On March 1, 2012, Forbes published “5 Things Women Should Never Say.”
I responded with this under the name “TakingUpSpace:
As for the gender wage gap:
No law yet has closed it — not the 1963 Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, not Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, not the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, not the 1991 amendments to Title VII, not affirmative action (which has benefited mostly white women, the group most vocal about the wage gap – http://tinyurl.com/74cooen), not diversity, not the countless state and local laws and regulations, not the horde of overseers at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and not the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act…. Nor will a “paycheck fairness” law work.
That’s because pay-equity advocates continue to overlook the effects of female AND male behavior:
Despite the 40-year-old demand for women’s equal pay, millions of wives still choose to have no pay at all. In fact, according to Dr. Scott Haltzman, author of “The Secrets of Happily Married Women,” stay-at-home wives, including the childless who represent an estimated 10 percent, constitute a growing niche. “In the past few years,” he says in a CNN report at http://tinyurl.com/6reowj, “many women who are well educated and trained for career tracks have decided instead to stay at home.” (“Census Bureau data show that 5.6 million mothers stayed home with their children in 2005, about 1.2 million more than did so a decade earlier….” at http://tinyurl.com/qqkaka. If indeed more women are staying at home, perhaps it’s because feminists and the media have told women for years that female workers are paid less than men in the same jobs — so why bother working if they’re going to be penalized and humiliated for being a woman. If “greedy, profit-obsessed” employers could get away with paying women less than men for the same work, they would not hire a man – ever.)
As full-time mothers or homemakers, stay-at-home wives earn zero. How can they afford to do this while in many cases living in luxury? Because they’re supported by their husband, an “employer” who pays them to stay at home.
Feminists, government, and the media ignore what this obviously implies: If millions of wives are able to accept no wages and live as well as their husbands, millions of other wives are able to accept low wages, refuse overtime and promotions, work part-time instead of full-time (“According to a 2009 UK study for the Centre for Policy Studies, only 12 percent of the 4,690 women surveyed wanted to work full time”: http://bit.ly/ihc0tl See also an Australian report: http://tinyurl.com/862kzes), take more unpaid days off, avoid uncomfortable wage-bargaining (http://tinyurl.com/3a5nlay) — all of which lower women’s average pay.
Women are able to make these choices because they are supported or anticipate being supported by a husband who must earn more than if he’d chosen never to marry. (Still, even many men who shun marriage, unlike their female counterparts, feel their self worth is tied to their net worth.) This is how MEN help create the wage gap. If the roles were reversed so that men raised the children and women raised the income, men would average lower pay than women.
See “Will the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Help Women?” at http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/will-the-ledbetter-fair-pay-act-help-women/
Commenter “herstory” jumped in:
He has done nothing Victoria, to improve the condition of our fellows, only his own…. as his name implies “takingupspace” apparently wants women out of the workforce so he and his selfish kind can have it all to themselves and we should all just be mooches off some man. This when we all have just about had it with the misogynists in media and on Capital hill. Too bad modern science extended the life span for men of a certain age group, the sooner they clear the deck, the better. My two sons who know not to spout that such sexism at me or anyone else lest they get verbally cut down to size. Furthermore, its not about part-time or full time, its about how hostile the environment is made for women, so that their made to bow out, but how long to play ostrich on that subject, eventually it has to be confronted, the blogo-sphere is an excellent place to start.
Then I jumped back in:
Herstory, do you always hurl insults at people you disagree with? Is this the role model you want to be for your two sons: don’t debate the points, shout down the speaker with insults?
Re: “He has done nothing, Victoria, to improve the condition of our fellows, only his own…”
So by doing such things as pointing out facts, stressing the female AND male behavior that I believe creates the gender wage gap, and trying to shed light through the “78 cents to men’s dollar” ideology, I have done nothing except improve my own condition? Please explain how you came up with that. And how I improved my condition, of which you know nothing.
Re: “apparently wants women out of the workforce”
Please point to my exact words that make this “apparent.” Quote me — exactly. And hold the insults.
Re: “we should all just be mooches off some man.”
Again (and without insults), where did I say that? What are the exact words I used to give you that idea?
Re: “This when we all have just about had it with the misogynists in media and on Capital hill”
I feel the same way about the misandrists in the comments sphere of the media.
Re: “Too bad modern science extended the life span for men of a certain age group, the sooner they clear the deck, the better.”
Thanks for the death wish, herstory. Show this to your sons. Is this the attitude you express toward them when THEY disagree with you? I feel nervous for them.
Re: “My two sons who know not to spout that such sexism”
I’m getting tired of asking: Where, exactly, is the sexism in what I said? Use my exact words, not words from your imagination. And hold the insults.
Re: “lest they get verbally cut down to size.”
Now I’m REALLY worried about your sons, if disagreement with you equals sexism.
Re: “Furthermore, it’s not about part-time or full time, it’s about how hostile the environment is made for women”
This makes no sense to me. Please explain — without insults — how the gender wage gap is not about factoring in part-time or full-time work.
As for the hostile environment, see “The Sexual Harrassment Quagmire” at http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/the-sexual-harassment-quagmire/
Re: “so that they’re made to bow out”
So employers go to the trouble of continually hiring women only to make sure they “bow out”? Isn’t that a bit expensive and draining?
Re: “eventually it has to be confronted, the blogo-sphere is an excellent place to start.”
I agree. That’s why I have a blog, Male Matters, at http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/the-doctrinaire-institute-for-womens-policy-research/
Check it out. I can’t wait for you to insult me more and accuse me of saying things I didn’t say, especially when you read “Would the World be Better If Women Ran It” at http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/the-doctrinaire-institute-for-womens-policy-research/
(I never heard from “herstory” again. My hunch is that she was embarrassed.)
A discussion of “Why I am working for Obama’s re-election“
Which century are you living in, Jerry. Many women are the chief bread-winners, and few women these days think they can rely on a man’s income.
Elizabeth Shriver, you said, “Many women are the chief bread-winners, and few women these days think they can rely on a man’s income.” Of course. None of this takes anything away from what I said. But far more men are primary bread winners than women. And many, many women, according to others’ research (not mine, thus I’m living in a century that’s fairly current), apparently still do rely on a man’s income. I don’t like this inconvenient fact any more than you do. By saying “few women these days think they can rely on a man’s income,” you’re admitting that men don’t have it so great at work, that they don’t earn as much as organized feminists would like us to believe.
For a little bit of balance to what the feminists say about the sexes, see: “The Doctrinaire Institute For Women’s Policy Research at http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/the-doctrinaire-institute-for-womens-policy-research/
Jerry Boggs, it’s not simply that women think they can’t depend on a man’s income, it’s that they don’t WANT to depend on a man for their well-being.
Elizabeth Shriver, well, now, you’re arguing with yourself. You most recently said, “it’s not simply that women think they can’t depend on a man’s income, it’s that they don’t WANT to depend on a man for their well-being.” Earlier you said, “…few women these days THINK can rely on a man’s income.” [My emphasis.] Decide which you want to hang your hat on, and we’ll go from there. BTW, you still can’t say, “…it’s that [women] don’t WANT to depend on a man for their well-being.” Can I see the results of your study showing that ALL women don’t want to depend on a man for their well-being — that’s what your statement implies. Plenty of women in fact do want to depend on men. I hate this probably more than you do. It is not my own dreamy opining. Read the reputable-sourced articles linked to in my original posting on this topic.
Jerry Boggs, they don’t think they can rely on a man’s income, AND they don’t want to think they must. It’s not either/or.
Jerry Boggs, okay, so I just looked over your “Male Matters” blog, and this is what the home page states:”The views herein are not entirely non-feminist, but are predominantly so. Thus you will find here a gender world far different from the one generally constructed by the mainstream media and most of the leading ideological feminists.” This is CLEARLY a biased source, so I take everything you say with a grain of salt — maybe several. The guy writing this blog has such a chip on his shoulder, and frankly, I find it pathetic. He should have been in therapy YEARS ago.
Elizabeth, thanks for plugging my blog. My “bias” is to put forth, as my blog header states, views that are ignored by the bigger media. If you want to call that biased, go right ahead. Virtually every blogger does that. Re: “The guy writing this blog has such a chip on his shoulder, and frankly, I find it pathetic. He should have been in therapy YEARS ago.” Why can’t you simply debate issues, rather than resort to personal attacks? When someone stops debating and personally attacks me, I know I’ve already “won” the argument.
What, exactly, do you find “pathetic” and what exactly makes you think I need therapy?
You’ll probably think it biased of me when I say that almost every time I debate a feminist (female or male), he or she sooner or later resorts to personal attacks, merely because I disagree with them and they can’t seem to respond with reasonable argument.
In truth, I think, you feel threatened by what I consider a factual and reasonable look at things. If the media had for the last 30 years been fair and balanced on gender issues, you and other feminists would not feel threatened and would debate the issues cleanly and fairly.