"Walter H. Schneider" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Discrimination
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,
>harder, and are more qualified, rarely file sexual discrimination
>lawsuits or take pregnancy leave, yet earn only 42% more than women
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
what the common denominator is.
Feminist-influenced statistical reports often have a way with numbers.
Canada it is reported that women's average annual income is 72% 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.
work on average 40hrs/week. Men work on average 44hrs/week. When that
taken into account, the average earnings of women amount to 81% of
earn on average (StatCan).
81% could easily be derived from the data provided by Statistics Canada,
they chose to pick the 72% figure and not to report the 81% figure.
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
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
Upon looking a bit closer yet by picking university and college graduates
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
The study from which those figures have been quoted was published too
StatCan. The study report specifically stated that there is absolutely
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
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
Considering that much of the gender-related data that is widely published
StatCan is presented in a slanted light which stresses the plight of
who thereby could be perceived to be oppressed and underprivileged,
have been quite a surprise to the people who commissioned the study
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
took place in 1992, has not been more widely advertised, or is it?
rate, I'm glad to know that StatCan's feminists are not totally loath
suppress that little tile of truth in the mosaic of our labour market.
a remnant of control is still in place in that venerable institution
ensure that the truth should at least at times be accessible by the
Measuring US income figures by comparable standards provides similar
results. I have some leads to sources of information relating to the
of college and university graduates in the US. If anyone needs it,
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
men on average. That too was a little while ago. It would not surprise
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
of women as a group. What I find particularly fascinating about that
the poor women who have to live in poverty with their dependent children
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
not strike anyone as extremely odd that the people who are making a
from the plight of women in poverty are benefitting the most, because
have increased opportunities for employment and career advances. In
they have higher earnings due to job security and higher salaries than
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
the labour market are so busily creating through the promotion of no-fault
divorce, false abuse allegations, access denial, modifications of CS
restraining orders, preventing women in poverty from obtaining gainful
employment by making it just a little bit more attractive to live on
dole and CS/alimony, etc. etc......
It all makes one wonder why all of these aspects of our society are
strange. I think I might have an explanation. It is because we did
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
some of the strange societies that he dreamed up would be surpassed
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
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
That too requires a change in wording. As it is, it will leave people
> 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 --
However, your statistic does not make it clear whether the fathers are
the receiving or the giving end of the collections. Could it really
women default that far more often than men do?
On average, women are far more likely to be chronic defaulters, without
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
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
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
would destroy the image of women being victim's, wouldn't it? It could
the job prospects of the women who derive their income from protecting
in poverty. If that would happen, we would have high-income women who
drop out of the employed workforce. That would increase the number
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
in that sector of the ecomomy. Come on gals, have you no pride? Do
children drop in value when you don't have custody of them? Is the
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
that there are women who are motivated by nothing but greed, and not
is in the best interest of their children....?
All the best,
"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
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]