First, watch Rep. Carolyn Maloney evade and shift as CNN’s Anderson Cooper presses for straight answers from someone who apparently is not pressed very often.
So…what about the war on women?
About 55 percent of voters are women. Women are a majority of the population because as a group they outlive men*, who die sooner of the 12 leading causes of death. (They die sooner largely because the government funds more health research for the group that is healthier and longer-living than it does for men — which would be like taking most of the funding for the sexes’ economic improvement and using it for the economic improvement of men, already the higher-earning group). And because men as a group are penalized by having an earlier death, they are a minority that is also penalized by having less political importance as voters: in 2008, 10 million more women voted than men.
Thus, Democrats, seeing women as more important to elections than men, are as a matter of strategy waging a war on Republicans by accusing them of waging a war on women.
But Democrats are waging a war on women, too, of an insidious kind. They are recklessly pandering to women. They continually promise them something for “nothing” — and no doubt anger more than a few men, especially black men, whom Democrats and President Obama have discriminatorily ignored — and disregard the costs to business of their something-for-nothing legislation, costs that are passed on to customers and/or employees, hurting women as much as men. (Read former CNN host Campbell Brown’s May 21, 2012, complaint in The New York Times about President Obama’s pandering to women.)
A business owner tells how strict equal-pay laws can hurt women more than men:
Have you ever thought that this could backfire on women? Lets take a look for a second. I own a company and need to hire a new employee. I have a man who got hired when the economy was booming and he is paid 60K for his position. Now, the economy is not so good and the supply of labor has increased, lowering the price of employees (i.e wages). Because of these equality laws, I am forbidden from hiring a woman. If I do, I will get sued when she finds out that her colleague is paid more. I could hire a man for the same job and no one would complain, but a woman is a lawsuit waiting to happen. Hence, the laws backfire on women and they do not get hired. Is it any surprise that unemployment is higher among women? Not to me. -HuffingtonPost commenter “hudi42,” October 24, 2012
An example of the Democrats’ pandering legislation is the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. President Obama signed it into law solely to repay feminists for upping female votes. While the President tells women the act will help close the gender wage gap — women’s 78 cents to men’s dollar — he won’t tell them this:
No law yet has closed the wage gap — 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), 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, “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….”. 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. Yet, 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 or can’t seem to understand what a 10-year-old could figure out in ten seconds: 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
- choose jobs based on interest first, pay second — the reverse of what men tend to do
- 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;” see also an Australian report.
- take more unpaid days off
- avoid uncomfortable wage-bargaining
Any of which lowers 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.
Afterword: The power in money is not in earning it (there is only responsibility, sweat, and stress in earning money). The power in money is in SPENDING it. And, Warren Farrell says in The Myth of Male Power,”Women control consumer spending by a wide margin in virtually every consumer category.” (Women’s control over spending, adds Farrell, gives women control over TV programs.) “A recent research study revealed that the average woman spends eight years of her life shopping [spending] — over 300 shopping trips per year. Men, only a fraction of that.” -TerryO’Reilly.ca
“Nearly half of all American women think they are doing much better in their career than the man in their life, according to a new poll.” -New Yort Post
So…does the Ledbetter Act help women? Or pander to them?
Excerpted from “Will the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Help Women?”
*Reports on men’s health: