Women Earn Less by Choice
by Marc H. RudovRight on, John Stossel. Finally, someone on liberal-bias TV had the guts to dispel the myth that women earn less than men because of sexist discrimination.
John Stossel, from ABC TV’s 20/20, ran a segment about women’s pay vs. men’s pay. Below is the transcript of the segment. Bottom line: as a group, on average, women earn less than men because they choose to. They want more flexibility vs. more money. But, on a given job, on a given task, men and women earn the SAME pay.
To quote John Stossel, I have one response to whining, complaining women: Give me a break!
————————————————————————————–
Is the Wage Gap Women’s Choice?
Research Suggests Career Decisions, Not Sex Bias, Are at Root of Pay Disparity
May. 27, 2005
Last month on Wage Equity Day, politicians demanded new laws to protect women from what they say is an unfair pay scale. We hear about the so-called wage gap over and over, and many studies have found that women make about 75 cents for every dollar a man earns. Activists and politicians say the pay difference is all about sexism.
“No matter how hard women work, or whatever they achieve in terms of advancement in their own professions and degrees, they will not be compensated equitably,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn.
Activists have convinced some young women that even if they work the same hours, have the same education and do the same type of work, they will be paid less than men.
But how could this be possible? Suppose you’re an employer doing the hiring. If a woman does equal work for 25 percent less money, why would any employer ever hire a man?
Martha Burk, chair of the National Council of Women’s Organizations, gave me this simple answer: “Because they like to hire men, John. They like to hire people like themselves and they darn sure like to promote people like themselves,” she said.
In her new book, “Cult of Power: Sex Discrimination in Corporate America and What Can Be Done About It,” Burk concludes what we’ve all heard. “Women make less. Even if it’s the exact same job title and it is the exact same work and the experience is comparable,” she said.
But author Warren Farrell, who spent about 15 years going over U.S. Census statistics and research studies, said Burk is wrong. Farrell’s research found that the wage gap exists not because of sexism, but because more men are willing to do certain kinds of jobs. “The average full-time working male works more than a full-time working female,” Farrell said.
Farrell illustrates his findings at lectures by asking men and women to stand up in answer to a series of questions about their job choices, such as whether they work more than 40 hours a week, or have held a job that has required them to work outdoors, or if they have 20 years experience in their current occupation.
Again and again, more men stand up.
Different job choices are why men earn more, Farrell says in his new book, “Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap — and What Women Can Do About It.”"
The women themselves say they’re far more likely to care about flexibility. The men say I’m far more likely to care about money,” Farrell said.
What about the fact that almost all of the biggest money makers — the company bosses — are men? There are some female chief executive officers making big bucks, but they are the exception. Isn’t that discrimination?”
We have been suckered into believing that because there are more men at the top than women at the top, that this is a result of discrimination against women. That’s been the misconception. It’s all about trade-offs. You earn more money, you usually sacrifice something at home,” Farrell said.
If they aren’t discriminating, why do companies give out multimillion-dollar settlements? “They’re afraid … of getting publicity for a year saying that they’re anti-female, so you settle,” Farrell said.
Decades ago, Farrell was a man who joined Gloria Steinem in feminist protests. He’s the only man to have been elected three times to the board of the National Organization for Women. “I used to wear a ‘59 cent’ pin to protest the fact that men earned a dollar for each 59 cents that women earned for the same work. And then I asked myself one day: “If men are earning a dollar, maybe I’ll go out and start an all-female firm and I’ll be able to produce products for 59 cents that male firms are producing for a dollar,” he said.
He came to realize that there’s something wrong with the statistic.
Farrell combed through jobs data and found that higher-paying jobs are more likely to require longer commuting times, safety risks, frequent travel, long hours and other factors that, on his tests, led the men to stand while the women sat.
Those jobs pay more because fewer people want to do them. It’s not sexism. It’s just supply and demand. In some fields, like office jobs — finance for example — women make as much or more than men.
However, activists say America needs a law like the one passed in Ontario where employers must rate every job to make sure women are paid fairly.
Companies say the law is complicated and costly. “We spent months, spent thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars on this project to do a 3-cent adjustment that may not have even been necessary,” said Sheldon Caplan, who works for a Canadian company that sews and sells sofa cushions.
While the law may have helped some women increase their wages, a broader study in The Canadian Journal of Economics found the law has had “no effect on the wage gap.”
We don’t need a law, Caplan said. Any company that discriminates by sex or anything other than work ability will have higher costs. “I hope my competitors discriminate. I want my competitors to discriminate because then they will go out of business,” he said.
But the wage-gap myth persists, Farrell said, because nobody wants to confront it.
Feminists and activists now see Farrell as the bad guy, but he’s just saying what’s true.”Women and men look at their life, and women say, ‘What do I need? Do I need more money, or do I need more time?’ And women are intelligent enough to say, I need more time. And so women lead balanced lives, men should be learning from women.”
But some politicians say we should import the bureaucratic mess Ontario has created?
Give me a break.
Copyright © 2005 ABC News Internet Ventures







May 31st, 2005 at 9:15 pm
Interesting. I am a feminist but I pretty much agree with the logic. Women want balance.
My issue would be more on the side of why are women still the primary caregivers in the majority of families? I think the de-valuing of the family is costing not just women’s wallets but the future of America. And when women are/get divorced (and kids are involved), their standard of living tends to go down while the ex-husband’s goes up. Why? Because child care costs hundreds of dollars a month, so they’re screwed either way–stay at home and care for the kids but earn less $$$, or work full-time and leave the kids with strangers and fork over a huge percentage of their earnings.
I used to be an executive recruiter and talked to many women in their 30s and 40s who chose to work part-time or telecommute after having kids ’cause it was the only way to raise a family and not lose their minds. For most of these high-level women, “part-time” meant 40 hours weekly and less travel. Their pay and benefits were slashed in half, yet they still were churning out probably as much as their “full-time” counterparts (male or female).
It’s definitely a problem.
July 22nd, 2005 at 4:15 am
Women are still the primary caregivers because they want to be. The most effective way to dump a woman who is pestering a guy for marriage is for him to say “I like the idea of marriage too, I’d love to stay at home, looking after the kids and watching television whilst you work 50-hours a week to bring home the bacon.” Say that to a girlfriend and 99% of the time she’ll run away and never contact the guy again.
The standard of living of women after a divorce does not go down whilst the man’s goes up; the studies that made such a laughable claim regards the alimony and child support the ex-husband as being part of his income and not the ex-wives; in other words, if he’s paying $3,000 in alimony a month, that’s included in his income, not his greedy ex-wives. It doesn’t take into account the ex-wife usually getting the house, car, savings etc either. After all, common sense says that a guy who has been divorced two or three times will invariably be living in poverty thanks to having his hard-earned money stolen by the government and given to his ex-wives. 65 - 90% of all divorces are initiated by women; they know damn well they won’t lose out financially.
And even IF it was the case that a woman’s standard of living goes down after a divorce, then it’s not “definately a problem”, it’s their own stupid fault. It would mean they were living beyond their means and were being subsidised by their husband.
August 4th, 2005 at 8:45 pm
Duncan, fella, you’re not going to get a chance with women who’d be happy to have a stay-home-dad husband, because you’re a damned misogynist. The women who want stay-home men also tend to want well-educated stay-home men.
The problem goes further than luckyspinster says. Not only is childcare expensive, it’s limited. Good luck finding affordable 24-hour childcare. If you don’t have 24-hour childcare — formerly called a wife — you can’t take on the kind of job responsibilities that mark you for promotion or keep you relatively safe during downsizings. No spur-of-the-moment meetings and travel, no late nights on deadline. Essentially, when you divorce, you become permanent night/weekend/sick-kid childcare, leaving your ex free to work as much as he likes. He may be miserable, but his chances for promotion and retention are much higher than yours, simply because he has more freedom to work.
August 19th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
Actually, you can still be well educated, intelligent, and have opinions that run contrary to the standard feminist propoganda. But I prefer the words of former NOW president Karen DeCrow who said “that if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and
cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support. Or, put another way,
autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to
finance their choice.”
“If women have the right to choose if they become parents, men [should] have that right too. There is a connection between legalizing abortion for women
and ending of paternity suits for men. Giving men their own choices would not deny choices to women.
It would only eliminate their expectation of having those choices financed by men.
And she is probably smarter than I am, too!
September 5th, 2005 at 5:48 am
Hmmm, an accusation of being a misogynist because I disagree with the women-have-things-so-hard-sob-sob rants of a feminist. Yawn. How tedious. No wonder women aren’t taken seriously when all they can back up their flimsy sense of entitlement with is insults and by playing the victim card.
September 20th, 2005 at 1:13 pm
No, Duncan. She called you out on being a passive-aggressive little misogynist because you are one. Reread your last few posts. . .who’s whining?