Sunday, March 6, 2011

The Pay Gap Mythology even Presidents of the USA promote

Here are some links on the Pay Gap Myth  This mythology produced by Feminists is designed to appeal to gullible people everywhere, and in particular, chivalrous people in positions of power.  Obama is one of the apparent believers and is pandering to his left wing including union base.  Does Obama pay his women employees less in the White House or in the government public service? Not likely but he is a politician and a mangina.  He should read his own studies as follows.

The gap boils down to personal choices by men and women.  I like to cite the difference in pay between Male and female Doctors in Canada. Female Doctors make less. Do you know why?  Its because they work fewer hours.  Pretty simple math and clearly shows they prioritize their lives differently.  Its choice not oppression or collusion by the Patriarchy.

The pay gap is probably the most widely-cited example of supposed disadvantages faced by women today. It is also totally misleading, as it is only a snapshot of average yearly full-time incomes that does not account for overtime (about 90% male), type of work, or other non-discriminatory, voluntary factors. The Department of Labor (USA) recently funded a study that proved this and found the pay gap is caused by choices, not discrimination.
http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf
 
Equal pay statistics are bogus because they don't compare like with like
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/vickiwoods/7957186/Sorry-ladies-Im-not-worried-about-wage-gaps.html
 
Fair Pay Isnt Always Equal Pay, Christina Hoff Sommers
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/opinion/22Sommers.html?_r=1&hp
 
Female U.S. corporate directors out-earn men: study
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0752118220071107?feedType=R
 
Female CEOs out earned men in 2009.
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=10630664
 
Women between ages 21 and 30 working full-time made 117% of men’s wages.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/nyregion/03women.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
 
In the book Why Men Earn More” by Warren Farrell, Ph.D., examined 25 career/life choices men and women make (hours, commute times, etc.) that lead to men earning more and women having more balanced lives, and that showed how men in surveys prioritize money while women prioritize flexibility, shorter hours, shorter commutes, less physical risk and other factors conducive to their choice to be primary parents, an option men still largely don't have. That is why never-married childless women out earn their male counterparts, and female corporate directors now out earn their male counterparts.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0752118220071107?feedTyĆ¢�¦
 
Farrell also lists dozens of careers, including fields of science, where women outearn men.
Women simply have more options than men to be primary parents, and many of them exercise that option rather than work long, stressful hours. That is why 57% of female graduates of Stanford and Harvard left the workforce within 15 years of entry into the workforce.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/03/15/optout.revolution/
 
This is an option few men have (try being a single male and telling women on the first date that you want to stay home).
 
Blaming men for women's choices is unfair. In fact research shows most men have no problem with their wives out earning them.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23413243
 
Research also shows most working dads would quit or take a pay cut to spend more time with kids if their spouses could support the family.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/Careers/06/13/dads.work/index.html
 
Research also shows that parents share workloads more when mothers allow men to be primary parents.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-05-04-equal-parenting_N.htm
 
ABC News: Is the Wage Gap Women's Choice? Research Suggests Career Decisions, Not Sex Bias, Are at Root of Pay Disparity.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/GiveMeABreak/story?id=797045&page=1&CMP=OTC-R

 

Friday, February 4, 2011

USA Today: Domestic Violence Myths help no one: Christina Hoff Sommers

This article points out how gullible politicians are, among others, in their efforts to appear to be chivalrous. They will buy propaganda as truth, resell it on their web sites and denigrate men, even in their own race. Holder is Black but he drank the feminist kool-aid.  In the overall statistics DV Injuries of all women are not in the top 10. MJM







By Christina Hoff Sommers


"The facts are clear," said Attorney General Eric Holder. "Intimate partner homicide is the leading cause of death for African-American women ages 15 to 45."

That's a horrifying statistic, and it would be a shocking reflection of the state of the black family, and American society generally, if it were true. But it isn't true.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Justice Department's own Bureau of Justice Statistics, the leading causes of death for African-American women between the ages 15–45 are cancer, heart disease, unintentional injuries such as car accidents, and HIV disease. Homicide comes in fifth — and includes murders by strangers. In 2006 (the latest year for which full statistics are available), several hundred African-American women died from intimate partner homicide — each one a tragedy and an outrage, but far fewer than the approximately 6,800 women who died of the other leading causes.
Yet Holder's patently false assertion has remained on the Justice Department website for more than a year.
How is that possible? It is possible because false claims about male domestic violence are ubiquitous and immune to refutation. During the era of the infamous Super Bowl Hoax, it was widely believed that on Super Bowl Sundays, violence against women increases 40%. Journalists began to refer to the game as the "abuse bowl" and quoted experts who explained how male viewers, intoxicated and pumped up with testosterone, could "explode like mad linemen." During the 1993 Super Bowl, NBC ran a public service announcement warning men they would go to jail for attacking their wives.

In this roiling sea of media credulity, one lone journalist, Washington Post reporter Ken Ringle, checked the facts. As it turned out, there was no source: An activist had misunderstood something she read, jumped to her sensational conclusion, announced it at a news conference and an urban myth was born. Despite occasional efforts to prove the story true, no one has ever managed to link the Super Bowl to domestic battery.

World Cup abuse?

Yet the story has proved too politically convenient to kill off altogether. Last summer, it came back to life on a different continent and with a new accent. During the 2010 World Cup, British newspapers carried stories with headlines such as "Women's World Cup Abuse Nightmare" and informed women that the games could uncover "for the first time, a darker side to their partner." Fortunately, a BBC program called Law in Action took the unusual route pioneered by Ringle: The news people actually checked the facts. Their conclusion: a stunt based on cherry-picked figures.

But when the BBC journalists presented the deputy chief constable, Carmel Napier, from the town of Gwent with evidence that the World Cup abuse campaign was based on twisted statistics, she replied: "If it has saved lives, then it is worth it."

It is not worth it. Misinformation leads to misdirected policies that fail to target the true causes of violence. Worse, those who promulgate false statistics about domestic violence, however well-meaning, promote prejudice. Most of the exaggerated claims implicate the average male in a social atrocity. Why do that? Anti-male misandry, like anti-female misogyny, is unjust and dangerous. Recall what happened at Duke University a few years ago when many seemingly fair-minded students and faculty stood by and said nothing while three innocent young men on the Duke Lacrosse team were subjected to the horrors of a modern-day witch hunt.

And then there's Iran

Worst of all, misinformation about violence against women suggests a false moral equivalence between societies where women are protected by law and those where they are not. American and British societies are not perfect, but we have long ago decided that violence against women is barbaric. By contrast, the Islamic Republic of Iran — where it is legal to bury an adulterous woman up to her neck and stone her — was last year granted a seat on the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defended the decision by noting Iranian women are far better off than women in the West. "What is left of women's dignity in the West?" he asked. He then came up with a statistic to drive home his point: "In Europe almost 70% of housewives are beaten by their husbands."

That was a self-serving lie. Western women, with few exceptions, are safe and free. Iranian women are neither. Officials like Attorney General Holder, the deputy constable of Gwent, and the activists and journalists who promoted the Super Bowl and World Cup hoaxes, unwittingly contribute to such twisted deceptions.

Victims of intimate violence are best served by the truth. Eric Holder should correct his department's website immediately.

Christina Hoff Sommers is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. She is the author of Who Stole Feminism and The War Against Boys, co-author of One Nation Under Therapy, and editor of The Science on Women and Science.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-02-03-sommers04_st_N.htm

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Men Shouldn't Be Overlooked as Victims of Partner Violence

Psychiatric News August 3, 2007
Volume 42 Number 15 Page 31
© American Psychiatric Association

  • Clinical & Research News

Men Shouldn't Be Overlooked as Victims of Partner Violence

In addressing intimate partner violence, the focus is usually on women who are physically battered by husbands or boyfriends. However, women sometimes hurt their partners as well.

Women are doing virtually everything these days that men are—working as doctors, lawyers, and rocket scientists; flying helicopters in combat; riding horses in the Kentucky Derby. And physically assaulting their spouses or partners. 

In fact, when it comes to nonreciprocal violence between intimate partners, women are more often the perpetrators. 

These findings on intimate partner violence come from a study conducted by scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The lead investigator was Daniel Whitaker, Ph.D., a behavioral scientist and team leader at the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (which is part of the CDC). Results were published in the May Journal of Public Health

In 2001, the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health attempted to amass data about the health of a nationally representative sample of 14,322 individuals between the ages of 18 and 28. The study also asked subjects to answer questions about romantic or sexual relationships in which they had engaged during the previous five years and whether those relationships had involved violence.

Of those subjects, 11,370 reported having had heterosexual relationships and also provided answers to the violence-related questions. So Whitaker and his colleagues decided to use the responses from these 11,370 subjects for a study into how much violence is experienced in intimate heterosexual partner relationships, who the instigators are, and whether physical harm accrues from the violence. 

The 11,370 subjects, Whitaker and his colleagues found, reported on 18,761 relationships, of which 76 percent had been nonviolent and 24 percent violent. That almost a quarter of the subjects had engaged in violent relationships may seem high to some people, but “the rates we found are similar to those of other studies of late adolescents and young adults, a time period when interpersonal-violence rates are at their highest,” Whitaker told Psychiatric News. Also, he added, “these rates demonstrate the magnitude of interpersonal violence as a health and social problem.”



Furthermore, Whitaker discovered, of the 24 percent of relationships that had been violent, half had been reciprocal and half had not. Although more men than women (53 percent versus 49 percent) had experienced nonreciprocal violent relationships, more women than men (52 percent versus 47 percent) had taken part in ones involving reciprocal violence. 

Regarding perpetration of violence, more women than men (25 percent versus 11 percent) were responsible. In fact, 71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women. This finding surprised Whitaker and his colleagues, they admitted in their study report.

As for physical injury due to intimate partner violence, it was more likely to occur when the violence was reciprocal than nonreciprocal. And while injury was more likely when violence was perpetrated by men, in relationships with reciprocal violence it was the men who were injured more often (25 percent of the time) than were women (20 percent of the time). “This is important as violence perpetrated by women is often seen as not serious,” Whitaker and his group stressed.

Of the study's numerous findings, Whitaker said, “I think the most important is that a great deal of interpersonal violence is reciprocally perpetrated and that when it is reciprocally perpetrated, it is much more likely to result in injury than when perpetrated by only one partner.”

The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, upon which this investigation was based, was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development with co-funding from 17 other federal agencies.

An abstract of “Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence” is posted at<www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/5/941>.▪