What If Women Ruled The World?

[CatWoman]

Why Men Earn More

by Wendy McElroy

Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap And What Women Can Do About It is Warren Farrell's latest book, and a fascinating read.

It has stirred vigorous and predictable debate about what causes the "wage gap" by which the average female employee is said to earn approximately 80 cents for every dollar paid to a man.

But what I view as Farrell's most controversial point remains undiscussed. Namely, should women use affirmative action – that is, government-mandated preferences – to 'correct' the free market's wage gap and make more money? Farrell, who is usually associated with male empowerment, says "yes."

He provides detailed advice on how to do so, for example through tax-funded tuition and other programs unavailable to men.

The first part of the book revolves around refuting feminism's explanation of the wage gap: namely that it results from rampant discrimination against women in the workplace.

Many arguments surrounding the wage gap are not addressed, however.

For example, women's lack of access to various well-paying blue collar jobs due to union policies and attitudes. But addressing such arguments is not the book's purpose. Refuting the specific feminist claim of discrimination is. And Farrell ably accomplishes this goal on two levels.

First, he cites research and extensive government data to demonstrate that women who compete for the same job often earn more than men, not less.

In Table 6, Farrell compares the starting salaries for women and men with Bachelor's Degrees in 26 categories of employment, from investment banker to dietician. Women are paid equally in one category; in every other category, their starting salaries exceed men's. A female investment banker's starting salary is 116 percent of a man's. A female dietician's is 130 percent; that is, $23,160 compared to $17,680.

Second, Farrell analyzes the data that does reflect a wage gap. But rather than seeing oppression in the data, he perceives free choice.

He argues: women commonly prefer jobs with shorter and more flexible hours to accommodate the demands of family. Compared to men, they generally favor jobs that involve little danger, no travel and good social skills. Such jobs generally pay less.

Farrell rejects the conclusion of 'discrimination' because it does not reflect the fact that female employees express different preferences than males.

Men's rights advocate Carey Roberts identifies one such difference. "[T]he sheer amount of work. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, full-time men clock an average of 45 hours a week, while women put in 42 hours. Men are more than twice as likely as women to work at least 50 hours a week."

Women's lifestyle choices partly explain their absence from certain professions, especially dangerous ones. Roberts observes, "Men represent 92 percent of all occupational deaths. Why? Because if you look at a list of the most hazardous occupations – fire fighting, truck driving, construction, and mining – they have 96–98 percent male employees, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics."

Farrell believes that women can make the same salaries as men and enter "male professions" if they are willing to make the same employment choices. Accordingly, he offers practical advice to women, much of which is extremely useful.

Nevertheless, I balk whenever Farrell offers advice on how to maximize government privileges at the expense of men, who must compete at a disadvantage and pay taxes for programs that exclude them from benefits.

For example, under the heading "Get Hazard Pay Without the Hazards," Farrell tells women to enter dangerous occupations. There they can reap the same salary as men while avoiding comparable risk because employers who are compelled to hire women commonly shield them from risks.

Thus, Farrell explains, women get a "'death professions bonus' with not much more physical risk than in everyday life."

Using the military as an example, Farrell argues that women "comprise approximately 15 percent of active-duty military personnel, and 10 percent of those deployed in Iraq." Yet women constitute approximately 2.6 percent of soldiers killed in Iraq; men constitute 97.4 percent. Indeed, "in the Marines and Air Force it's a 100 percent chance of returning." That's because a daughter is "much more likely to choose, or be chosen for, the military's safer fields."

Farrell offers an explanation as to why women's safety becomes a priority. "Whether...on an Alaskan fishing boat or in the American military, men's protective instinct toward women, and women's protective instinct toward themselves (and children) keeps men more disposable than women."

In short, men will assume greater risk to protect a woman co-worker. Farrell calls this male protective instinct "touching."

(Of course, many women don't wish to be "shielded" from the job they signed on to do. Others find it offensive for policies to assume women can't or shouldn't work on an equal footing beside men. Such women do not wish to exploit those policies; they want to change them.)

But quite another factor underlies the situations that continue to make men "more disposable": government policy. Indeed, even private industry commonly implements preference for women's safety out of fear of lawsuits for harms such as exposure to chemicals or other stress during pregnancy.

A government that discriminates on the basis of sex or race violates a basic principle of justice. The law must apply to every human being equally.

This is the core of my disagreement: Farrell believes in affirmative action and, so, advises women to "game the system" in order to make money. I reject affirmative action and, so, seek to eliminate the system in order to make justice.

Nevertheless, "Why Men Earn More" goes on my reference shelf as a book I will quote and re-read despite disagreements.

Here is what’s wrong with this article… The author didn’t really put too much thought into the topic which is: There is a pay gap between men and women. Which obviously means both doing the same job, but getting paid differently. But what does Farrell do? He goes off talking about the amount of hours worked for each gender, the amount of risks involved with jobs taken by each gender, percentage of women/men deployed in Iraq, etc. which is completely irrational. Obviously if surveys proved there to be a pay gap, it certainly was based on the same amount of hours spent doing the same jobs, or else it would be silly to even discuss this. Men spend more hours doing harder tasks than women, that’s why they get paid more… No sh!t, really?

The point is why is for example a female manager paid less than a male manager employed for the same company? I don't think managers would get paid differently because that's just asking for a law suit since it is too obvious, but there are hundreds of cases out there with women getting paid less in the same industry compared to their male counterparts, and what Farrell said proves nothing.

[Anonymouse]

#1. i have real life examples of PAY GAPS! like my job and ALL OTHER WOMEN in this entire institution and others that we contract with... ALL of them are REALITY based UNlike that "male empowerment" writer how crazy is that, how much more POWER do men need?

Edit: The rest of this post was drivel. Good arguments that cited statistics were posted and you responded with empty rhetoric. I'm guessing you haven't actually read the book that was being talked about, so you probably shouldn't be coming to conclusions about it or its author so quickly. Stop yelling like a madman and throwing insults around every time someone disagrees with you. If you have legitimate counterpoints, post them.

It seems you cannot and will not accept any contrarian viewpoints simply because you cannot and will not accept any contrarian viewpoints.


You just can't come to grips with the fact that the epidemic of 'discrimination' is in your head and that yes, tis a mans world and its time you get over that.

[Anonymouse]

Here is what’s wrong with this article… The author didn’t really put too much thought into the topic which is: There is a pay gap between men and women. Which obviously means both doing the same job, but getting paid differently. But what does Farrell do? He goes off talking about the amount of hours worked for each gender, the amount of risks involved with jobs taken by each gender, percentage of women/men deployed in Iraq, etc. which is completely irrational. Obviously if surveys proved there to be a pay gap, it certainly was based on the same amount of hours spent doing the same jobs, or else it would be silly to even discuss this. Men spend more hours doing harder tasks than women, that’s why they get paid more… No sh!t, really?

The point is why is for example a female manager paid less than a male manager employed for the same company? I don't think managers would get paid differently because that's just asking for a law suit since it is too obvious, but there are hundreds of cases out there with women getting paid less in the same industry compared to their male counterparts, and what Farrell said proves nothing.

You too cannot come to grips with reality. Get over it. And it's funny that the article was written by a woman which seems to be more of a reason why a few of you feminists are ticked off by it.

[nunechka]

Edit: The rest of this post was drivel. Good arguments that cited statistics were posted and you responded with empty rhetoric. I'm guessing you haven't actually read the book that was being talked about, so you probably shouldn't be coming to conclusions about it or its author so quickly. Stop yelling like a madman and throwing insults around every time someone disagrees with you. If you have legitimate counterpoints, post them.

thanks for your great points loseyourname... however the point of a forum is to discuss topics... i'm guessing you haven't actually held a career job, so you probably shouldn't be coming to conclusions about real like examples of sex discrimination...
i see that catwoman wrote something very similar to mine and you did not erase her post... so to all of you mods i'd like to say thanks for AGAIN giving reasons for forumers to leave this forum... GOOD JOB!

[nunechka]

i dont care if its written by a man of a women, the point is that the book doesnt compare job by job, it says the reason we dont get paid enough is because we dont do the same job... thats not what the statistic "80 cents to the dollar" is for... it is SPECIFICALLY for the SAME exact job...

and loseyourname erased what wrote before, but i gave a specific example about my schooling, my experience, my grades, etc... and how that didnt even play a role in how much my starting salary (which also continues with you because we all get the same % raises) was much lower then someone who had no experiece, bad grades, went to a similar school to mine... the only difference that i could see was the fact that he was a guy...

anonymouse, it seems like you are the one that cannot and will not accept any contrarian viewpoints... of something doesnt fit in your little limited world, it gets kicked out... if something says "feminism" and it isn't bashing it, you kick it out... you'll learn one day, one day too late for your own good, but when you are 40 you will see this world in a much different light...

[winoman]

I don't much feel like making any extensive comments on this thread at this time because I think to adequatly and accuratly discuss this situation will require more then a few platitudes and such (from either side) - really this issue requires the presentation of many examples - and they are certainly out there - but I don't really have the time to devote to gather such at the moment.

I do however think (know) that there is a real issue here in a variety of sectors where women are deliberatly or otherwise underpaid (or underepresented in higher level management/professional capacity) for whatever reasons (even if at times the issue is not well presented or is presented in a misleading manner).

I also would like to say that I think Nunechka is making some good points here and I don't think mods should be censoring opinions or legitimate presentations of issues based on holding of contrarian views or for whatever reason really. Otherwise I fear this forum will go the way of certain other once worthwhile (Armenian) forums where once there was open exchange of (non censored) ideas that was really quite exciting and worthwhile but now its mearly a place for a particular clique to stroke themselves - even to the point where they have given themselves titles in their little kingdom on the web (anyway - sorry I digress)...but is that what we want here? (and I wonder as many worthwhile contributors have seemingly been banned or otherwise left recently - and this is a great shame) Think about it. This forum has really improved this over last year (much to the credit of Anileve who is really missed) - I would hate to see it devolve back to what it was...

[Anonymouse]

i dont care if its written by a man of a women, the point is that the book doesnt compare job by job, it says the reason we dont get paid enough is because we dont do the same job... thats not what the statistic "80 cents to the dollar" is for... it is SPECIFICALLY for the SAME exact job...

and loseyourname erased what wrote before, but i gave a specific example about my schooling, my experience, my grades, etc... and how that didnt even play a role in how much my starting salary (which also continues with you because we all get the same % raises) was much lower then someone who had no experiece, bad grades, went to a similar school to mine... the only difference that i could see was the fact that he was a guy...

anonymouse, it seems like you are the one that cannot and will not accept any contrarian viewpoints... of something doesnt fit in your little limited world, it gets kicked out... if something says "feminism" and it isn't bashing it, you kick it out... you'll learn one day, one day too late for your own good, but when you are 40 you will see this world in a much different light...

Posting worthless statistics doesn't add any more relevance or validity to your argument than having someone agree with you. It's funny how loser only singles out my supposed insults and says I am "yelling like a madman". What does that man? What is "yelling like a madman" on an internet forum? I can state the same about the local feminists. It's also funny how nunechka thanks him for agreeing with her position. Either way it changes nothing.

What we have here is a case of statistics and number crunching. Statistics was created by the State, as the word statistics contains 'state' in it. It is based on number crunching of hypotheticals in which it puts people into categories with the underlying assumption that they are automatons. Like the state, feminism revolves around group think and rely on statistics, like the State, for managerial purposes. However, the flaw with statistics is that it not only assumes, but it can be manipulated. It's funny how this thread was meant to be a joke, and I treated it as such, but like a good feminist you couldn't fathom that, or perhaps you missed the point of it being a joke and turned it into another thread for gender grievances.

Ever wonder why men get paid more than women? Has it ever occured to you that employers prefer men over men and are willing to pay men more based on their productivity? Is that unfair? Yes. Is that bad? No, that is the way life is. On the market you cannot change peoples preferences of what they are willing to pay to whom based on what you deem unfair, by using legislation such as affirmitive action via government. I know in our dreamworld socialist utopia this wouldn't be, but in the real world, inequalities and gender differences are the key. Perhaps you should read this following article in its entirety which addresses almost all the points you have raised about the supposed 'discrimination'.

http://slate.msn.com/id/25626/

[CatWoman]

You too cannot come to grips with reality. Get over it. And it's funny that the article was written by a woman which seems to be more of a reason why a few of you feminists are ticked off by it.

Ticked off? I’m not ticked off at all, her argument was too silly to tick someone off really. I just said what I thought of it. I can’t come to grips with reality? I just see no point in the article you posted that is in any way connected to reality. I don’t consider myself a feminist but the comments you make, “its a mans world and its time you get over it” or “why do you think employers prefer men over women and are willing to pay men more based on their productivity? Is that unfair? Yes. Is that bad? No, that is the way life is”, turn me into one . If I recall correctly, that was the attitude about 85 years ago when women didn’t have the right to vote or when the term ’sex’ wasn’t even initially part of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for employment discrimination and was proposed as a joke by white conservative male southerners to kill the entire bill. So thank God we DIDN’T GET OVER IT right? Or else, we wouldn‘t be where we are now (vote, equal employment opportunity, etc.) So don't tell me to get over it.

Oh and I didn’t even know the author was a woman, I even referred to her as a ‘he’ in my previous post! So see, that had nothing to do with it either.

[spiral]

Here is what’s wrong with this article… The author didn’t really put too much thought into the topic which is: There is a pay gap between men and women. Which obviously means both doing the same job, but getting paid differently. But what does Farrell do? He goes off talking about the amount of hours worked for each gender, the amount of risks involved with jobs taken by each gender, percentage of women/men deployed in Iraq, etc. which is completely irrational. Obviously if surveys proved there to be a pay gap, it certainly was based on the same amount of hours spent doing the same jobs, or else it would be silly to even discuss this. Men spend more hours doing harder tasks than women, that’s why they get paid more… No sh!t, really?

I completely agree with you about the article.

The point is why is for example a female manager paid less than a male manager employed for the same company? I don't think managers would get paid differently because that's just asking for a law suit since it is too obvious, but there are hundreds of cases out there with women getting paid less in the same industry compared to their male counterparts...

For example?

[loseyourname]

thanks for your great points loseyourname... however the point of a forum is to discuss topics... i'm guessing you haven't actually held a career job, so you probably shouldn't be coming to conclusions about real like examples of sex discrimination...
i see that catwoman wrote something very similar to mine and you did not erase her post... so to all of you mods i'd like to say thanks for AGAIN giving reasons for forumers to leave this forum... GOOD JOB!

I didn't make any points and I have nothing to say about this topic. I'm not sure what it is that makes you think I've come to any conclusions about it. Catwoman posted arguments, you posted pissiness. That's why her post is still here and yours has been edited. I don't care how bad the argument is, but at least make one.