On taxation and the ‘Female Economy’

It would appear that women are, on average, net beneficiaries of the tax system in most western countries – and by a large margin.

Firstly the contribution to the government’s tax revenue paid by women is dwarfed by that amount contributed by men. This is a reflection, in part, of the gender pay (earnings) gap that feminists are forever banging on about. And for the uninitiated, that gap primarily reflects personal choices rather than active gender discrimination by employers.

Secondly, of that government expenditure that can be seen to benefit one gender over the other, women/girls do very well indeed in comparison to government allocations to men/boys.

The discrepancy between the amount of tax revenue contributed by men in Australia, and the extent to which the government invests in agencies/programs supporting men & boys is addressed in another blog post.

This is the result of, and is reflected in, the level of utter difference or even contempt demonstrated by most politicians towards men and their issues.

I anticipate readers asking ‘well, ok then, point me to definitive statistics to support your assertion’. But, alas, that’s not as easy as it should be. Some statistics for other countries are referenced in the articles below, but in Australia one would have to compile such statistics from scratch. This would constitute an onerous task for anyone as I state in a post mentioned earlier. This data gap is no accident, for most politicians and bureaucrats either don’t care or would prefer such information to not be made available.

The same situation applies in relation to exploring the gender divide for many other issues. If you seek data that supports a position of male culpability or female disadvantage, information abounds. With regards to examining alternative perspectives, however, the reverse applies. It was once a case of the relevant information being available but well-hidden. Now, more and more, researchers simply elect not to ask the relevant questions.

One indicator of the gender expenditure gap however is the large number of government and non-government organisations formulating policy and/or providing services to women and girls (in contrast to few/none for men/boys). See also these two posts in relation to funding for feminist advocacy groups (post #1 / post #2). The gender expenditure gap is now even reflected in Australia’s allocation towards foreign aid.

And yet despite this gender tax/support gap, this feminist scholar is probably not alone in proposing that women shouldn’t be taxed at all.

A selection of related articles/papers:

Young women are turning their back on sharing wealth with their partner, survey reveals (22 July 2019) UK

Right-wing trolls report online sex workers to tax authorities in #ThotAudit (26 November 2018) Be sure to read all manner of initial outraged comments on Twitter, and then check out (for example) related threads by Roosh (@rooshv)

The relationship between taxation and the Gender Pay Gap (17 November 2017)

India considers introducing a lower rate of tax for single women – and many other financial benefits (7 May 2017)

Jordan Holbrook: Men pay £75 billion more tax than women every year (28 March 2017)

2014/15 – the income tax gender gap increased again… to £75.5 BILLION (24 March 2017) UK

Men use retirement money 3x less but pay the same retirement taxes (5 March 2017) Reddit discussion thread

 “The Lifetime Distribution of Health Care Costs” B. Alemayehu and KE Warner. Health Serv. Res. (2004) A March 2017 Reddit discussion thread and linked paper

Will You Pay The Bill For The Coming Spinster Bubble? (10 January 2017)

“Income and fiscal incidence by age and gender: some evidence from New Zealand” O. Aziz, N. Gemmell, and A. Laws, Review of Income and Wealth (2015) A November 2016 Reddit discussion thread and linked paper

Only men pay taxes (8 October 2016) Video

Reblog: Research find that as a group, only men pay tax (16 August 2016)

Research finds that as a group, only men pay tax (10 August 2016)

2012/13 – the income tax gender gap increased AGAIN… to £69,000,000,000 (20 June 2015)

The ‘Pole Tax’ on men is why I’m not voting tomorrow (6 May 2015) U.K

The ‘benefits gap’ — a cursory analysis of US social security (OASI) and disability insurance (DI) An October 2014 Reddit discussion thread with links to relevant Social Security Administration data sources

Women’s share of income tax payments declines (2011/12 v 2010/11) (20 August 2014)

Divorce helps fuel rise in female multi-millionaires (19 May 2014)

More than 100 women now on Rich List – but just TWO have made their own fortunes and most have inherited or won millions from divorce (19 May 2014)

British men pay 72% of the income tax collected in the UK, women only 28%. So why does the state relentlessly assault men and boys, whilst advantaging women and girls? (1 April 2014)

Are women paying 60% less income tax than men? (8 February 2013)

The Female Economy

Feminists rage about the desperate personal privations that women suffer a result of the gender wage gap, whilst demanding all manner of financial support). At the same time, however, others gloat (without a hint of irony) about the financial strength of women collectively. Go figure.

The female economy: Untapped market worth $28 trillion (29 November 2017)

Women in the Economy II – How Implementing a Women’s Economic Empowerment Agenda Can Shape the Global Economy (2017) A report by Citi

The next economic boom could come from women (12 September 2017)

Men or Women: Who Has the Most Buying Power and Why? (13 March 2014)

Marketing to Women: Surprising Stats Show Purchasing Power & Influence (27 July 2012)

The Female Economy (September 2009) and She-conomy (April 2010)

Women want more: How to capture your share of the world’s largest, fastest growing market (September 2009)

Achieving personal financial security is important for everyone. Dodgy research helps no-one

Why slave away crafting a serious academic research paper when you can knock out an under-graduate quality effort that will still be published provided it pushes the appropriate PC buttons? One gets to bang the feminist drum to one’s heart’s content, virtue-signal across the chattering class, and pad out one’s resume all at the same time.

Anyway, accuracy, objectivity and academic rigor are so last century!

Young women can budget in the short term but struggle with long-term investments: survey’ (14 February 2017)

This unexceptional article merits its own post only by virtue of the way it exemplifies several of my concerns regarding pro-feminist research:

  • presents a non-gendered issue as gendered
  • only surveys women yet uses the results to argue a case of relative female disadvantage
  • features lamentably weak research methodology
  • only identifies contributing factors consistent with a predetermined conclusion based on feminist dogma
  • infers that men are primarily responsible for both causing and resolving the alleged situation of female disadvantage

My comments are inserted within the body of the article, and shown in blue font.

The main premise of the article is that women are significantly disadvantaged in terms of achieving financial security, and warrant special assistance in this regard. This disadvantage is said to stem mainly from a lack of awareness of investment options and strategies. In supporting this position the paper grasps at various feminist chestnuts such as the gender wage gap, the superannuation gap, and gender bias within schools and specific employment sectors.

“Our investigation into the financial literacy of young women finds they are confident in implementing budgeting and savings strategies, but lack the knowledge and confidence required to implement long-term financial strategies.”

The first thought that sprang to mind was ‘Why focus solely on young women?’, especially if the intention is to assert gender-based disadvantage. What exactly was the goal of this research project? Better understanding a problem that affects many PEOPLE with a view to identifying strategies to help those in need? Or simply opportunistically seizing on the issue of savings and investment in order to add to the chorus of ‘women have it tougher’?

The justification for excluding men from the study is hardly compelling:

  • the average level of retirement savings for men is greater than the average for women
  • men are claimed to be, again on average, more financially literate than women.

What of the fact that many men fall below the male average, and quite likely also the female average? There would certainly be no shortage of men who “lack the knowledge and confidence required to implement long-term financial strategies“. Consider too that some women would exceed male average savings, and that this segment is sure to increase in coming years.

Bear in mind too that men’s savings are not necessarily their own, and will more often be used to support dependents. For example, many women are financially supported in later life by current or previous male partners, whilst relatively few men are supported in such a manner. And indeed, far more men than women will have some or all of their savings confiscated via court-ordered settlements following separation or divorce.

“This is surprising given that financial literacy usually refers to not only an understanding of how money actually works and how to make and manage money for day-to-day affairs but also how to use this in preparation for the future.

While our results are preliminary, based on social media users and require more detailed research, our results begin to draw links between social, institutional and personal attitudes towards financial knowledge.

A survey we distributed across social media found that 91% of 175 respondents had confidence in their ability to implement savings strategies (varying from simple to complex), and 89% were confident in their ability to budget. Strategies included everything from planning for a holiday to managing credit cards. Participants also considered budgeting and saving to be the most important aspects of their finances.”

It appears that all the survey respondents were female – a major oversight – and were likely self-selected from within the ranks of the researchers’ friends/associates. What likely degree of survey bias did this entail? In other words, to what extent are the results meaningful even in a purely statistical sense?

However, our survey participants expressed a distinct lack of appreciation for longer-term financial goals. While 72% of respondents felt that savings were extremely relevant to them, only 38% said the same about superannuation, and they showed even less interest in other long-term investment (23%).

Knowledge and confidence in implementing long-term investment strategies were even more concerning. Only 17% of respondents said they had a “medium” knowledge of superannuation and only 1% (or two of 175 respondents) felt that they had an in-depth understanding. In contrast, 55% indicated having little or no knowledge whatsoever.

The numbers look even bleaker for responses about investments. A low 12% of survey participants had medium levels of knowledge in this area, while again only 1% felt their knowledge was in-depth.

When asked about why they lacked financial knowledge, the barrier most commonly acknowledged by participants was lack of financial information taught at school (91%). Also 55% of participants reported feeling discouraged from learning about finance because they were women. This is consistent with reports of female students being discouraged from studying subjects such as science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM).”

Oh please! That’s a reach isn’t it? Did male students receive additional education regarding financial information at school? With no corresponding results for young men, the value of the stats provided above – in terms of supporting a gendered agenda – are dubious.

And as for the validity of measuring how people “feel” about things, I would refer you to this paper.

Why financial literacy matters for women

Women working full-time currently earn 84% of a man’s pay – at a 20 year average. The impact is this: women will earn around [A$650,000 less than men across their lifetimes].

While the pay gap is considerable, the “super gap” is even greater. On average women will accumulate 46.6% less in superannuation than men, and one in three women retire with no super at all. Superannuation is the second largest asset for most Australian households, (second only to housing) and contributes significantly to economic security and savings at retirement.

The pay gap is based on the average for all men and all women, and when analysed it becomes clear that there a significant variations in the extent of the gap (even with respect to which gender is favoured).

Insufficient superannuation and savings at retirement have also been linked to high rates of homelessness experience by older women – a point that has been emphasised by Homelessness Australia. While there are many factors that contribute to homelessness, from drug and alcohol abuse, lack of affordable housing and domestic violence, a 2013 study by Adam Steen and David MacKenzie suggests that the little research done is this area indicates poor financial literacy is also a contributing factor.

Difference in superannuation savings between women and men are driven by interrelated factors including: the gender pay gap, more frequent participation of women in lower paid industries and jobs, disproportionate participation of women in part-time and casual positions. Also influencing this trend are the fragmented work patterns as a result of time taken off for unpaid care and pregnancy related workplace discrimination. Women also typically retire earlier and live longer than men – up to 4.4 years longer for a female born today.

These are mainly issues of personal choice. Choose different options, for example taking a job in a higher paid sectors, and the situation changes regardless of gender – as stated in the following paper (and countless others).

“A Department of Labor study released in 2009, which reviewed upwards of 50 peer-reviewed papers, concluded the wage gap, “may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers.”

“Women, more than men, show a demonstrated preference for lower risk occupations with greater workplace safety and comfort, and they are frequently willing to accept lower wages for the greater safety and reduced probability of work-related injury or death”” (Source)

In addition to these structural and social factors, our data suggests that women are ill-equipped to manage long-term financial investments.

That sounds almost sexist doesn’t it? … whilst readers can only speculate how much better-equipped men in the same cohort are, as the relevant information is omitted from the “data”.

And then there are the other factors that might have a bearing on women’s relative unwillingness or inability to commit to long-term financial plans. One of these is female hypergamy, and one of the authors responded to this suggestion in the following manner:

Do you, dear reader, consider the author’s response to be a) Objective b) Scholarly or c) Butthurt (Circle correct answer/s)

Some other possible factors are mentioned in the readers comments that follow the article, for example the relative confidence of men v women (as distinct from actual knowledge or skill). Willingness to take risk was also mentioned.

Reduced financial literacy amongst women in comparison to men was acknowledged by the Australian government in 2008 and again by the NSW Council of Social Services in 2016. Likewise it has been acknowledged in the United States and further afield. Our data suggests little has changed.

But the authors earlier asserted that homelessness was highly correlated with financial literacy, and yet there are far more homeless men than women. Would someone please explain?

I’m perfectly willing to accept that financial literacy is a significant factor, for both men and women, in achieving financial security later in life. And yes, this should be a major focus in terms of designing appropriate remedial action.

What I am not willing to accept however is:

  • Designing and providing educational programs for financial literacy that are not available to both men/boys and women/girls
  • Extending financial support or other incentives to women, but not men (as in the case, for example, of the ANZ staff Super payment mentioned in this blog post).

And more publicly-funded ‘research’ like this!

See also:

Women’s superannuation not so super: The $120,000 gender gap (27 October 2017)

Aussie retirement gender gap much larger than US, UK (17 October 2017)

Brisbane small business to pay female employees more superannuation than male co-workers (28 September 2017)

Superannuation is sexist (6 September 2017) Video

Claims super is ‘biased’ against women are nonsense (30 July 2017)

When banks divert from banking to social engineering

Mid-way through 2015 the ANZ bank in Australia opted to join the chorus of ‘enlightened’ corporate entities banging the feminist drum at their customers expense.

The bank’s first step was to release the ANZ Women’s Report: ‘Barriers to Achieving Financial Gender Equity’. And no, in case you wondered, there is no corresponding ANZ Men’s Report. There never is. This despite the fact that, in this instance, many men also “fall behind and retire in poverty“.

“For many years people have been trying to tackle issues around gender equality by asking men and women to change. This approach will not work.

What we need to do is to look at the systems that are holding women back from achieving their full potential. And when we’re talking about systems we’re referring to structures and practices in our schools, workplaces, businesses and community that reinforce biases. These systems need to be redesigned so they are fairer for women, recognise the unique strengths and talents of both genders, and equally support the success of both genders.”

So apparently we can’t ask women to change what they’re doing, even if it directly contributes to their predicament. Nope, we have to change the “systems“.

Since then various related ‘initiatives’ have emerged such as ideologically correct videos (below), and a decision to contribute an additional $500 into the superannuation accounts of female staff based on the feminist misinterpretation of the gender paygap.

Being unhappy about witnessing this regressive move I contacted the bank, firstly via Twitter and then email, to express my concern and dissatisfaction. Our subsequent email exchange is shown below:

“Thanks for getting in touch with us to provide feedback relating to ANZ Women’s Initiative that was launched on the 29 July 2015. This kind of feedback is valuable to us because it helps us better understand what’s important to our customers. 

ANZ is committed to being a socially responsible bank, and we believe that from time to time we have a responsibility to take action on important social issues. We understand that some of our customers and employees hold different views on our decision to make additional superannuation contributions for our female employees, and we respect your right to hold this view.

Research shows that in Australia, women retire with 47% less superannuation than men – and 1 in 5 women yet to retire has no superannuation at all. This is driven by a range of complex factors.  However, on average women retire earlier and live longer than men, so the importance of having enough superannuation is even greater for women.

ANZ has weighed up all of these factors and is comfortable that the payment to female staff is a positive step that will help women to overcome the gap.

ANZ takes the issue of discrimination very seriously and in developing these new measures considered the relevant Sex Discrimination and Anti-Discrimination Laws. The payment is permitted under Australia’s anti-discrimination laws because it is a “special measure” designed to address this super gap that our research clearly demonstrates between men and women.

Our action has the full support of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner at the Australian Human Rights Commission. The Sex Discrimination Commissioner advised ANZ that, in her view, ANZ’s initiative is consistent with the objects of the Federal Sex Discrimination Act. ANZ has also been given a 10 year exemption from the NSW Anti-Discrimination Commission (because NSW is the only State where the anti-discrimination legislation does not contain a “special measures” exception).

 ANZ views this initiative as a positive step to support women and help close this gap in superannuation savings so they have greater security in retirement. While you may disagree, we do appreciate you taking the time to provide us with this feedback.”

I wrote back to the bank:

“Thank you for your prompt response. I disagree with your rationale for promoting feminist policies at the expense of your customers and shareholders. My original position on this matter remains unchanged and unresolved.

1. Whether women retire with less or nil Super is a reflection of their personal choice. Choice about what type of training they undertook, choice about what field of work in which they seek employment, choice about how much overtime they do, choice about whether they take time out during their careers.

2. Those women who choose to get married often then have the choice to be stay at home mum’s (and be supported by their partner) or not. Most women enter marriage with less assets then their partners, or in debt. Most divorces are initiated by women, who then tend to walk away often with in excess of 50% of their partners assets, even when those assests were accumulated prior to the marriage.

3. The wage gap is a much debunked misrepresentation of the true situation in relation to income received by men and women and cannot be validly used to ‘prove’ gender discrimination. That issue is discussed in this article – http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/the-myth-of-wage-disparity/

4. Women live longer in large part because disproportionately more is spent on research into womens health and on the treatment of womens health issues, and because men are more likely employed in relatively more stressful and higher risk occupations (one reason why they are, on average, in receipt of higher incomes)

In summary for every disadvantage suffered by women there are benefits or advantages, as is the case for men. Therefore it is inappropriate and discriminatory to single out women for incentives/rewards for real or imagined discrimination faced by them, but at the same time to ignore issues that negatively impact on men.

The fact that the additional payment to women by ANZ was ratified by the former AHRC sex-discrimination commissioner is more a reflection of her partiality and gender bias rather than vindication that ANZ’s policy was truly a fair and appropriate one. That issue is discussed in this article – http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/gender-bias-at-the-australian-human-rights-commission/

And the bank duly wrote back:

“Thank you for your email and further feedback which has been noted. As your concern is regarding a policy decision made by ANZ, the Customer Advocate will not become involved. It is not the role of the Customer Advocate to review or change a matter that relates to ANZ’s setting of staff benefits. If you wish to escalate your concern you may contact the Financial Ombudsman Service.”

Whereupon I said:

“Thank you for your prompt response but my concerns with ANZ’s decision to re-orientate itself in lockstep with feminism philosophy runs deeper than simply the $500 payment to female staff. In the absence of other options I will now investigate/consider the appropriateness of lodging a submission with the Financial Ombudsman Service”

It’s not just banks doing this … it’s not just about financial benefits … and the implications extend beyond staff of the relevant company

Since forever many companies have wanted to do good in their local communities, or at least be seen to do good. Until recently they were content to do things like sponsor a local football team or make a donation to a charity. Although the worthy causes were usually unrelated to the business of the company, these were small benign gestures that troubled no-one. How quickly that has changed in the space of just a few years.

Now were are seeing companies expend large amounts of money and time on causes that can be polarising and contentious. The implications of adopting (often judgmental) public positions on these issues or causes can flow through to staff, customers, shareholders and then out into the broader community.

With the superannuation issue there was a tangible benefit for staff, well, for some staff. As this trends builds, and with these other issues, there are both carrots and sticks being employed. The sticks can include shunning/shaming or even dismissal for staff who don’t embrace the company line and engage in wrong-think.

Workplace intimidation silences lawyers critical of same-sex marriage (30 August 2017)

“Solicitors have complained of being intimidated at their workplaces if they publicly criticise the endorsement of same-sex marriage by their professional association and law firms … He said it was wrong for the Law Society and the Bar Association to express any view on same-sex marriage because it was peripheral to the central concerns of both organisations.”

The market for virtue: why companies like Qantas are campaigning for marriage equality (28 August 2017)

How James Damore went from Google employee to right-wing Internet hero (12 August 2017)

See also:

NAB promotes #EndToViolence (November 2017) with further details in their web site

Did Westpac just mansplain gender diversity to its competitors? (26 October 2017) Westpac learns, as have countless male feminists, that no matter how much you pander to feminist nonsense, you will still be subjected to harsh criticism.

Westpac under fire over same sex marriage email (5 October 2017)

“Westpac has been forced to defend an email from a staff networking group telling fellow employees to vote Yes in the same-sex marriage survey, erroneously claiming that doing so would prevent 3000 suicides a year”

What? No, Women Shouldn’t Be Paid More Super Than Men, by Corrine Barraclough (26 May 2017)

Why we’re backing women, by Lorraine Murphy, National Australia Bank (6 March 2017)

Young women can budget in the short term but struggle with long-term investments: survey (14 February 2017) A very gynocentric article, but which does support the value of addressing financial literacy/skill to enhance post-retirement financial status.

Banks preaching about gender wage gap myth, by Rita Panahi (28 October 2016)

Female tech leadership to get $1m boost (4 October 2016)

Shareholders slam CBA’s ‘diversity’ bonus (27 September 2016) Australia

It would seem that National Australia Bank has now jumped on the bandwagon (August/September 2016) See below and here. Perhaps trying to regain their feminist cachet after an earlier #fail

nab

I see that both ANZ and NAB have directors on the board of Diversity Council Australia. DCA are, amongst other things, the organisers of this feminist talk-fest planned for November 2016.

CEOs say women will be promoted and men should get used to it or leave (24 August 2016)

Radical proposal to force bosses to fork out extra super for women (3 June 2016)

Angus Aitken out at Bell Potter after ANZ Michelle Jablko email (26 May 2016) with further background to this episode in this interview with Kate Jenkins

Tweet from Paul Edwards, Group GM Corporate Communications at ANZ. So now it’s forbidden to criticise women in the finance sector (misogyny!). In the words of Miranda Devine: “Where is the sexism? You know what damages women? Cheap virtue signalling PC BS like this”

The Superannuation Gender Gap (21 April 2016) Australia. Related reddit discussion thread here

Australian bank buys into the gender pay gap rubbish (9 April 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here. Note the observation about the Bank disabling comments on their Facebook page and cleansing earlier comments – as feminists are wont to do.

Australian bank ANZs new ad. Pushing the wage gap myth on children (March 2016) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

‘Blatant sexism’: ANZ’s #equalfuture campaign cleared of discriminating against men (4 September 2015)

ANZ pays women extra super (31 August 2015) A very long-running discussion in the Whirlpool online forum

ANZ bank giving female employees an extra $500 to correct gender pay gap (August 2015) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

ANZ Bank launches a super deal for female employees (29 July 2015)

ANZ pushes its new gender diversity measures in national campaign (29 July 2015)

This article suggests that women might be better off considering the impact of financial literacy on their retirement savings, rather than complaining about the wage gap.

Postscript (19 September 2018) Today Bill Shorten, Australian federal leader of the Opposition, announced a $400 million scheme to support women in relation to their retirement Super balances

We’ve set a target of having 10% of our senior management team female by 2017

Yes it’s a bold plan but we think we can do it. We’re a cool little organisation and, I tell you, we are 100% into gender equality.

Only 10% women by 2017? Feminists would be collectively choking on their breakfast cereal at this point, and reaching towards their IPads ready to unleash a storm on social media. Well, they can relax and busy themselves attending to their cats’ litter tray instead.

That’s because the statement in this particular organisation’s web site actually specifies having 10% of the senior management team *male* by 2017. I’ve seen this objective noted in their web site for quite a while now. Three years? Clearly progress has been slow. Perhaps they’re having trouble finding men whose judgement is sufficiently impaired to sign off on media releases asserting that the gender wage gap is proof-positive of an oppressive male hegemony across corporate Australia.

The organisation I’m talking about is the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA). The WGEA is an Australian Government statutory agency created by the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012. The Agency is charged with promoting and improving gender equality in Australian workplaces. The relevant minister is Senator the Hon. Michaelia Cash, Minister for Employment, Minister for Women, etc.

We taxpayers support WGEA to the tune of $5 million each year, and in return they tell us about stuff that’s really important to feminists like the ‘gender pay gap’. They even have a separate website in which to bang that particular drum.

I could divert at this point to talk about how the gender wage gap, in the context it’s presented to us by feminists, is complete hokum that has been de-bunked more times than I’ve had hot breakfasts. Here’s a recent effort courtesy of Forbes. But never mind, at least the ‘pay gap’ gives gender studies students and feminist journos something to write about other than their own angst-ridden lives.

There are currently no men in the senior management team at WGEA. I don’t think that there ever has been. The last annual report (refer page 100) tells us that only two out of twenty-nine staff were men (see the lovely staff pic). (Postscript September 2016: According to this article, WGEA now employ five men … break out the party pies, they achieved their quota!)

I don’t understand why they only shot for 10% men though. Because if 10% is the feminist version of equality, then that certainly changes a few things. And what’s with waiting until now (2017)? Surely if members of the current management team were real feminists they would jump at the opportunity to facilitate greater diversity at WGEA by resigning to make way for new blood. And then imagine the challenge of subsequently breaking new ground in a field dominated by men, like fishing or mining for example. But then if it’s just about the money I guess I could understand …

Now back to where I started, with the genders reversed. If it was 95% men working in this particular agency, don’t you think that the feminist lobby would scream their heads off? That it wouldn’t be on, or close to, the front page of the paper? Maybe even have its own hashtag? And that the government wouldn’t find a way to immediately address the serious gender imbalance?

Don’t bother answering. I think none of us are in any doubt about the answer to that hypothetical.

Feminism. Hypocrisy. Got it

(Postscript January 2017: Philip Davies MP recounts his experience dealing with the Equality and Human Rights Commission in the UK)

(Postscript November 2018: An extra $8 million to encourage employers to report on gender equity)

A response (to Robert Brockway) from the WGEA (3 March 2019)

Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in reading:

Diversity Council Australia fails to understand ‘diversity’

Harassment and discrimination in the workplace: Surprise, surprise, it goes both ways

Australian taxpayer-funded organisations that do little/nothing for men (other than demonising them)

Recruitment bias favours hiring female staff

On affirmative action and the imposition of gender quotas

The people speak: Feminist journalist hears but won’t listen

You might be interested in taking a look at this article entitled ‘A gender-equality wish list for 2016’, and the readers comments that follow.

The article was written by feminist journalist Wendy Tuohy. I think I first introduced Wendy in this blog post. I would probably place her in the second tier of Australian feminist journalists, were they ranked according to stridency and degree of bigotry. In other words she is a self-professed feminist with narrow and stereotypical views on gender matters, but by no means barking mad. Like many feminists she enjoys cats and blocking dissenting voices.

tuohy2

 

The issues that Wendy flagged in her latest article included domestic violence, the gender pay gap, the proportion of women in management positions, the number of women on current affairs show panels, female economic empowerment, and women playing football. No surprises there.

Ah, but then Wendy got a surprise. For with but two exceptions, her readers tore her article to shreds. Quite coherently, and with facts.

Some brief extracts from Wendy’s readers:

“We have a media dominated by women’s voices focusing (as most of you do) exclusively on women’s issues. It’s simply mind blowing to hear you say women have no voice. The only time men can speak with any confidence they won’t be crucified by the media is when they speak in total support of anything concerning the welfare of women”

“Sure, you have two journos dedicated to women’s issues and none dedicated to men’s. Maybe get a third female journo talking about female issues as a step closer to equality? Maybe four or five and we are there?”

“Yes we need to do more about DV mostly adopting an honest approach, recognizing that it is not a gendered crime and producing all the stats not just part of them.

The figure of 78 women has been front and centre but broken down 28 were not DV related and 10 were killed by women so men killed 40 women and 4 children (DV related). Women killed 19 men and 10 women plus after removing clear cases of mental problems they killed 11 children.”

The final numbers, men (in a DV situation) killed 44 and women killed 40. So let us be honest next year and tackle the problem in an unbiased manner.”

True to feminist form Wendy did not respond to her critics here, let alone attempt a rebuttal of the points they raised. But elsewhere, in her Twitter account, she implored a supporter to avoid reading the comments in the Herald-Sun, of which she was haughtily dismissive …

tuohy2

Yes, whatever you do fellow feminists, don’t expose yourselves to the nasty views of the unbelievers.

Hold true to your feelz, and to our precious narrative, special snowflakes!

Don’t learn, don’t understand, don’t engage or collaborate, and don’t empathise. We’ll show them.

 

But then the fear and loathing with which feminists and SJW view the dark threat that constitutes the reader’s comments section is now well-recognised. (PS: And in fact Wendy has since closed her blog because of her disdain for comments contributed by her readers)

Australian MRA Mark Dent also posted a copy of his reader’s comment on Wendy’s Facebook page. The subsequent exchange between Mark and Wendy is quite interesting, and I’ve reproduced it below in the event that it disappears from Facebook.

“Hi Mark, my brief is to focus on issues impacting women, kids and families — all of which are affected by the issues I touched on in my article titled ‘A few small changes could make a big difference’ in The Herald Sun last Sunday, and just up on my blog. Of course I care about issues impacting men: I’ve written lots about male adolescent mental health and better supporting boys in education and not ‘writing off’ teen boys (of which I have two lovely examples). But I stick to my primary brief in most of my work: issues primarily impacting women. Here is one pay gap link, reporting ABS statistics. Thanks for reading, Wendy”

(Mark replies) “Thanks for responding (as you always do) but you have proved my point. The media are not stupid. They know women devour stories about their victimhood or heroism. This is why our papers and TVs are saturated with females talking about issues which affect women.

Please point out one male journalist whose brief is to write exclusively about issues which are confronting men and placing them at a disadvantage. It seems there are many women who do just what you do so how do you then complain about a lack of female voices in the media?

Just because your brief is to focus on women’s issues does not make your statements about gender inequality any more true or acceptable.

I have presented a range of issues which impact upon men in a far more devastating way than a mythical wage gap based on gender or a purported lack of a voice (when the opposite is true). Men’s issues are about death, injury, the right to see their own children, huge disparity in sentencing for the same crime when compared to women and their total invisibility when it comes to being victims of family violence. There are weighty issues which lead to homelessness and suicide yet when was the last time any paper devoted a segment to the horrendous obstacles and injustices confronting men?”

(Wendy replies) “Mark, my former editor, Simon Pristel called me in and commissioned me to write a blog/do a round focused on women. I don’t know what his thinking was or why he chose me to do it (I was a general features writer before that for a couple of decades) but it has been going now for about 5 years so I guess it must be considered to be serving a market that perhaps we weren’t offering as much for previously.”

Mark: “Wendy-I am not attacking you for writing about women’s issues. I am questioning why this should almost always lead to anguished diatribes on all of the inequities women supposedly face and creating the very false narrative which says men are somehow privileged over women in our society.

As I have said repeatedly (and supported with facts) it is men who suffer the biggest obstacles and disadvantages as a result of their gender.

I challenged you to point out one male journalist who devotes his whole job to writing about issues concerning men and you didn’t respond. The very fact that male editors ignore men’s issues backs up my comments about politicians (male and female) devoting all of their time, energy and funding to women’s issues.

Men simply don’t matter in our world.”

Wendy: “Men matter Mark. Perhaps the ones who need attention the most don’t get it, I can only say as the daughter of a non ‘Alpha’ male and wife of same and mother of same X 2 that maybe it’s harder for the non typically macho men. That is a guess. Shoot me down if you want to.”

Mark: I don’t want to shoot you down. You seem to be a lovely person. It is just so upsetting to be fed this line of female suffering and inequality day after day in our media. You seem to accept my arguments with regard to male disadvantage but unlike female issues-there is literally no focus on these issues.

As I said-women have a voice-men have no voice in our mainstream media. You say men matter but whenever you write about family violence you focus exclusively on female victims, just as Rosie Batty does. How can this be justified?

I am passionate about the very real gender empathy gap in our society and will continue to voice my concerns whenever the opportunity arises. Here’s something I wrote about the gender empathy gap.

Thanks again for engaging in such a civilized manner.”

Wendy: “Mark, thank you for treating me civilly, unlike some men on Twitter, one of whom reacted to my column like this:”

abuse

Mark: That kind of language is totally unacceptable, Wendy. This type of abuse is often a result of deep frustration over the issues I have tried to outline in our discussion. Some men respond to the sense of injustice and helplessness (men have no voice in the public forum) with angry attacks.

I am not justifying or excusing it, but I have been abused in a most vile manner by feminists for simply presenting the arguments I have written to you. One group of feminists actually set up a website and posted pics of me and wrote lies about me being a hater of women and girls and someone who excuses DV. They said they wanted me sacked from my job as a teacher. They literally made stuff up. All because I asked why we don’t give the same attention and compassion to the suffering of males.

I know Andrew Bolt gets death threats and abuse every day. My point? Many female journalists hold up online abuse as some kind of male problem carried out by neanderthals who hate women. Men receive vile, abuse from women too. Clem Ford is a mainstream journalist who uses far worse language than that directed at you and as I said-there are no repercussions. Yet she gets a man sacked from his job for abusing her.

Perhaps if men had an opportunity to be heard in the media rather than be mocked or branded a woman hater for expressing concern for males there would be less anger and frustration in the community. You have never had to endure an almost daily assault on your gender for nigh on forty years, Wendy.

Anyway, I thank you again for engaging and allowing me an opportunity to express my views.”

A civil exchange without a trace of rancour, but you would have observed that neither here nor in her tweet does the journalist actually address the *facts* raised by readers.

Whilst Wendy Tuohy may well be a “lovely person”, both her work to date and her comments on this occasion, lend further support to the existence of a feminist mind-set characterised by:

  • a belief that the views of those speaking up for the rights of men and boys are unworthy of even the most superficial consideration
  • a belief that anyone who challenges feminist beliefs and/or champions the rights of men/boys is not only anti-feminist but also a misogynist
  • a lack of awareness of the male perspective on many, if not most, gender-related matters

How shall we ever move beyond this impasse and engage in an informed and constructive manner whilst feminists remain blissfully unaware of the male perspective, and react with visceral disgust and censorship upon encountering the views of non-feminists?

Is anyone else starting to get the feeling that in just a few year’s time western society will look back on 3rd wave feminism in a similar manner to that which we now look back on the hippie era? As something akin to a Dagwood Dog … a sliver of substance embalmed in a voluminous barf-inducing batter of self-indulgence and narcissism.

dagwood dog

Happy New Year.

That tired old feminist chestnut that is the ‘gender wage gap’ lives on in the Australian media

It’s hard to believe, but white knight politicians, feminists and media commentators alike are still banging this drum. How many times does the existence of a ‘pay gap’ arising from gender discrimination, need to be debunked before it is finally put to rest?

It’s notable that the relevant Australian Wikipedia entry simply compares the average male and female rates of pay, which is clearly not ‘comparing apples with apples’. By that I mean that we need to compare pay rates for men and women doing the same job (incl. same hours worked), and with the same qualification and experience in order to tease out any meaningful gender-based differences.

While there are certainly differences in the average salary earned by men and women, such differences reflect personal career choices, rather than being an indicator of gender bias in the workplace as is routinely asserted or implied by the feminist lobby. Further, once you drill down into the data it becomes clear that the nature of the gap is  no means uniform ‘across the board’ – which you might expect if it was in fact a meaningful indication of ingrained gender bias across Australian society. (Refer statistical sources provided in this other blog post)

One of the things that feminists don’t mention is that, even when using the average pay rates they base their argument on, the gender gap actually favours women in certain age groups or in certain types of jobs. I would suggest, however, that we don’t all hold our breath waiting for Elizabeth Broderick to take “bold measures” to address those particular areas of ‘inequity’.

Back in March 2014  this article appeared, asserting the existence of gender-based wage disparity. I emailed Westpac bank requesting supporting information and got a reply from their PR section wanting to know why I wanted the info. I was eventually pointed towards the media release section of their web site where I found this. As you can see no mention of male/female salary data at all, so I’m left wondering where Westpac CEO, Gail Kelly (who also features in this Youtube video), sourced those stats.

This week the ‘gender pay gap’ was mentioned here in an article on news.com.auherehere and here in segments on the Australian morning TV show ‘Sunrise’, and here in comments by Tracey Spicer. Tracey was quoted as saying:

“To be a working woman in Australia is to know that you are valued less than your male counterparts. Our (rising) double digit gender wage gap means you’re earning less than guys doing the same job, you have a reduced chance of making your way to a senior leadership position (particularly if you’re angling to be on the board) and no matter where you are in the business hierarchy you stand a 17 percent chance of sexual harassment on the job and a one in five chance of being discriminated against if you become pregnant.”

Why is it that when I see articles that purport to discuss gender differences, but only provide the relevant statistics for women, I immediately think *feminist author*? I wonder if this technique, i.e. don’t provide any context or basis for comparison, is something they are now teaching everyone in ‘gender studies 101’ because it really is so prevalent now.

The wage gap statistics that Tracey refers to were sourced from a government agency, the ‘Workplace Gender Equality Agency‘ (WGEA) which defines the gender pay gap as “the difference between women’s and men’s average weekly full-time equivalent earnings, expressed as a percentage of men’s earnings.”

As is explained in my previous blog post about the ‘pay gap’, comparing average male/female earnings is utterly unhelpful and inappropriate given the large number of variables involved (of which gender discrimination by employers is only one, and only a minor one at that).

I see in this article that the WGEA has previously been subject to criticism for their interpretation of source statistics.

You might be interested to know that only two out of twenty-nine staff in the WGEA are men. And how many of them would identify as feminists? I’m guessing, almost all. Just putting this thought out there, but could it be that perhaps this situation is introducing some teensy, weensy measure of bias into the Agency’s priorities and findings?

In terms of addressing the agency’s staffing imbalance, dare I suggest that they could probably speed things along via the introduction of an enforced gender quota? I mean to say, feminists are proposing gender quotas right left and centre, and what’s ‘good for the goose is good for the gander’ as they say.

But in the meantime the suits at the big end of town clearly think that pandering to feminists makes business sense, as many are falling all over themselves to support the WGEA’s latest ‘pay gap’ initiative.

Postscript … and on and on it goes:

Closing the gender pay gap‘ by the Chifley Research Centre (August 2019). The Centre is the official think-tank of the Australian Labor Party, and its official mission is to champion a Labor culture of ideas. It is an Australian public company supported by the Commonwealth Government through a grant in aid administered by the Department of Finance and Deregulation (source).

I have asked the Centre for details regarding the size and source of the budget for this project. The only response thus far has been for a member of the (all-female) project working group to block me on Twitter. Yes an avowed feminist and gender studies academic … surprised? Stay tuned.

Female futures traders on $315,000 a year among 72 occupations where women earn more than men (29 March 2019) Ooh, see the angry feminist fuming over this article, media poison, no more promotions for this journalist.

Google finds it’s underpaying many men as it addresses wage equity (4 March 2019) USA

In December 2018 Australia’s SBS ran a program called “Is Australia sexist?”. The linked video was a critique of that program. Interesting

Workplace gender equality score reveals massive blind spot letting Australian businesses down (17 November 2017)

Andrew Bolt: Let’s ask Waleed Aly the truth about a pay gap (18 October 2017)

Cafe of Confusion (7 August 2017) Video

What we miss when we focus on the gender wage gap (10 July 2017) Why is it so very difficult for pro-feminist researchers to provide like-for-like statistics and an objective unbiased presentation of the facts of the matter. This articles excludes consideration, for example, of the reality that men are more likely to support others and women more likely to be supported. Therefore now, and in the absence of wide-ranging structural reform, unemployment or underemployment of men has a far more serious impact on welfare of affected persons.

Instead of tweeting his ‘support’ for Natalie Portman, Ashton Kutcher should have coughed up the cash, by Clementine Ford (31 January 2017)

She’s Price(d)less: The economics of the gender pay gap (October 2016) KPMG study for Diversity Council Australia. Exaggerates the significance of gender discrimination – hardly surprising given the agenda of the commissioning organisation. KPMG in turn clearly have their eye on the ball with regards to winning further lucrative ‘women as victims’ consultancies from pro-feminist agencies.

8 September 2016 was ‘Equal Pay Day’. This triggered a flurry of pay gap articles, only one of which challenged the feminist narrative. And oddly that was an article published in news.com.au, entitled ‘How common sense shows gender pay gap is a myth‘.

The others were ‘Closing the gender pay gap won’t just help women. It’ll help men too‘, ‘Will the real gender pay gap please stand up?‘ & ‘It’s time to dispel the myth that women’s choices cause the gender pay gap’ (8 September 2016) None of the pro-feminist articles found it relevant to note that the pay gap favours women in many instances – and in an increasing number of instances – depending on sector, seniority, etc. From the readers comments, many people are far from convinced by the feminist position. This comment from ‘mythbuster’ was a classic:

“Men earn an average total of $27,000 a year more than women”. Yes, EARN, not, “are paid”. That calculation is based on averaging the incomes of all male and all female full time workers. It doesn’t take into account overtime, differences in jobs, female choices. In lower paid, similar jobs they earn more because they do more overtime. There are 12.2 million workers here, split 55/45 men to women. To get equality, you need to conscript 600,000 women out of their homes and into work. You also need to sack 600,000 and put them in front of the afternoon soaps, and then have women support them. There are 1.2 million workers in construction, forestry and mining, 85% male. This pays higher than the 1.1 in health services, 80% women. So lets take about 360,000 women out of counselling or aroma therapy and get them down the mines or out building us houses. That’s where the pay is better, in back breaking, dangerous work. We should also swap some teachers with long distance truckies and oil rig workers, since that will help close the pay gap and the death gap since 93% of workplace deaths happen to men. More dead female workers will be a sign of equality. Its illegal to pay a man or woman a different wage based on gender, if you know of an example of this, please give us the EBA or Award name, otherwise, if you want to be paid like a man, work the jobs women tend not to want to and do the hours men do at it. That’s equality.”

Women catching up to men on wages: ABS (23 August 2016)

“Women’s wages have grown at almost three times the rate of men’s over the past year”

Young men blamed for not believing the feminist misrepresentation of the gender pay gap (Australian Financial Review, 17 July 2016)

Radical proposal to force bosses to fork out extra super for women (3 June 2016)

Opinion: Gap in logic over gender pay discrepancies (8 May 2016)

University of Queensland to host Bake Sale that charges based on gender (3 April 2016) and then ‘The feminist cupcake sale that led to death and rape threats‘ (6 April 2016)

Just thinking out loud now, but I’d love the opportunity to look at these threat messages. Of those that actually exist IRL, I’d like to see how many were sent from newly created accounts with IP addresses that matched those of the recipients.

Higher proportion of gender pay gap ‘unexplained’ in Australia than in US, UK, research shows (24 March 2016) Laughably inane. Headline should be ‘Wage gap found to be insignificant’ … 39% of 3.9% (= 1.5%), only some of which actually results from discrimination

How the work gap affects women, by Jasmin Newman (14 March 2016)

Gender parity still lacking in Australia’s workforce, by Roy Morgan Research (8 March 2016) See chart below – would be interesting to see these results cross-referenced by years of experience in role.

annual_incomes

Gender equality in the workplace can prevent violence against women (1 March 2016) In this article the feminist authors vainly attempt to create a causal link between the pay gap and domestic violence against women. Talk about a reach. And needless to say there is zero acknowledgment of workplace harassment or discrimination against men.

Why women graduates don’t get paid as much as men (14 February 2016) OK, so women freely choose to take courses that lead to lower paying job. It’s not men’s fault, and the only problem seems to be in the minds of feminists. WTF?

Workplace gender equality scorecard puts Australia to shame (26 November 2015)

ANZ bank launches a Super deal for female employees (29 July 2015) And now dodgy interpretation of statistics is used to justify gender discrimination

The Only 2(3) Cents I’m Giving Up Because of the Pay Gap (16 April 2015)

Gender pay gap misinterpreted again (16 October 2014)

Get Fact: do men make much more than women for the same job? (7 March 2014)

Pay gap due to women’s choices, not gender bias (9 March 2015) International Women’s Day 2015 saw a flood of pro-feminist articles about the gender pay gap. I won’t even bother including links here as none of them contributed anything new or useful to the discussion – just the same old debunked nonsense. This article (linked above) was the only one I saw that said anything sensible on the matter.

Less than 50/50 representation does not automatically imply ‘gender bias’

Although forcing 50/50 representation via quotas or similar discriminatory measures does …

There is no disputing the fact that relatively few women occupy places in the upper echelons of the corporate world. Feminist ‘wisdom’ would have us believe that this is wrong, and this it is a wrong that must be righted – for example via affirmative action measures such as quotas. Feminists tell us that this wrong is indicative of an unfair workplace environment constructed by men for men, which is holding women back from assuming their rightful places at the boardroom table.

Like many others, I have a problem with this simplistic construct. There are many factors, and more significant factors, contributing to gender imbalance in the workplace other than deliberate bias on the part on males at the apex of the hierarchy. Thus questions such as the following, readily spring to mind:

  • Is it necessarily wrong that women are not represented 50/50 on boards and amongst the ranks of CEO’s? (That is, assuming feminists would even settle for 50/50)
  • Exactly what costs and benefits would be associated with achieving 50/50 representation? and who would incur these costs and receive these benefits?
  • To what extent are the low numbers of women in senior ranks simply reflective of what real women actually want (or don’t want), rather it being a situation that has been forced upon them?
  • To the extent that women are being held back in their chosen career paths, for example because of inflexible workplaces, and to what extent do the very same factors also act as constraints on the careers of men?
  • Are women who achieve positions of high standing in the corporate hierarchy more or less likely than men to help women in the lower ranks of their organisations (i.e. champion/mentor versus Queen Bee)
  • Why are concerns *never* raised about the need for diversity in relation to organisations, boards, etc that are overwhelmingly female in composition?

Is it not wrong, and indicative of sexist bias, that all of the emphasis in this debate is about women achieving leadership positions, with no concern expressed in relation to the small numbers of men working in roles like nursing or teaching. And what about roles that are heavily male-dominated, but are dirty and/or dangerous, like collecting garbage, janitorial roles, mining, the military, etc. How come no mention of quotas being imposed there?

Clearly the feminist lobby and their allies in the media are advancing a very imbalanced position. Yet again and again I see articles advancing this position appearing unchallenged – articles like this one – and I know more people need to speak up about feminist hypocrisy and double standards.

This latest article is entitled ‘YWCA conference addresses gender bias in leadership‘. The main point being made is that because only a minority of business or political leadership roles are held by women, then there is clearly pervasive ‘gender bias’.

Before dissecting the article, let’s first look at the definition of the word ‘bias’:

“An inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair.”

I would propose that there are many reasons why there might be more men (or more women) in a particular career, or company, or industry, and that gender bias is but one of these. I would propose that in Australia, in most cases gender bias is a relatively minor factor – or does not apply at all. I would further propose that to the extent that gender bias is a significant factor then there would be (and in fact, are) situations where men, as well as women, are disadvantaged.

The article begins with “There is a silence in our society when it comes to the continued gender biases that exist in our workplaces.”

Well if you want to hear real silence then consider the issues I raised a few moments ago:

  • the lack of men working in roles like nursing or teaching, and
  • the lack of women in roles that are poorly paid, dirty and/or dangerous, like collecting garbage, janitorial roles, mining, the military, etc.

Who is speaking up about gender bias in these situations? Certainly not the feminist lobby, an ideology that is purportedly all about equality. I’m not seeing any suggestions of quotas being applied to address these imbalances. But maybe I missed that memo.

The article goes on to state:

Perhaps most alarming is the continuing gender wage gap – women still earn 17.5 per cent less than our male counterparts for the same work, and female graduates can expect to earn $5,000 less per annum than male graduates.

These statistics are real. They demonstrate an attitude and an unconscious gender bias that form a significant barrier to women participating in the workforce.”

Firstly Francis, no, these statistics are not “real”. The kindest descriptor I would offer is ‘misleading’. See my separate posts about the wage gap and about women in the workforce, both of which identify the many contributing variables (other than sex discrimination against women) that lead to the outcomes being considered here.

Secondly, neither the number of women in leadership roles, nor any wage differential that might exist, “demonstrate” bias or a “significant barrier to women participating in the workforce“. Nor do they necessarily even indicate an inequality of opportunity for women.

Take for example, political leadership, where more than 50% of voters are women. Is the author, and others of her ideological inclination, suggesting that women are biased against other women to the extent that election outcomes are heavily influenced.

And then the article asserts that “Workplaces in Australia are not responsive to the needs of women when it comes to balancing both motherhood and their careers.”

Well Francis, don’t you think that one could also say the same thing about men and fatherhood? But then, feminists do have this habit of conveniently overlooking the fact that many of the issues they rail about also negatively impact on men. That being the case, why continue to represent these issues as ammunition in an ‘us versus them’ gender war?

“In Australia, we don’t yet know what a sustained, gender-equal playing field looks like.” but then just a few lines later “The YWCA of Canberra is a supporter of quotas, as they have proven to be successful mechanisms to create a pipeline of young women into leadership roles. Until young women feel empowered to pursue leadership opportunities and have role models to look to, we will continue to be under-represented at the decision-making tables, be they in business, politics, education, or any other sector.”

Aha, so a “level playing field” looks like a place where a group of candidates with superior qualifications and experience are potentially frozen out whilst members of another group are placed in leadership roles … by virtue of having a vagina? It looks like a place where women can only feel “empowered” when assisted by way of privileged intervention (dare I say, bias?). Not infantilising much.

No-one is standing at the head of the queue handing out leadership roles to men. The reality is that anyone who strives for a position of leadership faces significant barriers. It’s not an easy path to take. And then of course there are many men and women who have no interest in taking on a leadership role, or who are simply not prepared to make the necessary compromises in other areas of their lives.

Do some of these hurdles affect proportionately more women more than men? Sure, just as some factors affect proportionately more men than women. Do some women face a proportionately greater barrier in relation to their role as parents than men? Yes, of course. But then there are, for example, women who don’t have children or who have a stay-at-home partner. Just as there are men who are single parents, or married but with a wife who has her own career.

Some of these hurdles to achieving leadership roles are fair and unavoidable, others perhaps less so. Where a hurdle is grossly unfair then by all means address it in an appropriate and targeted manner, but reacting via introducing another unfair barrier (in this case, a gender-based quota) is certainly not my idea of a “level playing-field”.

I would also recommend looking at a web site created by Mike Buchanan called the  ‘Campaign for Merit in Business‘. One of the articles to be found there is http://c4mb.wordpress.com/improving-gender-diversity-on-boards-leads-to-a-decline-in-corporate-performance-the-evidence/

Elsewhere Mike states:
“The government continues to bully FTSE100 companies into achieving 25% female representation on their boards by 2015, through the threat of legislated gender quotas. We know from recent reports that the government is planning to threaten the FTSE350 with 50% gender quotas. Because when you’re paddling downstream in a canoe on the Niagara river, and you start to hear the roar of the waterfalls, you should paddle faster towards them, right?

Good luck with trying to find evidence of a causal link between GDITB (Gender diversity in the boardroom) and enhanced financial performance – the oft-cited ‘business case’. I’ve challenged the government, dozens of organisations pressing for this ‘direction of travel’, and hundreds of individual proponents across the developed world – many of them employed in lucrative jobs allied to this insane ‘direction of travel’ – to provide evidence for a causal link.

None has ever done so. The best they can do is misrepresent a number of studies and reports, all of which make it perfectly that there’s no evidence of causal links, nor can causal links even be implied from the statistics. The following are just a few of the prominent / influential proponents of GDITB who’ve failed to meet our public challenges. They include Vince Cable MP. who leads the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills:

http://c4mb.wordpress.com/our-public-challenges-of-high-profile-proponents-of-improved-gender-diversity-in-boardrooms

PS: Readers who might be interested in more of a ‘big picture’ perspective on this issue might like to look at these papers dealing with affirmative action, and the concept of ‘gynocentrism‘.

Other related papers that may be of interest include:

Why Some Women Aren’t Excited About Leadership Positions (17 May 2017)

Jordan Peterson – why few women are in positions of power (3 March 2017) Video

Maybe It’s Time To Redefine What It Means For Women To ‘Have It All’ (21 December 2016)

Richard Marx slams ‘chaotic’ event on flight (21 December 2016) Maybe Korean Air should enforce 50/50 rule for their flight attendants, but of course quotas only ever seem to get applied in relation to under-representation by women.

We need to rethink recruitment for men in primary schools (17 October 2016) Australia. Hold onto your hat! Is this the first ever article in The Conversation providing a positive perspective in relation to supporting men/boys?

Social Work’s Gender Problem (15 September 2016) USA

More men need to be recruited to female-dominated industries, by Libby Lyons, WGEA (14 August 2016)

The Flawed Arguments About Female Discrimination in the Film Industry (3 August 2016)

Melbourne University advertises female-only jobs in bid to remedy gender imbalance in maths (18 May 2016) Related Reddit discussion thread here, and critical response from Janet Bloomfield below:

Positive discrimination will have exactly the opposite effect you hope for, Melbourne University. Smarten up (18 May 2016)

Do women really want equality? by Nikita Coulombe (12 May 2016) USA

Do They Stay or Do They Go? The Switching Decisions of Individuals Who Enter Gender Atypical College Majors (May 2016)

“Men who enter a female-dominated major are significantly more likely to switch majors than their male peers in other majors. By contrast, women in male-dominated fields are not more likely to switch fields compared to their female peers in other fields.”

Study Shows Gender Inequality Not Responsible for Girls Not Choosing STEM Field (26 April 2016) USA

Where are all the women? Senior APS ranks maintain male majority (11 April 2016) Not content that “The vast majority of rank-and-file public servants are women”, the author presumably wants to see the same imbalance reflected in the most senior (and well-remunerated) level of the public service.

Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate: Men (March 2016) USA statistics showing decline in male employment 1950-2016

In the Name of Diversity, You Must Conform! (21 March 2016)

Novak Djokovic questions equal prize money in tennis (21 March 2016) Men also play more sets than women. Plus different climate standards apply to men, who must continue playing in higher temperatures.

Laura Perrins: Feminists have lowered the status of women (14 March 2016) UK

I’m so bored of women having to be on board (11 March 2016) Australia

The Great Diversity Scam (10 March 2016)

Nearly 300 women apply for MFB firefighter jobs (4 March 2016) Australia

The two articles that follow highlight the ‘one-way street’ nature of feminist demands and expectations in relation to diversity and representation. Mostly men = a big problem … mostly women = sound of crickets chirping

Juliet Bourke on the secret of harnessing diverse teams and More women on boards helps to narrow gender pay gap (2 March 2016)

Tasmania’s top public servant targets gender parity (17 February 2016) With 70% of the state’s public service being female, will Greg Johannes also be writing to heads of agencies with >50% female staff to ask them to recruit more male staff? Gee, I really, really doubt it.

Now that women potentially face the draft – it appears everyone is against women in combat roles (17 December 2015) USA and related reddit discussion thread

The ten deadliest jobs in America. Oh look, it’s all men (7 December 2015) Reddit discussion thread and linked article

Gender equality vital to securing our digital future (1 December 2015)

Why this year has been all about women speaking out on gender equality (27 November 2015)

FF candidate to challenge gender quota law (7 November 2015) Ireland

Men will have to lose jobs to make way for gender equality: Transfield’s Diane Smith-Gander (13 October 2015)

Gallup: Majority of Women with Kids ‘Prefer Homemaking Role’ (8 October 2015)

US women fall behind in jobs market (11 October 2015) and related reddit discussion thread here

100 Years Before Women Reach Equality in Top Jobs, Study Claims (2 October 2015) See the reader’s comments – most are heartily sick of the feminist perspective on this subject

Don’t panic: A male midwife’s guide for dads-to-be (23 September 2015)

Compared to Men, Women View Professional Advancement as Equally Attainable, but Less Desirable (12 August 2015)

Women-in-tech events are anti-male, say men’s rights activists (12 August 2015)

The problem with merit-based appointments? They’re not free from gender bias either (30 July 2015) Amongst other omissions this paper conveniently ignores the fact that men aren’t always the beneficiaries of bias, nor women always the victims.

The case for quotas in politics: the absence of women isn’t merit-based (30 July 2015) Argues the case for the introduction/expansion of gender quotas

New study into lack of women in Tech: It’s NOT the men’s fault. It’s just simple mathematics, apparently (27 July 2015) and related reddit discussion thread

14 Facts the Tanking ‘Women in Tech’ Movement Doesn’t Want You to Know (19 July 2015)

More Men Than Women Watch Women’s Soccer, While Women Prefer Male Sports (9 July 2015)

Women stop trying to get to the top after just TWO years because they are turned off by having to sacrifice it all (28 May 2015)

The Myth about Women in Science (13 April 2015)

Sexist Canadian “Feminists” Call Others Sexist (8 April 2015)

Women guaranteed at least 50% of jobs on Victorian government boards (28 March 2015) and related reddit mensrights discussion thread

Gender quotas key to curbing pay inequality: Queensland Minister for Women Shannon Fentiman (9 March 2015) Here is some related discussion in the ABC’s Facebook page

More US women not in paid employment now than ever before (6 March 2015) and related reddit mensrights discussion thread

We need women on boards for many reasons: ethics isn’t one (20 February 2015)

Gender Quotas in Hiring Drive Away Both Women and Men (16 October 2014)

Want to pretend you’re a feminist but do nothing? Talk about women on boards (13 February 2015)

Ginsburg: Will Be Enough Women on SCOTUS When They’re All Women (5 February 2015)

Where are the female tradies? (28 January 2015) A feminist perspective on the issue

Quotas on the nose: that’s the view from male Australian CEOs (7 January 2015)

The problem with “We need more women in -“ (20 December 2014)

Former Tory chairman Lord Tebbit slams Government for helping women ‘leave their children at home and go out to work’ (27 November 2014)

“Lord Tebbit asked her: ‘Do you not think it is strange that when these gender gap questions come up there is always a call for more women ambassadors, or generals or air marshals or something? ‘There is never a call for more women to be plumbers or electricians or jobs like that.'”

Gail Kelly’s Margaret Thatcher-style executive team (25 November 2014) The bank with the least number of women directly reporting to the chief executive is the only bank with a woman at the top

Interstellar patriarchy: Protecting women everywhere from shirts! (13 November 2014)

This discussion thread in an Australian web site called ‘The Conversation‘ concerns a suggestion that men are being preferentially treated due to their alleged greater self-confidence. Both myself and others contributed comments that questioned the feminist perspective being put forward, and our posts were later removed.  The moderators also closed the thread to further comments. As is usually the case, there was absolutely nothing offensive or threatening about the material removed. Ideological censorship pure and simple.

Feminist myths and magic medicine by Catherine Hakim

Where feminism went wrong by Janet Bloomfield

How feminist propaganda is destroying men’s lives (2 January 2015)

When the best person for the job has nothing to do with gender (20 October 2014) Australia

How to get more women into STEM fields: One college’s approach (August 2014 reddit discussion thread)

Why are there so many women in public relations? (8 August 2014)

Verizon’s ‘Inspire her Mind’ ad and the facts they didn’t tell you (21 July 2014)

British Labour Party enforces women-only candidate short-lists (4 July 2014)

The real reason there are not more female scientists (Youtube video)

Get women on the board (3 June 2014)

Percentage of bachelor’s degrees conferred on women, by major (Discussion thread on reddit)

Workplace inequality: When one side has an escape hatch (16 June 2014)

http://www.ted.com/talks/sheryl_sandberg_why_we_have_too_few_women_leaders.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/us/sheryl-sandberg-lean-in-author-hopes-to-spur-movement.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/why-so-few-women-reach-the-executive-rank/

http://blogs.hbr.org/2009/12/women-ceo-why-so-few/

http://nymag.com/thecut/2013/03/bystanders-to-the-sandberg-mayer-mommy-wars.html

http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/28/women-in-tech-stop-blaming-me/

http://www.smh.com.au/business/some-men-fear-competing-with-women-20131025-2w5i8.html#ixzz2iuvoQgpS

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/03/hierarchical-differences/

Why women are leaving the workforce in record numbers‘ (17 April 2013)

http://www.ceda.com.au/media/310731/cedawiljune%202013final.pdf (A fairly comprehensive coverage of the topic albeit purely from the perspective of a feminist idealogue)

Women in STEM sole focus of gender imbalance debate‘ (24 April 2014)

Businessmen love to talk women in leadership, until you mention the Q word (15 April 2014) Feminist journo talking up gender quotas

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-nature-nurture-nietzsche-blog/201310/where-are-all-the-women

http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/01/26/stay-at-home-moms-you-dont-owe-the-world-an-explanation/

Standing tough: Maureen Joanne Sabia on achieving success (4 June 2014)

What can men do? (25 April 2014) An article written by a White Knight about the gender imbalance in the IT (coding) sector, that also has some interesting readers comments.

Only two of 3100 women army soldiers join infantry in military frontline (4 June 2014)

By the way, men want more flexibility in the workplace too

Report cites bias against women in drug rackets

Is ‘Opting Out’ the new American dream for working women? (12 September 2012) Related reddit mensrights discussion thread here

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26828726 (Hand wringing over the fact that >90% of editors on Wikipedia are male, with some interesting comments contributed by readers)

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2014/04/22/neil-degrasse-tyson-has-a-point-but-larry-summers-is-still-right/?WT.mc_id=SA_sharetool_Twitter

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/women-dont-want-to-have-it-all-anymore/story-fnet085v-1226848285611

Do Any Women Work at the Dirty, Difficult and Dangerous Jobs that Men Do? Any Women At All? (7 August 2012)

http://phys.org/news/2011-11-men-honest-overconfidence-male-domination.html (as cited in http://priceonomics.com/the-babysitting-gender-gap/)

http://theagenda.tvo.org/blog/agenda-blogs/where-oh-where-are-all-female-guests

Other related posts within this blog include:

We’ve set a target of having 10% of our senior management team female by 2017

On affirmative action and the imposition of gender quotas

Companies with women at the helm perform better (so they say)

diversity

‘Sunrise’ TV crew stir up the feminists again

Sunrise‘ is a popular Australian morning TV show. In an earlier post I discussed how team members of that show incensed feminists by standing up for themselves after a scathing article appeared in a pro-feminist web site.

Well a female member of the ‘Sunrise’ team, Natalie Barr, has now poked the feminist hornets nest again by writing an article in the Daily Telegraph newspaper highlighting the trend of women to blame men for problems they encountered in their lives – particularly at work. A related segment appeared on the ‘Sunrise’ show on the day the article was published (20 March 2014).

It is pleasing to note how many of the comments submitted by readers (both male and female alike) were supportive of what Nat had to say. Despite this it was still evident that further supportive comments never saw the light of day due to overly-enthusiastic vetting. I myself attempted to contribute about half a dozen comments to the online discussion, and I think the final score was two posted and four disappeared.

Of those opposed to what Natalie said, the typical responses were:

well, that’s just your opinion” OR “so what if you have never experienced discrimination, you’re just one person

feminism isn’t about hating men” OR “standing up to discrimination isn’t the same as men-hating

how can you possibly say that there is no discrimination?” (Nat didn’t) OR “you can’t speak for all women” (she never said she did)

Those that sought to provide ‘proof’ that gender discrimination was commonplace (with of course women as victims) invariably relied upon that hoary old feminist chestnut, the male/female wage gap.

In another web site ‘Carli‘ described her disgust at those expressing support for Natalie Barr’s perspective in the following manner:

“… too many important issues being trivialised and too many bottom feeders feeling empowered … “

And here is a sampling of the other, predictably haughty & incensed, feminist response that followed:

Natalie Barr brought the ‘bitchy’ feminism backlash on herself (5 May 2014)

http://www.womensagenda.com.au/talking-about/editor-s-agenda/hey-natalie-barr-it-s-not-about-blaming-men/201403203762

http://www.mamamia.com.au/social/natalie-barr-feminism/

http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/natalie-barr-doesnt-speak-for-all-women-20140320-354w6.html (and then read this rebbutal by ‘A Voice for Men’)

http://thehoopla.com.au/hating-men-ms-barr/ (This includes a video showing a panel of feminists – including the obligatory mangina  – to simulate the appearance of a balanced perspective – attacking Natalie’s position)

http://www.woman.com.au/natalie-barr-got-feminism-gender-equality-wrong/

Several hundred comments were also added to the ‘Sunrise’ Facebook page (scroll to 19 March 2014), as well as many tweets to Nat Barr’s Twitter account.

Again the message is oh so clear, “don’t you dare say anything that runs contrary to feminist dogma, or else we’ll get you!” Indeed the article in ‘The Hoopla’ includes the statement:

“… all that is wrong with Barr’s pretty unhelpful contribution to the feminist debate”

Poor choice of words, I reckon they probably meant to say ‘monologue’ rather than “debate”, because in a debate people are expected to put forward alternate views and engage in open discussion – with no points awarded for shaming. Kind of like hell for feminists.

Reading the comments that attacked Nat’s position on discrimination, it is clear that many of the contributors are either woefully ignorant or in a state of serious denial about the misandric aspects of contemporary feminism. They simply can’t, don’t or won’t recognise the gap between the warm fuzzy inclusive variety of feminism that exists only within their own well-coiffed heads, and the reality of what connected feminists are actually saying and doing.

See also: 

http://au.avoiceformen.com/feminism/lets-make-march-20-natalie-barr-day/

Women like Natalie Barr, as well as men, have a right to be heard on feminism and womens issues‘ by Sam de Brito in the Sydney Morning Herald (Great to see this in the mainstream media – well done Sam)

Why is it only women who see sexism everywhere? (21 May 2014)

What Ceiling? Prudie advises a woman puzzled by reactions to the fact she hasn’t faced much sexism at work (9 February 2015)

Some related posts within this blog:

About feminism & how it’s not about hating men
On the censorship of non-feminist perspectives and opinions
Beware the ire of an angry feminist
The myth of male/female wage disparity

How feminists misrepresent the gender ‘wage gap’

Some people call the notion of a gender pay gap a ‘myth’, but it does in fact exist. A certain mythical element arises however in the way that feminists blatantly misrepresent the pay gap to support and advance their peculiarly jaundiced view of the world. You see, feminists would have us believe that women earn substantially less than men for doing the same work, and that this is primarily the result of sexist bias by employers. Such a position is equal parts over-simplification and outright falsehood, yet it forms a key prop in the gender feminists’ claim of perennial victimhood at the hands of a cruel and unyielding patriarchy.

Indeed, all manner of people – even ex-President Obama – keep spouting this bunkum, and the mainstream media laps it up and repeats it ad nauseam. (Oh, and by the way, Politi-Fact rated the President’s statement as ‘mostly false’, with further comments here).

Feminists conveniently neglect to tell everyone that:

  • as you drill down into the data looking at particular segments of the workforce, one is increasingly likely to find that the wage gap favours women – not men
  • pay disparity is the outcome of many different variables, of which sexist discrimination by employers is just one – and a relatively minor one at that

Indeed the most significant variables affecting pay rates relate to personal choices made by individual employees, choices such as type of job, amount of overtime worked, etc.

Feminists also avoid mentioning those variations of pay gap other than gender, such as the ‘gaps’ based on race or sexual orientation. Take a look, for example, at ‘Lesbians earn more than straight women – but gay men are penalised‘ (18 December 2014):

“In Britain, lesbians are paid an average of eight per cent more than straight women, with the trend even more extreme in other western countries. In the US, the difference is 20 per cent …

Dr Nick Drydakis, senior lecturer in economics at Anglia Ruskin University in the UK who authored the World Bank report, said pay differentials were explained by the career and lifestyle choices that gay women were more likely make.

“Lesbians may realise early in life that they will not marry into a traditional household,” he said.”

So, does this mean that employers actively discriminate against straight women?

As a poster on a related reddit discussion thread so aptly stated:

“Love the way it’s so obviously special pleading.
Gay men earn less? Must be discrimination!
Lesbians earn more? Must be lifestyle choices.
Women earn less? Must be sexism.
Men earn less? Must be lifestyle choices.”

wage gap

Please take a moment to review some or all of the following sources:

The Factual Feminist‘ (Christina Hoff Sommers) looks at the wage gap issue Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3

Summary points from the book ‘Why Men Earn More‘ by Warren Farrell

The obscene gender pay gap at the Wimbledon tennis championships (14 July 2019)

Harvard Study Confirms the Gender Wage Gap is Just a Myth (11 December 2018)

A Comprehensive Look at Gender Equality: Taking On The Institute For Women’s Policy Research (20 April 2018)

The relationship between taxation and the Gender Pay Gap (17 November 2017)

Gender pay gap ‘fundamentally misleading’ and promotes ‘victim mentality’ – study claims (10 November 2017)

Feminist group admits ‘pay gap’ is caused by women’s choices (22 September 2017)

The Gender Pay Gap is real. Here’s proof (29 August 2017) Discusses a recent NZ study which failed to convince most (all?) of those who contributed reader’s comments.

Mike Buchanan discusses the gender pay gap with three feminists (26 August 2017) Video. See interesting comment by Desmond Roberts:

“The easiest way to solve the ‘gender pay gap’ would be to make it a criminal offence for a man to financially subsidize ANY woman, even his wife. Then women would have an incentive to work to the best of their earning potential regardless of the wealth of their male spouse.”

Gender pay gap in modelling industry sees women earn 75% more than men (28 July 2017)

Though Outnumbered, Female CEOs Earn More Than Male Chiefs (31 May 2017)

The £625 acting classes teaching young women how to beat men to City jobs (17 May 2017) Simplistic and false notions re: the pay gap lead to simplistic and ineffective ‘solutions’

The Gender Pay Gap Is Largely Because of Motherhood (13 May 2017)

“What’s Your Major”: Another Blow to the So-Called Gender Pay Gap (20 April 2017)

Young women are getting richer, as young men get poorer (April 20, 2017)

The gender income gap in more than 1000 occupations, in one chart (20 April 2017) See related Reddit discussion thread here.

Millennial women are ‘worried,’ ‘ashamed’ of out-earning boyfriends and husbands (19 April 2017) A different perspective on the wage gap. Now men get to be shamed for earning more – and less – than women, at the same time.

How Jessica Chastain Negotiates for Equal Pay (17 April 2017) See comment by reader ‘Godzilla502’

The truth about the gender wage gap (8 March 2017)

Teacher advises student to “look for feminist sources” regarding wage gap (7 March 2017)

Revealed: The Gender Pay Gap Feminists don’t want to talk about, by Martin Daubney (17 January 2017) UK

Earnings inequality among men soars (13 January 2017) UK. There are many significant pay gaps other than all men v all women, but any gaps that don’t support the feminist narrative tend to be ignored. This study is just one of many examples.

Men still paid vastly more than women on average in UK – study (28 November 2016)

“blah, blah, blah Where men and women are doing the same job, they are usually paid almost the same – although men still have a slight advantage, earning an average of 1.6% more blah blah blah”

The Global Gender Paygap report – Or how to fit statistics to narrative (23 November 2016) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

Four ways the gender pay gap isn’t all it seems (29 August 2016) Even the normally pro-feminist BBC doesn’t back the feminist archetype re: this issue

Gender pay gap: Trend shows women in NI earn more than men (23 August 2016) Ireland. “Defying the gender pay gap” or simply disproving it?

The Pay Gap myth and other lies that won’t die (9 August 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here.

Desperately holding on to the debunked idea of gender wage gap by Ashe Schow (30 June 2016)

Do women really want equality? by Nikita Coulombe (12 May 2016) USA

And now some cuck blames ambitious men for making the pay gap larger in ‘Too Many Elite American Men Are Obsessed With Work and Wealth‘ (28 April 2016)

Daniel Radcliffe: How can this still be happening? (25 April 2016) Harry Potter actor talks about how much more male Hollywood actors are paid. Neglects to mention factors inconsistent with feminist narrative – like the pay differential for fashion models for e.g.

Gender Pay Gap Solution: Ban Stay-at-Home Moms (13 April 2016) USA

Young women are asking for (and getting) more pay than men (12 April 2016) USA

Don’t Buy Into The Gender Pay Gap Myth (12 April 2016) USA

The gender pay gap (March 2016) A major study by Korn Ferry/Hay Group, including data from 33 countries

The ‘gender pay gap’ is mostly garbage (8 March 2016) Australia

Daily Reminder That the Wage Gap Isn’t Real (5 March 2016) A list of links to articles and videos debunking the gender pay gap, some of which will already be included in my post, others not.

Belinda Brown: Gender pay gap explained. Men work longer hours in tough jobs (15 February 2016) UK How many more articles like this need to be published before feminists finally retire this ridiculous icon of victimhood.

The Gender Pay Gap is Dead (15 February 2016)

Harvard prof. takes down gender wage gap myth (13 January 2016)

The true story of the gender pay gap (7 January 2016)

Opinion: Hillary Clinton is wrong on the so-called war against women (7 January 2016)

Why politicians are asking the wrong questions about gender inequality (5 November 2015)

Women in their 20s earn more than men of same age, study finds  (29 August 2015)

Gender Pay Gap Conspiracy Theorists #WomensEqualityDay (26 August 2015) A video by Sargon of Akkad

Intrinsic Value Gap – Tim Goldich – Man Against the Wall (31 May 2015) Recommended viewing!

There’s No ‘Gender Pay Gap’, But Here Are 11 Reasons Why There Should Be (1 June 2015)

The “wage gap” is evidence that Western women are pampered, coddled and spoiled (4 May 2015)

Surprise! Women trump men on CEO pay (30 April 2015) USA

Student’s account of biased presentation by professor at American university (29 April 2015)

‘Equal pay day’ this year is April 14; the next ‘equal occupational fatality day’ will be on July 29, 2027, by Mark J. Perry (13 April 2015)

The Gender Pay Gap is a myth – So why do so many buy it? (9 March 2015)

What Matt Yglesias Got Wrong on the Gender Pay Gap (25 February 2015)

No, women don’t make less money than men by Christina Hoff Sommers (1 February 2015)

The pay gap is caused by personality not gender, so what personality will earn you more money? (3 December 2014)

The Gender Pay Gap Revealed in Tech; Glassdoor Report (17 November 2014)

Are women CEO’s also sexist? (18 November 2014)

A modest proposal for closing the gender wage gap by Ashe Schow (13 November 2014)

Gender income propaganda (3 November 2014) UK

Global gender gap: Equality is overrated (31 October 2014)

CNN reporting feelings on pay gap as fact, despite the actual facts reporting it doesn’t exist (1 November 2014)

Debunking the myth of the mythical gender pay gap (8 April 2014)

The g Economist takes on your attacks over the (lack of a) gender gap in tech salaries (10 March 2014)

If you’re under 40, the biggest gender pay gap is experienced by men (11 August 2014)

No, women don’t make less money than men by Christina Hoff Sommers (1 February 2014)

“Here is a list of the ten most remunerative majors compiled by the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. Men overwhelmingly outnumber women in all but one of them:

1.   Petroleum Engineering: 87% male
2.   Pharmacy Pharmaceutical Sciences and Administration: 48% male
3.   Mathematics and Computer Science: 67% male
4.   Aerospace Engineering: 88% male
5.   Chemical Engineering: 72% male
6.   Electrical Engineering: 89% male
7.   Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering: 97% male
8.   Mechanical Engineering: 90% male
9.   Metallurgical Engineering: 83% male
10. Mining and Mineral Engineering: 90% male

And here are the 10 least remunerative majors—where women prevail in nine out of ten:

1.  Counseling Psychology: 74% female
2.  Early Childhood Education: 97% female
3.  Theology and Religious Vocations: 34% female
4.  Human Services and Community Organization: 81% female
5.  Social Work: 88% female
6.  Drama and Theater Arts: 60% female
7.   Studio Arts: 66% female
8.   Communication Disorders Sciences and Services: 94% female
9.   Visual and Performing Arts: 77% female
10. Health and Medical Preparatory Programs: 55% female”

Dondi’s clock and the paradox of the wage gap (19 July 2014)

The ’77 cents on the dollar’ myth about women’s pay (The Wall Street Journal, 7 April 2014)

Fair Pay isn’t always equal pay‘ (New York Times)

Why do female models make more than male models (10 October 2013) 10 x more!

Women’s pay to overtake men’s by 2020 (23 November 2011)

The 15 jobs where women earn more than men (14 March 2011)

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/09/ceteris-paribus-once-you-start-controlling-for-important-factors-the-17-8-gender-wage-gap-starts-to-disappear/

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/03/17/77-Cents-Worth-of-Lies

‘There is no male-female wage gap’, Wall Street Journal, 12 April 2011

Young women are now earning more than men – that’s not sexist, just fair (27 November 2011)

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-to-push-myths-about-working-women-in-florida/article/2545982

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/03/how-male-jobs-hurt-female-paychecks/284495/#comments

The Pay Gap Myth that won’t die (a Youtube video by Warren Farrell)

http://shriverreport.org/gender-equality-is-a-myth-beyonce (Read the comments, the article itself offers no worthwhile insights)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jan/29/barack-obama/barack-obama-state-union-says-women-make-77-cents-/

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/gaps-damned-gaps-and-statistics/

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/what-pay-gap/

http://healthland.time.com/2013/11/11/ten-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-gender-gap/

http://www.learnliberty.org/content/do-women-earn-less-men

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865581083/Do-women-earn-less-then-men-Not-necessarily-study-says.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/16/opinion/drexler-equal-pay/index.html?hpt=hp_c3

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/

http://anti-feminism-pro-equality.tumblr.com/wagegap and http://anti-feminism-pro-equality.tumblr.com/wagegap2

http://c4mb.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/dr-catherine-hakims-preference-theory/

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/08/gender_pay_gap_the_familiar_line_that_women_make_77_cents_to_every_man_s.html

http://www.forbes.com/2006/03/07/glass-ceiling-opportunities–cx_hc_0308glass.html 

http://www.vancouversun.com/touch/story.html?id=9646807 (“Is gender balance in university programs worth pursuing?”)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/09/the-paycheck-fairness-bill-failed-in-the-senate-today-it-wouldnt-have-eliminated-the-wage-gap-anyway/

This 2011 article in the New York Times, ‘They call it the reverse gender gap‘, discusses the woes of women earning more than many men (yes, even back in 2011!)

This paper deals with the effect of feminist lobbying on employment opportunities for men:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/659dkrod.asp

I came across this interesting post whilst reading an article about comparative health expenditure for men and women:

Re: “But they make less money no matter what the job”

Wrong. “In 2011, 22% of male physicians and 44% of female physicians worked less than full time, up from 7% of men and 29% of women from Cejka’s 2005 survey.” (See ama-assn.org/amednews/2012/03/26/bil10326.htm)

That’s just one of countless examples showing that some of the most sophisticated women in the country choose to earn less while getting paid at the same rate as their male counterparts.

A thousand laws won’t close that gap.

In fact, no law yet has closed the gender 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 affirmative action (which has benefited mostly white women, the group most vocal about the wage gap – tinyurl.com/74cooen), not the 1991 amendments to Title VII, not the 1991 Glass Ceiling Commission created by the Civil Rights Act, not the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act, not diversity, not the countless state and local laws and regulations, not the thousands of company mentors for women, not the horde of overseers at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and not the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which is another feel-good bill that turned into another do-nothing law (good intentions do not necessarily make things better; sometimes, the path to a worse condition is paved with good intentions)…. Nor will a “paycheck fairness” law work.

That’s because women’s pay-equity advocates, who always insist one more law is needed, 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 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 tinyurl.com/qqkaka. If indeed a higher percentage of women is 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.)

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? Answer: Because they’re supported by their husband, an “employer” who pays them to stay at home. (Far more wives are supported by a spouse than are husbands.)

The implication of this is probably obvious to most 12-year-olds but seems incomprehensible to, or is wrongly dismissed as irrelevant by, feminists and the liberal media: If millions of wives are able to accept NO wages, millions of other wives, whose husbands’ incomes vary, are more often able than husbands to:

-accept low wages
-refuse overtime and promotions
-choose jobs based on interest first, wages second — the reverse of what men tend to do (The most popular job for American women as of 2010 is still secretary/administrative assistant, which has been a top ten job for women for the last 50 years. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/gender-wage-gap_n_3424084.html)
-take more unpaid days off
-avoid uncomfortable wage-bargaining (tinyurl.com/3a5nlay)
-work fewer hours than their male counterparts, or work less than full-time instead of full-time (as in the above example regarding physicians)

Any one of these job choices lowers women’s median pay relative to men’s. And when a wife makes one of the choices, her husband often must take up the slack, thereby increasing HIS pay.

Women who make these choices are generally able to do so because they are supported — or, if unmarried, anticipate being supported — by a husband who feels pressured to earn more than if he’d chosen never to marry. (Married men earn more than single men, but 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: as a group they tend more than women to pass up jobs that interest them for ones that pay well.

More in “Will the Ledbetter Act Help Women?” at http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/will-the-ledbetter-fair-pay-act-help-women/

The Biggest Myth About the Gender Wage Gap (30 May 2013)

A Comprehensive Look at Gender Equality: Taking On The Institute For Women’s Policy Research (16 February 2012) USA. A very comprehensive paper. Updated November 2016

Wage discrimination: The evidence (10 March 2010)

This last reference is also quite dated, and is not about feminist misrepresentation per se, but just shows how easily incorrect statistics can be created (in this case by Australian politician Joe Hockey) and then go into circulation:

FactCheck Q&A: do women under 50 make up just 2% of people on $100,000 a year? (22 August 2013) The correct answer is “around 24%”

Occupational Segregation and the Gender Wage Gap in Private- and Public-Sector Employment: A Distributional Analysis (11 November 2009) Australia

“Gender differences in employment across occupations advantage (rather than disadvantage) all women except those in high-paid jobs”

Gender pay gap: nonpecuniary benefits edition (17 August 2009) NZ

fewer_carrots

See also my blog posts entitled:

We’ve all heard of the gender ‘income gap’, but what about the ‘expense gap’?

That tired old feminist chestnut that is the ‘gender wage gap’ resurrected in Australia