids. My choice. When I went back into the work force in 2007, my starting salary was just about what it had been in 1998 when I left. Seems fair to me.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Engineering is like a science. Economics is like a seance.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
You also got supported for 9 years, and got the corresponding stake in your husband's pension and earnings.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I understand that. I said it was fair. My husband also got to travel extensively for work and know that his home and kids were all set. We chose for me to stay home. And he has had employment 'issues' through this recession. My job is our earnings right now. That is why marriage is a partnership. We support each other.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It is not truth but perception that matters in politics. The Democrats and their various supporting identity groups have known this forever; the Republicans will never understand why the actual facts as pointed out in this article don't win the day.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All