"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government." Thomas Jefferson

Women: Looking For Love In All the Wrong Places?

Melanie Sturm | @ThinkAgainUSA Read Comments - 17
Publish Date: 
Thu, 02/13/2014

“Life’s greatest happiness,” Victor Hugo wrote, “is to be convinced we are loved.”  As most experienced couples know, love-induced happiness is a year-round triumph, not the outcome of a singular, mass-marketed Valentine’s celebration – the one Jay Leno calls “Extortion Day.”


But men ignore this expectation-filled Hallmark holiday at their peril, which is why it’s become a $16 billion industry. More than heart-shaped bling, women savor attention -- a lesson noted by politicians.


Just as women beware of transient Romeos, they must Think Again about politicians who whisper sweet nothings into their ears, over-promising before an election and under-delivering after winning their commitment.


A frequent refrain of President Obama’s -- asserted as earnestly as “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it” -- is the claim repeated in his State of the Union address that women “make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns.” Promising to close the “embarrassing” gap he declared, “Women deserve equal pay for equal work.”


While discrimination can’t be ruled out, should it be the default explanation? Are whites the victims of discrimination because they earn less than Asians? If women do the same work for less, why would anyone hire a man?


Playing honest broker and mindful of research studies, feminist Hanna Rosin wrote in Slate, “I’ve heard the line enough times that I feel the need to set the record straight: It’s not true.”


Though the rhetoric is as empty as the calories in a box of Valentine’s chocolates, it sells, 51 years after President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act to prohibit gender-based wage discrimination.


Equally delicious are Orwellian-named laws like the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would increase the risk of costly litigation for employers, discouraging the hiring of women whom the law purports to protect.  That’s because “employers could not use fewer hours, less education, and lower performance to evaluate salary differences,” explained Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist at the Labor Department.


Nevertheless, opposing labor market-imperiling legislation – sops to the trial-lawyer lobby that kept tort reform out of Obamacare – is worse than overlooking Valentine's Day. It's a “War on Women.”


Yet asserting that women make less than men for the same labor without considering hours worked, education, industry, job tenure, and marital and parental status, is like saying women are cheated out of food because men consume more.  


That men and women possess different minds and bodies, have distinct interests and life goals and make unique choices largely explains gender-gaps, though many feminists resist these truths.  Incredibly, sex differences are also overlooked in medical research and treatment, a dangerous oversight attributed to feminism in a recent 60 Minutes report. 


Women make less than men, Rosin posits, because they “don’t want to work the same way men do” – a theory confirmed by a 2007 Pew survey in which 79 percent of working mothers preferred part-time or no work, compared to only 12 percent of fathers. They’re also happier working part-time, according to an American Psychological Association study.  


Additionally, women consciously choose the least lucrative college majors and enter less demanding and lower-paying occupations, even in medicine where men predominate in higher-paid specialties requiring more training and hours.


Economic studies that consider these differences report a full-time wage gap as small as 5 percent. Meanwhile, the New York Times reported, women earn 10 percent more than men for part-time employment involving 5 to 39 hours.


"The point here,” Rosin argues, “is not that there is no wage inequality. But by focusing our outrage into a tidy, misleading statistic we’ve missed the actual challenges."


Those challenges include the feminization of poverty triggered by an explosion of single-motherhood (42 percent overall and 73 percent among blacks), and a declining standard of living caused by falling wages, less work and skyrocketing healthcare, food, and utility costs.


Nearly five years into an economic recovery the AP labeled the feeblest since the Great Depression, we have 4 million fewer jobs than in 2008 (despite working-age population growth of 14 million), crisis levels of government dependency, and severe underemployment. Though women have regained more jobs than men, Census data shows a record 17 million live in poverty compared to 12.6 million men.


There are programs that could help women rise out of the safety net onto the ladder of opportunity -- if targeted with cupid-like precision -- though intact families are the best remedy. Ultimately, the ideal bed of roses is a robust economy, higher-paying jobs and the disposable income boost that comes from lower prices – all of which are undermined by current policies.


Most importantly, women mustn’t allow suitors to romance them with bouquets of sweeping government programs that wilt at the challenge, but never die. 


Think Again – Aren’t pandering politicians who mislead in pursuit of one-night stands on Election Day the ones waging the War on Women?


Share this

women's natural instinct is

women's natural instinct is to protect and nurture their children.

In the absence of a man they will turn to government to provide those things (out of fear)

First and foremost is safety, nothing else matters if you don't feel safe. So they will tend to vote for the party that will keep them safest when they feel threatened. People can be threatened from within (think crime) or from without (think terrorism)

The political class has known this for sometime and both sides exploit it, examples:

* Johnsons nuclear doomsday “Daisy commercial”
* Southern segregationists claims in regards to racial integration
* Reagan and HW Bush claim that Democrats are soft on crime and the famous “Willie Horton ads”
* W Bush war on terror

Once they feel safe they will tend to vote for the party that will provide, nurture, and/or take care of them (think welfare, college loans, and free healthcare).

Because of this, Republicans who have been historically tuff on crime and tuff on defense will have the advantage in an environment where women feel their safety is at stake, and democrats will have an advantage in times of relative peace and safety.

Thus, I argue that Republicans need to face this head-on and make the point that Democratic safety net programs are actually a THREAT to their financial well being and ultimately their safety.

As a Program Manager, I spent

As a Program Manager, I spent many years supervising analysts. I never had a male project director take 3 months off for paternity leave. I sympathize with career women who hear the biological clock ticking and who take time off to have a child or two. And, I think a woman can make up for the opportunities lost in her career by taking a couple of maternity leaves (Only Superwoman can get away with three or more), but she has to recognize that she will lose opportunities compared to the people who are THERE while she is AWAY. Very few people are smart, energetic and wise enough to "have it all". Telling children that they can have it all is a lie. Tell them they will have to make choices.

"Yet asserting that women

"Yet asserting that women make less than men for the same labor without considering hours worked, education, industry, job tenure, and marital and parental status is like saying women are cheated out of food because men consume more."

I like that one -- very good, Melanie

I had an interesting

I had an interesting conversation with my wife on this subject, relating to the life situation of a friend of ours. I asked the question, "If you were forced to stay married, would you rather it be to a nice guy and good father who cheats on you, or a faithful jerk?" We both agreed that the first one would be greatly preferable. That could explain a lot in politics as well.

From the article: "If women

From the article: "If women do the same work for less, why would anyone hire a man?"

It's funny how nobody mentions this little inconvenient item. LOL.

How can the party that fights

How can the party that fights for the right to abort female babies not be the one at “war with women?”

If the Republican party wants

If the Republican party wants to attract more womens votes it needs to do something to address womens fears. It must make them FEAR another Democratic administration more than it fears losing their federal government sugar daddy.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • No HTML tags allowed
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Article List

Thu, 09/10/2015

Thu, 09/12/2013

Thu, 06/06/2013

Tue, 01/15/2013

Thu, 05/24/2012

Thu, 03/15/2012

Thu, 07/07/2011

Thu, 03/31/2011