“Equal Pay” Mendacity Harms Women

The Democrats made some waves last week with their proposed “Paycheck Fairness” legislation, purportedly designed to ensure that men and women get equal pay for equal work. It was heartening to see this rhetoric mostly fall flat. When the Democrats tried to raise some emotion with the infamous “77 cents” statistic, even mainstream publications called them out for their mendacity.

This old canard complains that women earn only 77 cents for every dollar men earn. But as everyone should know by now, it’s a classic example of comparing apples to oranges. Yes, men on average earn more than women. They also, on average, work longer hours. They accept jobs with dangerous conditions that include hazard pay (and are thus far more likely to be killed in work-related accidents). They care less about flexibility and clean work environments. Controlling for all the relevant variables, there is no evidence of a sex-based pay gap in America today.

In the end, the American Enterprise Institute won the day by sending the White House scrambling to explain why their own female staffers earned only 88 cents on the dollar as compared to male staffers. It was certainly entertaining to see White House spokesman Jay Carney stammering to explain that, in fact, there are quite a number of variables that go into these wage-gap statistics, so we shouldn’t just take them at face value. You don’t say.

Over at Ricochet.com, these events provoked a fascinating discussion on a topic that should really get more attention: the Democrats’ war on married women. It’s well known by now that Democrats have good electoral reasons to want women to stay single. Single women tend to be more liberal than their married counterparts on almost every issue, and they are far more likely to vote Democratic. Some of this no doubt reflects selection bias; conservatively inclined women are more likely to marry. But it also probably reflects the fact that marriage makes women more sympathetic to conservative talking points (lower taxes, less governmental interference) and less sympathetic to liberal ones. There may be some truth in the “Daddy Government” theory, which stipulates that single women reflexively favor a larger state because they want government to play the protective role in their lives that isn’t being filled by actual men. Whatever the reason, it does seem that women move to the right politically once they are married.

Democrats are desperate to get single women to the polls this November. They know that a strong turnout from that demographic may be their only hope for preventing the Republicans from recapturing the Senate. That is why they are pandering to single women with “equal pay” legislation, and in the coming months we should expect to hear more pandering in the form of empty talk about free day care, universal pre-school and further affirmative action-type measures.

No one should be fooled, however, into supposing that these measures are really good for women. “Equal Pay” legislation typically employs two strategies. First, it makes it easier for women to sue employers if they believe they are underpaid. (This was the focus of the “Lily Ledbetter” act that the Democrats passed five years ago.) Second, it adds levels of oversight, requiring employers to cut through more red tape in order to prove that they aren’t disadvantaging female employees.

Men might very reasonably complain that they are unfairly disadvantaged by these efforts. But even women, the purported beneficiaries, are potentially hurt by this type of legislation. “Equal pay” laws hurt women in one very obvious way: they give employers good reason to avoid hiring them in the first place. What good employer wants employees who are in a particularly good position to sue if they’re dissatisfied with their compensation? Other variables being equal, it will of course always be preferable to hire people who are not so empowered, which is to say, men. Bureaucratic oversight is similarly irksome to companies, even if they never get flagged as “offenders” of the act. Once again, “protecting” employed women with this type of legislation is likely to hurt employment prospects for those who are looking for work.

The biggest losers of these efforts are women who want flexible or non-constant work arrangements. Most of the time that will mean married women and especially mothers.

Behind the “equal pay” conversation lies a highly problematic assumption: that there is no good reason why women and men should not be earning the same paychecks. But this is false. There are good reasons, of a sort that needn’t reflect badly on women, or on men, or on employers. Often women want different things from the workplace than their male counterparts, particularly if they are raising families.

Statistics show that a majority of women prefer not to work full time while raising children. Mothers who make professional sacrifices for their families also tend to be happier with their lives overall. It would seem that “leaning out” can be a good thing for women, and it should go without saying that more maternal attention can be advantageous for kids. Married women should be asking why those decisions to value family over work are not respected by Democratic politicians, who regularly imply that smaller paychecks must make them either failures or victims of unjust discrimination.

This isn’t just a matter of principle, however. For women who want to forego work entirely, the idea that some people don’t respect them is old news by now. But most mothers do still want some level of workplace involvement (either through part-time work or a late career). Given how long people live nowadays, it’s perfectly reasonable for women to aspire to that in a way that still respects the demands of family life. But Democratic “equal pay” legislation is likely to make it more difficult (and perhaps much more difficult) for women to navigate these conflicting demands with grace.

When we focus our energies on punitive measures directed against employers who purportedly don’t give “equal pay for equal time,” we also give employers strong motivation to hiring or promoting women given a plausible excuse. When mothers ask for flexible work arrangements, or leave work through what are normally the most critical “promotional years,” it’s easy for employers to justify looking elsewhere. But many of these women could no doubt make excellent employees if their family sacrifices were more widely respected, and if Democrats did not make the terrain rougher by gratuitously infusing their polarizing gender politics into the American workplace.

Most mothers today accept that we can’t “have it all,” and that the effort is likely to take a negative toll on ourselves and our families. Children need enormous amounts of care and attention; providing that generally means making professional sacrifices. Given the enormous social importance of raising children, however, it seems reasonable to ask that our politicians not make the trade-offs more stark than they need to be. Democrats should be called to account for their assault on the interests of married women.

Rachel Lu

By

Rachel Lu, a Catholic convert, teaches philosophy at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota where she lives with her husband and four boys. Dr. Lu earned her Ph.D. in philosophy at Cornell University. Follow her on Twitter at rclu.

  • Don

    Another fine article Ms. Lu. I’ve heard for years about the pay-gap but as someone who was worked for 30 years now and hired many people, I can honestly say there is a significant effort by employers to avoid a pay gap of any kind. There may be exceptions but I’ve never witnessed them. As illustrated by this article, the pay gap is just another trick to incite hatred . . . something at which Democrats today seem to excel.

    • TheAbaum

      ” just another trick to incite hatred ”

      They work in envy the way Michaelangelo worked in paint. True masters of the medium.

      Worse, watch how often it afflicts people who post here, who wrap their envy in a cheap counterfeit of social justice. Especially watch Hombre111’s posts on such matters.

  • ahcreative

    Democrats will pull out all the stops for the upcoming election season: equal pay, war on women, rape insurance, minimum wage, etc. I hope the electorate will see through these shams. Thank you for the excellent article Dr. Lu.

    • TheAbaum

      You forgot the race card. A preview will be given by Eric Holder shortly.

      • Objectivetruth

        I wonder how many Democratic voters this year outside the voting booth will be claiming their voting Democratic, but once inside the booth they pull the Republican lever. I think all these faux canards the Dems are trotting out will have no impact on the election. Liberal or conservative, Dem or Republican, we’re all seething every time we look at our healthcare premiums and deductibles rise by 300% this year under the “affordable” healthcare act.

        Obama lied…….

        • TheAbaum

          They won’t go to vote, but they’ll never vote Elephant.

  • Vinnie

    Democrats feel guilty because they exist and populate the earth which is a bad thing for the earth. Therefore, children are anathema. They want “free” contraception and abortifacients but not antibiotics. Motherhood is bad so don’t accommodate it, make it difficult.

    • TheAbaum

      Actually, they are fine with their existence, they are “green” and care about the planet. Your existence and mine are what’s problematic.

    • Micha_Elyi

      “Democrats feel guilty because…” their mothers couldn’t have an abortion.

  • publiusnj

    The real reason that Democrats target single women is that their votes are so much easier to buy than married women’s votes. Single women with kids need so much and get so little support. Their baby’s father is somewhere in the wind; he certainly didn’t make a commitment that he is meeting. And Uncle Sam (and his little brother at the State level) are willing to step into the vacuum in exchange for gratitude/votes. Of course, Governments can’t give too much money because who are they going to take it from if more and more women are needing the help. So, the relative pittances are supplemented by boogie-men stories about the Republicans’ War on Women.

    • TheAbaum

      Somewhere in there is an analogy between government and the devil, it’s programs and the forbidden fruit, with young women playing the role of Eve.

  • buckyinky

    Both sexes have their weak spots. Wise women do well to recognize that the “equal pay” philosophy is almost entirely an attempt to play upon their sex’s, and reject it outright.

  • Alf

    Women’s entry into the workplace on a massive scale has done untold damage to the prospects of men and thus to the family. Men without work cannot provide for a family. Catholic women are as guilty as any others of forcing their way into the workplace and taking jobs that men would otherwise be happy to take. They need to take a step back and see that it was the communists who wanted them out of the home and into the workplace; abortion and contraception facilitate this shift. I see no willingness among any Church commentators or leaders to face this elephant in the room, though talk to men privately and maybe, in an honest moment, you might get their honest, non-PC opinion. Men are suffering silently. Who cares?

    • Rachel Lu

      I care. I focus on the women mainly for political reasons; they’re the ones who need convincing. But I’m certainly concerned about injustices to men.

      However, I think you’re wrong to see the problem in women working per se, as though a woman’s seeking gainful employment is itself an injustice to men. That’s hardly reasonable (why are men naturally entitled to all professional opportunities?), and it’s bad economics too because it isn’t as though there is some set number of jobs for which everyone must compete in a zero-sum game. A growing work force can often be good for the workers already in it since it can promote general market expansion and open new opportunities. A shrinking work force may end up damaging everyone’s prosperity. It doesn’t always work out that way, admittedly. But the point remains that your math is much too simple.

      Men’s and women’s interests are not in general opposed, and given how long people live nowadays, it’s completely reasonable for women to want some level of participation in the work force. It isn’t necessary for them to be at home for the course of their entire adult lives. The difficulty men face in finding good jobs is certainly a serious problem, but we won’t solve it just by ousting qualified women from their jobs. That’s both bad economic policy, and bad social policy.

      • Alf

        I’d love for you to research and write an article about the issue of male unemployment and all the difficulties they face, and also look at the rising, especially young, male suicides in places like Ireland, through alienation and lack of identity, purpose etc… through the gender and societal changes. I live in N. Ireland and in my area, there are twice as many men unemployed as women and lots of young male suicides. Men today are lost. Modern, confident, young women are finding their feet; young men are losing theirs. Everything has a cost.

        • TheAbaum

          “Modern, confident, young women are finding their feet”

          It’s a false footing. Everybody gets old and dies, but women live longer. The future for these “modern, confident, young women” is the powerless of age and infirmity. It’s tough to be a widow in a nursing home, but if you have an aggressive grandson whose willing to “engage” the staff on their laxity about your care (“sure, we could insert a feeding tube, but that will just delay the inevitable’), you’re better off than the woman who considered herself blessed because her womb never bore and her breasts never nursed. Welcome to Logan’s Run.

          The culture of death was such an apt description of the common bond underlying a diffuse set of social phenomena.

        • Rachel Lu

          I’m very sympathetic to the hardships faced by young men these days. But I just don’t believe that the problem lies primarily in the success of women. Sometimes policies falsely championed as pro-woman do hurt men, and there are also times when women get unfair advantages vis-à-vis men. But it should be possible for women to pursue worthwhile goals (some of which may take them into the workplace) without preventing men from doing the same.

          Part of what we need is just better economic policy, which would be good for everyone and would open more opportunities for everyone. But part of what we need, too, is a recovery of a more robust sense of masculinity. That doesn’t require women to be demure and perpetually in the kitchen. We can have both strong men and assertive, accomplished women; they’re not mutually exclusive. But I’d agree that a certain sort of aggressive feminist ethos may need to be quelled before men can play their proper role within society as a whole. And of course, everyone should be very concerned about the plight of men, because when men do badly, so do women and children.

          • Alf

            I’ll look forward to the article Rachel! I’m serious, please give it some serious consideration. I think it will resonate with many readers. And thanks for engaging with me directly, I certainly wasn’t expecting that.

          • Micha_Elyi

            As the Romans might have said, “And of course, everyone should be very concerned about the plight of slaves, because when slaves perform poorly, the household is poorer.”

            The whole femi-centric mindset that nothing matters unless it affects females has got to go. I realize it’s a radical idea that men are people too.

          • There is only one goal worth fighting for, whether man or woman: Children.

        • Art Deco

          Modern, confident, young women are finding their feet; young men are losing theirs.

          If they are not building a durable domestic life, they are not finding their feet.

      • Senhorbotero

        If i may suggest what is missed often, I think, is that the metaphysics of male being and the metaphysics of female being do not often or possibly ever overlap. Men need different things than do women and vice versa. The being of both is complementary not identical. Men are often excised from places because of female presence. They may indeed self select to exit. My suspicion is that you can see this in what once was exclusively male, like the role of altar boy. Now i see that this role has become in most churches exclusively female.

        There must be a structure to society that recognizes each genders need and which finds fitting roles for each. A wholesale egalitarian answer is rapidly destroying the culture and to a large degree men with it. And to alfs point the tragedy is that in any large way no one cares but in not caring we have squandered two thousand years of accumulated wisdom. We wre running an uncontrolled experiment which I think most suspect is going to crash and burn the whole shebang.

        • Senhorbotero

          May i also say that I do hesitate to criticize you because I clearly sense your heart is in the right place. Yet i would like to add that the way of addressing this issue and all men/women issues is not political any longer. That battle is closed until the philisophical discussion is reopened. One must, I suspect now return to essentials. Metaphysics is necessary to return us to sanity. When we engage the liberals on their terms we lose the arguement. Until we step aside of their assumptions and enter new ones they hold the cards. Accepting as a starting place that the very point of activity is to establish an improvement for women at all sets the stage for a flawed arguement. There is much more to the world then just this.

        • Alf

          I remember being at an assessment centre (recruitment testing day) and we were put in groups of about 6. Three young men, three young women. We were all recently or about to graduate. A graduate opportunity it was. I remember the other young men there. And I remember the young women. I remember being very intimidated by the young women – they, one in particular, were so aggressive and domineering, and dare I say it, intimidating, that I just pulled back in shock. I did not participate as I might otherwise have in that exercise. It was a group discussion/role play, with each person representing their own business interests. I am capable, but in the face of a young lady who has cast femininity aside, any normal young man would recoil in horror. And this is precisely what has happened. Of course I learned a lot from that, over a year after the event it dawned on me what I should have done: I should have LED like a man and called out the young lady for her domineering behaviour which meant that others were not able to contribute because they couldn’t get a word in edgeways. That was the real masculine leadership that I did not give at that time. I had to learn the hard lesson.

          • John Byde

            Whenever I’ve faced this situation with super aggressive (and probably insecure women) I usually end up telling them not to be sexist and giving them a mini-lecture about equality. It works wonders and we usually get on much better after that.

      • publiusnj

        Women’s and men’s interests are definitely not opposed. Someone very wise noted once (or maybe a few hundred million times) that two can live as cheaply as one. By dividing and conquering, though, both the market and the Government can force two to live atomistically and thereby becoming dependent on the market and/or the Government for the things a spouse would provide. So, the market’s story tellers–Hollywood and the media–no longer end stories with “and they lived happily ever after.” Rather, the story ends with “and he beat her within an inch of her life until she went to the Women’s Center (an NGO affiliated with the local Democratic Party) and they helped her get a restraining order.”

        And, if they had kids, not to worry! The Earned Income Credit, child credits and Head of Household filing status are designed to make it attractive to both spouses to whack up the kids between them to maximize the benefits of a divorce. They end up with less tax due and bigger refundable credits split up than married.

        • Vinnie

          The American dream.

        • TheAbaum

          We accept lies from the government the “Earned Income Tax Credit” is really the unearned income free money and it makes the IRS a dispenser of funds, rather than a collector -something it is ill equipped by mission and practice to do- which is why the EITC is so laden with fraud.

      • Vinnie

        One part of this, which started in the 1960s, is that stay-at-home moms started working to increase the household income so the family could afford more stuff, which worked for a time. Then, as household income increased, everything got more expensive because people could pay more. The result, moms are working whether they want to or not because everything is now based on two incomes and their children get raised by strangers. Also, along with contraception and abortion, moms having careers made it very easy for men to say, “goodbye.”

        • TheAbaum

          Almost no consumer good is more expensive that it was in real terms than it was (and it’s probably better too) than it was fifty years ago.

          Now taxes, and some things like healthcare, education (you know the stuff the government is constantly calling a crisis and meddling in) IS getting more expensive.

          Most divorces are initiated by women.

          • Vinnie

            Maybe consumer goods at the very outset, but then, a swimming pool, a second car, a house with a bath and a half, etc. Now add education, taxes, etc. Also, along with contraception and abortion, moms having careers made it very easy for them to say, “goodbye.”

          • Micha_Elyi

            Most divorces are initiated by women.
            –TheAbaum

            True, and it’s a fact that can’t be pounded into the heads of the Vinnys and Vinnies often enough.

      • I strongly agree with your point of view, but I see two errors in it, starting with this question that needs answering:
        “why are men naturally entitled to all professional opportunities?”

        Because psychologically men have evolved to be the protector of the family, and need a living wage that can feed a family. Of course, the flip side of that is in this day and age where few employers are willing to pay a living wage to a teenage father, women have to work to keep the family afloat. I thus put the blame squarely on capitalism, which seeks profit out of unpaid wages.

        “it’s bad economics too because it isn’t as though there is some set number of jobs for which everyone must compete in a zero-sum game.”

        Actually, that’s Pope Francis’s argument- that there are a globally set number of living wage jobs for which everyone must compete in a zero sum game, and that nearly 2 billion people have been utterly excluded from such jobs and instead earn $1.25/day.

    • Art Deco

      Just to point out that a quarter of the formal sector workforce in 1930 was female and that a third was female in 1957. Recall that in 1957, the majority of women were married by their 21st birthday and the attrition rate of marriages was such that you might expect 15% or 20% of all couples to eventually divorce. These were married women working. In 1930 and (in modest measure) in 1957 you still had quite a crew of farm wives as well, whose daily labors are devoted to production as well as to child care and processing consumption goods. The notion that women were sequestered and devoted to housework fifty years ago is untrue.

      • TheAbaum

        “The notion that women were sequestered and devoted to housework fifty years ago is untrue.”

        My grandmother cooked and baked (from scratch, on a coal stove, in July), made sugar sacks into pillow cases that were soft and soothing (and lasted 30 years), was an accomplished seamstress who made her and her daughter’s dresses from patterns and occasionally supplemented my grandfathers uncertain railroad income with outside employment.

        In all these jobs, she managed procurement, production, accounting and distribution and “sustainability” . She had quite the career. Like the old U.S. Navy commercial, she accomplished more before 7 AM…

  • I for one would like to know anybody in the last 10 years who, given equal seniority, talent, and job title, receives less pay than her male co-worker. I don’t believe that exists anymore.

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      “Equal pay for equal work” raises the question of what is “equal work.”

      “Equal work” includes, but is not limited to “like work,” that is, work that is the same or broadly similar. It also encompasses work that is different, but which would be assessed as equal in value in terms of demands such as effort, skill and decision-making. “Equal value is likely to be relevant” where men and women, (or white and minority ethnic employees, disabled and non-disabled etc) are in the same employment but do different types of work.

      Thus, European Tribunals, applying the Equal Pay Directive have held upheld claims of equal value for the following positions with the same employer

      Primary school classroom assistant – Library service driver messenger
      School nursery nurse – Local government architectural technician
      Wholesale news distribution clerical assistant – Warehouse operative
      Cook – Shipboard painter
      Head of speech and language therapy service – Head of hospital pharmacy service
      Nursing home sewing room assistant – Plumber
      Motor industry sewing machinist – Upholsterer
      Canteen workers and cleaners – Surface mineworkers and clerical workers

      It goes without saying that each case will turn on its own particular facts; there is no rule-of-thumb. That is why I am suspicious of statistical claims in this field.

      • That is utterly ridiculous. Seniority, job title, hours worked, and employee review ratings should all be equal for equal pay.

        Then again, I do my statistics in SQL Server. I can’t code a Like for those likes.

        • Michael Paterson-Seymour

          Most major auditor firms have no difficulty in advising clients on the assessment of equal value between, different job families or occupational hierarchies, say, engineers on the one hand and professional and administrative groups on the other, using categories such as senior managers, department managers, team leaders, specialists with equivalent qualification levels, process workers, and clerks.

          As I say, there is no rule-of-thumb, but indicators can be identified and guidelines can be extracted from the reported decisions of tribunals, from practitioner’s text-books and from parity agreements arrived at through collective bargaining in particular sectors.

          • Most major audit firms are just making stuff up to keep themselves in business.

  • john

    I have thought for a long time that the “war on women” rhetoric masked a real war on FERTILE women. Lu rephrases it into a “war on married” women, but the principle is the same: neutering (either chemical or surgical) is the price of admission into the left’s vision of feminist equality. A real breakthrough for women would be an economic system that permits real flexibility and real opportunity for women and men to serve their employers WHILE they provide for their families. Demanding “equal pay” only for non-fertile women does not actually empower women AS WOMEN at all, even if the state distributes contraceptives at no cost. We desperately need to hear the voices of feminists who embrace fertility.

    • Senhorbotero

      John, if i may rephrase your last sentence, what we really need desparately is to stop hearing the voices of feminists altogether. These people have no concern for culture or future and have much to answer for. They and a list of others, most all following the same strategy have, i fear, irrevocably damaged a highly redeemable and once worthy Western Culture. We have heard enough from them now. We get it, they want what they want, when they want it and dont try to tell them otherwise….

      • john

        Senhorbotero (if that is your first name…), I hear your point, but I think it’s more practical to challenge powerful women to reconsider the source of their power (that is, full womanhood, not a neutered state) than to simply to tell an entire gender to “shut up.” The word feminism is plastic–any woman CAN seize it, and most young women DO, according to their own goals. The word isn’t going away, and there is no monolithic ideology behind it. My wife, a stay at home mom, college-graduate, war veteran, pro-life mother of four sometimes calls herself a feminist. I like hearing her voice. I think that young women yearn for society to recognize their dignity–and JPII’s vision is actually more empowering than Gloria Steinem’s–and that seizing the term “feminism” to argue for natural law is a sound strategy. Finally, there are some excellent Catholic feminists already doing this. Let’s encourage them.

        • Senhorbotero

          With all respect John and in hearing you and understanding I think, I must say that I still disagree with you. The word Feminist is powerful with connotation and to paraphrase “words have meaning”. They cannot be deployed in an infinite number of ways and be of any use at all. And you misunderstand me if you think I wish to shut women up. I wish for all women of good heart and conscience to speak up.
          Rachel I think is correct in trying to convince women because men have largely no voice in the conversation. We are in a terribly unbalanced dialog and sitting still while the freight training is bearing down on us.
          As I mentioned to Rachel in another post I think the argument now is metaphysical. We simply need to decide what it means to live a good life in the context of Gods meaning and then pursue it to our best. I think he has given us enough clues and we need to wholesale reject the Modern arrogance of thinking we know better.
          The whole system is breaking down. I have very close connections to two young women having become first time mothers. I listen to their issues, I hear their pain. They are psychologically tortured because of the indoctrination they lived with prior. They feel abandoned, unsupported, insufficient, bored and often without meaning or purpose. They struggle to be mothers while not always being capable of believing in it.Sounds overly dramatic I suspect but it is so clear when you engage young mothers what they are going thru because of the toxicity of the ideological brainwashing they received through their educational years. This is not sound for any social future.

        • Senhorbotero

          With all respect John and in hearing you and understanding I think, I must say that I still disagree with you. The word Feminist is powerful with connotation and to paraphrase “words have meaning”. They cannot be deployed in an infinite number of ways and be of any use at all. And you misunderstand me if you think I wish to shut women up. I wish for all women of good heart and conscience to speak up.

          Rachel I think is correct in trying to convince women because men have largely no voice in the conversation. We are in a terribly unbalanced dialog and sitting still while the freight training is bearing down on us.

          As I mentioned to Rachel in another post I think the argument now is metaphysical. We simply need to decide what it means to live a good life in the context of Gods meaning and then pursue it to our best. I think he has given us enough clues and we need to wholesale reject the Modern arrogance of thinking we know better.

          The whole system is breaking down. I have very close connections to two young women having become first time mothers. I listen to their issues, I hear their pain. They are psychologically tortured because of the indoctrination they lived with prior. They feel abandoned, unsupported, insufficient, bored and often without meaning or purpose. They struggle to be mothers while not always being capable of believing in it.Sounds overly dramatic I suspect but it is so clear when you engage young mothers what they are going thru because of the toxicity of the ideological brainwashing they received through their educational years. This is not sound for any social future.
          And as is the case concerning men the same is true for young mother’s, nobody cares because this is about power and never has been about truth or goodness.

          • Bucky Inky

            Your point about taking the argument to the metaphysical level is a good one, for the sake of one’s own ability to think clearly in the fog, even if not to convince certain liberals, leftists, and others who very likely don’t want to hear correction in the first place.

            One place to start could be to challenge one’s thinking regarding the title of this piece. What is the reason for present-day political speak regarding the sexes to be always done in terms of the effect it will have on only one of the two sexes? Is this reasoning sound? If “Equal Pay Mendacity” harms men, why is this not noteworthy enough to merit a piece titled likewise? When Dr. Lu says below “And of course, everyone should be very concerned about the plight of men, because when men do badly, so do women and children,” why do not we (Catholics especially) pause to question whether we look at men as creatures “which God willed for their own sakes,” and not rest at the assumption that it is only women who are in danger of “being objectified?”

            • Senhorbotero

              I was not going to comment again but your point is so spot on that i had to write in applause. Your point is precisely what i had in mind. The dialog is always framed as if it women only are worth considering. Any reference to men is incidental and done, i think because there remains a rudimentary conscience that sort of requires men get a mention. As warren Farrel revealed long ago, men are the disposable sex. It is built into the pysche if who we are to always be sacraficial in order to be good men when in relationship to women. Bad women who know this will mow us down and this is how the whole feminist dialog enters the society.

              This last paragraph of Rachels reply to Alf…”Part of what we need is just better …” Is so chock full of left wing/contemporary assumptions that many lines could be written to dissect it. These very assumptions need to challenged and done away with.

            • Rachel Lu

              I have emphasized more than once my concern for men, and added that there are political reasons for focusing one women as concerns this subject. But I should also say that I would not be the least offended if you rewrote that statement replacing “men” with “women”. Emphasizing my sex’s great importance to the welfare of all would seem like a compliment.

              Both sexes need each other, and both should be concerned about what the other wants and needs. Too often we fail in this demand for reciprocity, demanding that the opposite sex be exactly what is most convenient to ourselves. I’m very willing to listen to men’s accounts of what would help them to be thriving, virtuous individuals; I think it’s reasonable that they do women the same courtesy.

              • Bucky Inky

                Thanks for the reply. My apologies for sounding as if I were directing my criticism at you in particular: that was not my intent.

        • Sam Scot

          “The word feminism is plastic–any woman CAN seize it, and most young women DO”
          Many folks who mean well try to make their peace with feminism. But feminism is an evil ideology. It inevitably brings with it narcissism and dishonesty. Narcissism, because it is about entitlement instead of service. (Everyone, male and female, should remain focused on how to serve.) Dishonesty, because it depends by its very name on the pretense that anything can benefit males or females as a “class.”
          Ask the wife of the husband who is passed over for a job in favor of a woman—so that the employer can avoid scrutiny for hiring too many men—if she is “empowered” by policies designed to make it easier for females to find employment in the cash economy.

          • Senhorbotero

            I think you are right about feminism being evil…and i think we now have empirical evidence of what it does to culture. I can find nothing positive in any of it. Feminism is one pillar upon which our destruction has been built.

  • Paul

    Equal pay, I hear the rants of the Democrats ??? Taking this mindset & applying it to all fields of endeavor, does this mean people of both sexes participating in sports should receive the same prize money too ? If so why do we need separate events for men and for women ? Try to put all male & female athletes together (in one single event disregarding their gender) and let’s see who’ll emerge as the best – QED !

  • TheAbaum

    This is from page one of their playbook “divide et impera” and plays into gross economic ignorance. Please tell me where I can tap into this vast pool of labor that trades at a 23% discount.

  • hombre111

    Trying to sort this out in light of the women in my huge 3,000 family, half-Hispanic, half-Anglo parish. More than sixty percent of the kids in this county are entitled to a free or subsidized lunch. In other words, the incomes of both men and women are very low, and even when you put them together, they still border the poverty line. So, around here, at least, in right to work paradise, it would be great if both men and women got any kind of decent pay at all.

    • Art Deco

      Just to point out that Mississippi has a personal income per capita about 25% below the national mean, or somewhere around the standard of living (in purchasable goods and services) prevailing in Italy. Mississippi is our poorest state. The census metropolitan region with the lowest incomes has real incomes just a shade lower than what prevails in New Zealand. There is no substantial and diversified population in the continental United States which does not have 1st world living standards.

    • TheAbaum

      How do you accept the moneys they put in the collection basket? How?

      • hombre111

        Not sure what this has to do with the price of tea in Nepal.

        • Objectivetruth

          Go and sell your computer, and give the money to your poor parishioners. Let’s see you walk the talk.

          And stop telling them they can go against Church teaching by using contraceptives and that gay marriage is A-OK.

          • hombre111

            Tell you what. You sell your computer first. After I don’t see your name on Crisis for three months, I will follow your good example. As far as the ultimately evil sure to bring perdition sin of using contraception: B-A-L-O-N-E-Y.

            • Objectivetruth

              Great…..Catholic doctrine to you is B-A-L-O-N-E-Y.

              Sell my computer….but I’m not the one constantly spouting the Democratic, big government is our mother, envious of people who work hard and support the poor with their own sweat and dollars and not rely on the anti Catholic government, social justice talking point memo de jour, am I?

            • Objectivetruth

              C”mon man…….seriously…..who are you?? You spout heretical stuff I’ve never heard a priest say, nor any priest would believe!

              • John200

                Hombre informs us he is a priest. Everything he posts makes it progressively (yes, that’s a double meaning) harder to believe the claim. He never says anything that sounds like it came from a properly formed priest.

                Frankly, I would not bet ten cents that he is a priest in the RC Church.

                Poseur.

                • Objectivetruth

                  He’s strong pro gay lifestyle and marriage. He’s strong pro contraception. But he claims to be a Catholic priest. What is one to conclude? Anonymity on a website buys anyone the disguise or lie they choose to wear. And it brings me no joy to call him out, but he’s a negative to those who might not know of Church teaching or poorly catechized Catholics who honestly and with an open heart come to this site looking for Catholic Truths. He is leading those who are searching astray. And what they’re getting is lies, untruths, and deceptions on Catholic teachings from someone who claims to be a Catholic priest. This is a very grave sin to deceive people away from the Truths of Christ. It is scandal to the highest level.

                  • Augustus

                    If it is the case, as Hombre says, that he was in the seminary in the early 1970s and that he is now retired, then he would have been a member of the generation that infamously dissented from Church teaching in a number of areas including moral theology. Remember the public dissent from Humanae Vitae in 1968 led by theologians like Charles Curran? His hippie generation ran the Church for two decades and is now retiring and a new generation of more orthodox clergy is replacing the old one. So, we can disagree with what he says without doubting he is a retired priest.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Christ takes care of His bride. The renewal is happening. I had a young, newly minted priest really challenge me on my sins in confession. He gave me absolution in Latin. As Pope Benedict said, “I’d rather have fewer, but faithful priests, than many unfaithful priests.”

            • TheAbaum

              Your the one always spouting about the need to have “the rich” do without to sustain “the poor”. Possession of a computer puts you in the upper-quartile of the world wealth.

              You are “the rich”, now part with your toys.

        • TheAbaum

          “Accepting the money is not my job.”

          No, just accepting it.

          • Objectivetruth

            Enough money to buy a nice computer from his impoverished parishioners paychecks so he can spend a lot of time on Crisis preaching to us how Church doctrines are wrong and you need to help the poor, but obviously not him.

            • TheAbaum

              I do love the sweet sound of a bat sending a ball into the cheap seats with three on base in the springtime….

              • Objectivetruth

                Agreed!

  • Pingback: “Equal Pay” Mendacity Harms Women | Crisis Magazine « Yourfuckbook Fuckbook Adult Facebook Dating website()

  • Objectivetruth

    Great article, Rachel.

    I think in a way we’re looking at the whole salary situation from the wrong end of the horse. Are we primarily working for greater pay, or to give greater glory to God (ad majorem, Dei Glorem?)

    I’m becoming a big fan of St. Escriva’s “The Work.” Ultimately my paycheck comes from the grace and love of God. What am I doing with that money, whatever amount? Am I working hard for my employer, and offering every moment of my work day in God’s service and for His glory? If I receive greater pay for my efforts to glorify Him, then thanks be to God. Then I must discern what His plan is for me if He grants me the gift of greater pay, a good job, a promotion.

    Don’t focus so much on the numbers on your paycheck. Take the money given you and be thankful and see how it works for your family and God’s glory.

  • Pingback: The Imperative of Creativity in Art & Religion - God & Caesar()

  • Stephanie

    I think women should stay home with their children (either not work or work from home) until they are old enough to go to school and then work part time so they can be there to pick their kids up when they get out of school. Yes, there are some arrangements where one parent works the day shift and the other works nights, but the marriage suffers because they’re not spending time together and there is a good chance they’ll end up growing apart.

    I’ve seen so many kids who are struggling in school, at a reading level that is two years below where they should be for their grade level, and it’s because there is nobody at home to help them with their homework, especially their reading. Both parents work full time and by the time the kid gets picked up it’s time for dinner, then bath, then bed. I used to do after school tutoring when I was in high school and just an hour a week of one-on-one attention (two 30-minute sessions each week) made all the difference in the world with these kids.

    The middle and high school years are worse because there isn’t daycare available. Not only do kids still have problems in school (and/or they’re placed in remedial classes) but they have temptations to get involved in things they shouldn’t and there is a greater chance of trouble when teens are home alone.

    The other problem is one that used to be obvious but isn’t anymore: women need to keep their legs closed outside of marriage. Your child has a much higher chance of success with a married mother and father. No, women don’t get pregnant on their own but it is the women (who work long hours and barely make enough to put food on the table) and children (who don’t get the care they need) who ultimately suffer when the father leaves his child and baby mama. Keeping your legs closed will weed out the users and avoid extreme emotional attachments when you know deep down that something isn’t right and it won’t work out in the long run (staying in these relationships ends up damaging their ability to trust or commit in future relationships).

  • The_Monk

    The problems are manifold and deep. Technology is the great emancipator while simultaneously being the great emasculator. The overlapping and intertwining goals and strategies of the feminist and gay movements, which is the deconstruction of society. The refusal of modern women to recognize that men need work in a way that women can’t begin to comprehend. And when men are pushed to the side while women work, the result is bad for everybody. The leveling of the playing field both feminizes the culture and devalues the contribution of men. Men and women were designed differently. When men can’t find the work that sustains them as men, society fails. We are at that point. Men and women were designed by God to complement each other. But the feminists and gays reject that design. Who thinks this is headed anyplace good?…

    • Alf

      Monk, please write an article on your thoughts on this issue – then post a link here! I hope you have a blog?

      • The_Monk

        Hi Alf – interesting request. I don’t have a blog, but would consider writing up something to flesh out the fragments in the above paragraph. I suppose I could set up a blog, using WordPress or similar. As with most people, time is the fly in the ointment….

        • Alf

          Great! I’ll check back here – just reply to this comment and I will see it.

  • Caitlin

    I had a relationship with a married man for 8 eight years and he wasn’t getting a divorce because he didn’t want to leave his children. After agbalaxxy@gmail.com did a spell for me, he changed completely. He couldn’t live without me and was excited just to hear me or see me. He forgot all his fears about his children. He couldn’t even touch his EX-wife.

  • Pingback: Kevin Durant And Inequality()

MENU