Forum

Free news

FREE blog

Donate

Search

Subscribe

jews/911

Feedback

dna

Gun poll

RCC

AIDS

Home

Fathers

Surveys

Holocaust

IQ

14th Amdt

19th Amdt

Israelites

NWO

Homicide

Blacks

Whites

Signatory

Talmud

Watchman

Gaelic

Traitors

Health?

 
 Eliminating fatherlessness
FatherhoodFamilyEducationIndustryFathers' ManifestoSignatoriesChildren
"Walter H. Schneider" <sheep_@telusplanet.net>
Subject: Re: Discrimination Against Men
Some slightly "politically incorrect" but honest observations with respect
to what caught my eye:
 

>3.INCOME: Men constitute 60% of workplace hours, work longer hours, work
>harder, and are more qualified, rarely file sexual discrimination or harassment
>lawsuits or take pregnancy leave, yet earn only 42% more than women [Dept. Labor]

That needs a little clarification. If you are speaking of average income,
the figure is off a bit.
If your figure relates to the overall averages you might try and look for
what the common denominator is.

Feminist-influenced statistical reports often have a way with numbers. In
Canada it is reported that women's average annual income is 72% of that of
men's. On looking closer it becomes obvious that women's average annual
income is much closer to men's if you take the hours worked into account.
Women's average hours worked are different from those that men work. Women
work on average 40hrs/week. Men work on average 44hrs/week. When that is
taken into account, the average earnings of women amount to 81% of what men
earn on average (StatCan).

81% could easily be derived from the data provided by Statistics Canada, but
they chose to pick the 72% figure and not to report the 81% figure. Why do
you suppose that was? The media picked up on that right away and blissfully
reported an commented all day long and longer about the slow progress that
women were making with respect to pay-equity. 72% is so much more attractive
a number when you are trying to manufacture concern for the plight of women.

Upon looking a bit closer yet by picking university and college graduates it
was found that recent graduates of both genders who had identical
qualification and tenure, already in 1992 had earnings as follows:

When both genders worked 44hrs/week, women earned 100% of what men earned.
When both genders worked 60hrs/week, women earned 110% of what men earned.

The study from which those figures have been quoted was published too by
StatCan. The study report specifically stated that there is absolutely no
evidence of gender bias against women in the population studied. Any
differences in the respective genders' earnings are all based on various
personal preferences by women to have shorter work hours, less stressful
work and similar reasons. Some might wonder why that has been stressed in
the study report. The reason was that the study's purpose was to examine
whether gender discrimination is a factor in the difference in earnings of
the genders.

Considering that much of the gender-related data that is widely published by
StatCan is presented in a slanted light which stresses the plight of women
who thereby could be perceived to be oppressed and underprivileged, it must
have been quite a surprise to the people who commissioned the study to find
that if there is any discrimination at all, it is in *favour* of women --
and against men. It is surprising that this major achievement, which already
took place in 1992, has not been more widely advertised, or is it? At any
rate, I'm glad to know that StatCan's feminists are not totally loath to
suppress that little tile of truth in the mosaic of our labour market. Maybe
a remnant of control is still in place in that venerable institution to
ensure that the truth should at least at times be accessible by the public.

Measuring US income figures by comparable standards provides similar
results. I have some leads to sources of information relating to the incomes
of college and university graduates in the US. If anyone needs it, let me
know. Figures that I have seen state that for graduates from higher
institutes of learning, women's incomes are in the order of 98% of that of
men on average. That too was a little while ago. It would not surprise me at
all if that level of success had been surpassed since then and is purposely
not being mentioned. After all, we must make sure that the general
population retains the perception of women as victims of discrimination,
must we not?

There is obviously a considerable skewness in the distribution of the income
of women as a group. What I find particularly fascinating about that is that
the poor women who have to live in poverty with their dependent children are
the ones who benefit the least from the advances made in income parity.
Their numbers are continually rising, while their incomes are continually
dropping or at best are falling with respect to purchasing power. Does it
not strike anyone as extremely odd that the people who are making a living
from the plight of women in poverty are benefitting the most, because they
have increased opportunities for employment and career advances. In addition
they have higher earnings due to job security and higher salaries than their
victims do.

Their victims? Well, I mean of course the fall-out of the broken families,
women, children and men from divorced families that the high-income women in
the labour market are so busily creating through the promotion of no-fault
divorce, false abuse allegations, access denial, modifications of CS orders,
restraining orders, preventing women in poverty from obtaining gainful
employment by making it just a little bit more attractive to live on the
dole and CS/alimony,  etc. etc......

It all makes one wonder why all of these aspects of our society are so
strange. I think I might have an explanation. It is because we did not read
about them in Gulliver's Travels when we were kids. Jonathan Swift's
imagination, as creative as it was, was not up to the task of imagining that
some of the strange societies that he dreamed up would be surpassed in the
not so distant future by the realities of ours.

To us, the society is truly real. If only it were a fairy tale, at least we
could hope for a happy ending.
Gulliver always escaped and returned home. Where can we escape to?

> ...........
>   7.FEDERAL TAXES: Men pay 115% of federal income taxes
>[ menpy115.htm]

That too requires a change in wording. As it is, it will leave people
incredulous.

> .........
> 14.JUSTICE SYSTEM BIAS: Fathers are 97% of "child support" collections
>prosecutions [Census Bureau]

That's to be expected. Fathers pay virtually all of child support. They
would be more often in default. They are deadbeats -- the brutes -- aren't
they!

However, your statistic does not make it clear whether the fathers are on
the receiving or the giving end of the collections. Could it really be that
women default that far more often than men do?

On average, women are far more likely to be chronic defaulters, without any
doubt. It's not my specialty, but I'm sure I've seen quite a bit of
information about that. Our saintly women are far more likely to be deadbeat
moms than our brutish men are to be deadbeat dads, in spite of the
circumstance that the average award that women who have the privilege to pay
CS to their ex-husbands is only 4% of what men pay on average to their
ex-wives. Please, we don't want that to become common knowledge, do we? That
would destroy the image of women being victim's, wouldn't it? It could harm
the job prospects of the women who derive their income from protecting women
in poverty. If that would happen, we would have high-income women who would
drop out of the employed workforce. That would increase the number of women
who are victims, by gosh.

Whichever way we feel about this, I see it as one of the worst
manifestations of gender discrimination. How about a little more pay equity
in that sector of the ecomomy. Come on gals, have you no pride? Do your
children drop in value when you don't have custody of them? Is the bread
that men must buy cheaper than the bread that you buy? Do the doctors
provide their services for free when fathers bring children to them?

You would not want that anything tarnishes the immaculate image of womanhood
would you? Is it all about the mighty dollar after all? Could it really be
that there are women who are motivated by nothing but greed, and not by what
is in the best interest of their children....?
 

All the best,

Walter

"The little Mary Doesn't-Know-What has everything she wants,
And what she has she doesn't want, and what she want's she doesn't have.
The little Mary Doesn't-Know-What has everything she wants."

        [Freely adapted and translated from a German nursery rhyme,
         to be spoken. Try it. The rythm comes all by itself.
         It used to work with kids when their demands became
         irrational. A long time ago..... --WHS]
 
 

 

TRAITOR McCain

jewn McCain

ASSASSIN of JFK, Patton, many other Whites

killed 264 MILLION Christians in WWII

killed 64 million Christians in Russia

holocaust denier extraordinaire--denying the Armenian holocaust

millions dead in the Middle East

tens of millions of dead Christians

LOST $1.2 TRILLION in Pentagon
spearheaded torture & sodomy of all non-jews
millions dead in Iraq

42 dead, mass murderer Goldman LOVED by jews

serial killer of 13 Christians

the REAL terrorists--not a single one is an Arab

serial killers are all jews

framed Christians for anti-semitism, got caught
left 350 firemen behind to die in WTC

legally insane debarred lawyer CENSORED free speech

mother of all fnazis, certified mentally ill

10,000 Whites DEAD from one jew LIE

moser HATED by jews: he followed the law

f.ck Jesus--from a "news" person!!

1000 fold the child of perdition

 

Hit Counter

 

Modified Saturday, March 11, 2017

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party