MediaWatchBlog - the wage gap is as wide as a sliver of glass

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

the wage gap is as wide as a sliver of glass

Read all about it Just as the research has proved for many years, the feminist claims that women make 80 cents on the dollar are anywhere from slanted to patently false. In fact, so much of the available research (helloooo femmes, that's 'r-e-s-e-a-r-c-h' as in 'scientific' as in 'method' as in 'back up your fathead claims with facts')indicates that women earn more than men in some fields. If it was truly so much cheaper to employ women, no firm in business to make money would do anything but employ women. That's an obvious fact. Few misogynists will care more about their sexist views than their wallets. In fact, I've found that pig and cheapskate seem to go hand in hand. The femmes completely ignore (it's so convenient to do so) the glaring fact that women in droves avoid high-stress, high-travel, high-danger jobs. I know not a single woman who would be a plumber even if her life depended on it. They won't work 100 feet up on electricity line poles as a repairwoman, or as Alaskan king crab fisherwomen, or as longshorewomen. Additionally, I can attest to an area patently missing women as well; the computer sciences. Just a few years back, long after the burned bra ashes had blown away, I found myself getting a BS in computer science. There were four women in the starting class of 80, and two left at the end of our program, including moi. Of course plenty of the guys dropped out too, but with only a starting number of four, there's no room for dropouts and still maintaining percentages. Forget trying to explain my little anecdote away with "girls just aren't encouraged to go into the sciences"... Yah, and a lot of guys have fathers telling them they are worthless and can't do shit either. Don't these poor guys get a pass for not having been nutured to achieve their wildest dreams and maximizing their potentials? NO? Pourquoi pas? That's because as grown-ups in a frequently harsh world, we must pick up our bootstraps, and get the job done. We must make the choice to be manicurists, receptionists, electricians, or computer scientists. We must not expect the world to bend over backwards, to create our opportunities; we must create them for ourselves and seize them when they materialize. The world will disappoint us the more we expect and demand from it without putting effort into it. With abdication of personal responsibility, how can we expect to be respected for our choices. The femmes shove big white posters of coat hangers in my face and demand freedom of choice, simultaneously they say women are too incompetent to make choices when they have the freedom to do so because some bad daddy in the past didn't help them go farther in life. So Gloria Steinham, Susan Falucci, Barbara Boxer, Diane ConFeinstein, are we responsible for our destinties, or not? Which is it?

Wednesday, February 23, 2005 10:04:56 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)

Comments [2] -
Word on the street

Friday, February 25, 2005 10:07:30 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)

I can't back anything up with research... but I can offer my opinion.

In a pure free market society, women are more expensive to hire, thus they naturally inclined to make less.

Take candidate W. and candidate M. both with the EXACT same skillset, asking for the same $$.

Who would you hire from a pure numbers perspective? If you say the woman (remember, they are exactly alike with the exception of their reproductive organs), you'd be a mathematical retard.

Woman are more likely to get pregnant :). If I you asked me in public, i'd deny it. But the reality is, Woman are more expensive in terms of $$... which translates into lower wages... in this society that I am talking about.

pinko

Monday, February 28, 2005 7:09:45 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)

In your scenario, the free market would handle the expense of women leaving to have kids because the business would not be forced to shoulder things like Family Leave (even when unpaid, the company cannot find an appropriate replacement since they must hold the job open), state disability payments, etc. And since the time away from job for childbirth is relatively small without things such forced as Family Leave, or forced negotiated benefits, you'd still have to pay market price for her talents. It would be a bad gamble to pass on the best candidate in favor of the next-best on the off-chance she might give birth while working at your company.

On the subject of forced negotiated benefits, one of the things liberal practices have forced on companies is that all employees are treated exactly the same, and any inkling this isn't the case, lawsuit! Discrimination! Unfair practices! Without requiring all employees to be subject to the exact benefit package of all the worker bees, women could be more creative; negotiate some salary away for 4 o'clock departures, four day work weeks, or a higher salary in exchange for none of the above (if they do not yet have any, for example), the package the guys were presumed to bring to the table years ago. Without restricted benefit packages, women could easily negotiate the deal that men were given automatically all those years ago, and perhaps that's why women earned less back then (the gap has narrowed signifcantly); the companies had to compensate for their losses.

In spite of the cards against us, the evidence still indicates that women are pennies off the salaries men have for equal years of experience in the same job and in some cases higher. Very few people would argue that a woman in the same job with 5 years less experience should earn the same pay as another woman with 5 years more experience. Yet that is exactly what the femmes demand; pay equally no matter what. But then again, they are the same crackheads who think taxpayers should pay wages and social security to stay-at-home moms, and how can you argue with someone who thinks that the government just has this big fat pot of endless gold that materialized out of absolutely nowhere. They (read: the vast right wing conspiracy) hoard the gold until the libs get on the stick and force them to distribute it, and then magically it just fills up again for more handouts. The concept that every gold coin in that pot came from my pocket and your pocket and that after a while the coins are gone escapes them completely.

Michela

Comments are closed.