Christina Hoff Sommers, whom I admire greatly for her insight and her courage, has made some pointed observations about the so called pay gap between the sexes:
For example, the AAUW’s "Graduating to a Pay Gap" report classifies "social science" as one college major and reports that, among such majors, women earn only 83 percent of what men earn. Horrifying—until you notice that "social science" includes both “economics” and “sociology.” Economics majors (66 percent male) have a median income of $70,000; for sociology majors (68 percent female) it is $45,000....Talented young women who aspire to be rich and powerful would be advised to major in economics or electrical engineering rather than psychology or social work. They should be prepared to work 60 hours a week at the office rather than combining shorter hours with home, family, and other pursuits they find fulfilling. Those who stick with this course will find that their W-2s are equal to those of their male counterparts.
This is the sociological equivalent of blasphemy. Why everyone knows that women's inability to equal men's earning power is a patriarchal capitalist conspiracy! So what if the men work at riskier and more difficult trades that demand long hours and rigorous logic rather than feelings and group consensus? Feelings are what matter, aren't they? Who has ever soothed a crying toddler to sleep with a differential equation?
The overwhelming majority of women are mathematophobic. They will not willingly enter fields that demand heavy mathematical preparation. Neither are they much good with the sort of unforgfiving linear logic demanded by associated fields such as electrical engineering and computer programming. Neither are they particularly interested in forgoing family or socializing with their friends for the sterile atmosphere of a laboratory or an engineering development center.
Nevertheless, the demands will persist for "equal pay." The little matter of equal work will be tacitly shoved under the bed. Not to do so would hurt the girls' feelings, you see, and we can't have that. Might have to go without nookie for a few days, or worse yet, dinner.
Ultimately, of course, the market will decide. Should legislators attempt to intrude upon its decisions, employers will do what they've been doing in response to previous interventions, such as EEO regulations, madatory maternal leave requirements, and ObamaCare: they'll refrain from hiring. Still more employees will be replaced by short-term job shoppers. The notion that your boss is responsible for your medical and life insurance will die as well. Pensions? That's so five minutes ago. And the angry-ugly-girl cadre of the Left -- the term a ladyfriend of mine uses for feminist activists -- will discover that there are some laws Congress can neither override nor repeal nor modify.
The feminists should already know all of that from the "marriage strike" now in progress. But then, they're not rich, so how could they possibly be smart?
1 comment:
Careful, there. You're starting to make this prospect sound attractive.
"The notion that your boss is responsible for your medical and life insurance will die as well." If it does, then good riddance! The entire nightmare we're living through with health insurance "reform" is entirely attributable to the persistence of this assumption based on WW2-era wage controls. The wage controls that brought it about are gone. (And good riddance to them, too!) Begone with it!
Post a Comment