I stumbled across an article entitled "Australian women make 83¢ for every $1 a man earns" [ref 1] which brings to mind several concerns with modern claims on the gender pay gap in the West. In addition to the points noted above (e.g., regarding the male inclination to accept more dangerous and thus higher paying roles) and elsewhere here [ref 2], I hope to offer some further themes or at least shed more light on the problems with the article's primary and secondary evidence.
1. Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics used by Feminists
This article perfectly sums up how statistics are open to not just manipulation (intellectual fraud), but also interpretation (ignorance and/or cognitive distortions such as confirmation bias [ref 3]), and blatant misrepresentation (agenda running).
In the same article that uses the headline "Australian women make 83¢ for every $1 a man earns", its source is quoted as noting "... when variables such as age, education, experience, occupation, industry, location, year, company and job title, are taken into account, the adjusted gender pay gap shrinks from 17.3 per cent to 3.9 per cent" [ref 1].
In essence, the article headlines with the claimed gap of 17.3% whilst, within the article itself, indicates that the actual gap is closer to 3.9 per cent when controlling for confounding variables like occupation. I find it hard to believe that this is ignorance on behalf of the author, and conclude that this is pure agenda pushing.
![[Image: Dilbert110320ReliabilityStatistics.gif]](http://pacm.parnes.net/images/Dilbert110320ReliabilityStatistics.gif)
1.1. A lack of Contextualisation in the Research
It is also telling that the source cited, 'Demystifying the Gender Pay Gap' [ref 3], fails to control for any individual personal characteristics. Whilst they at least had the guts to note this limitation [ref 4, p.45], it nonetheless indicates that there are likely to be significant personal traits that can explain this remaining gap, e.g., the belief that earning a high salary is important for attracting a mate.
![[Image: phd-comics-the-actual-method.jpg?resize=600%2C260]](http://i0.wp.com/www.brains-explained.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/phd-comics-the-actual-method.jpg?resize=600%2C260)
This relates to the second point --
2. NeoMasculinity Embraces Truth, Modern Feminism runs from it
Truth-seeking and the scientific method are integral to the neomasculine movement [ref 5,6]. Conversely, one core problem with modern feminism is that is fails to recognize unassailable truths about the nature of men and women.
In the case of the alleged gender gap problem, Andrew Chamberlain theorizes that the core problem is that "women are systematically excluded from certain occupations" and "encouraged to work only in certain industries" which "represent social biases against women that most observers would consider unfair" [ref 4, p.46]. The argument of equality thus follows that, if women can work in any industry, STEM or not, then so can men… right? A man should be able to study as an Arts major or work as a Child-care Assistant, yeah? Well, yes, but not if they want to attract a good mate.
In general, "females value cues to resource acquisition in potential mates more highly than males whereas Characteristics signaling reproductive capacity were valued more by males than by females." These statements are not based on mere theory but rather very well-established data, "from 37 samples drawn from 33 countries located on six continents and five islands; total N (i.e., participants) = 10,047” [ref 7]. Put another way, females want a provider, males want a hottie.
To link this to modern dating, a "survey" (notably without a description of methodology unfortunately), concluded that "60% of the 2,000 women surveyed by London dating app The Inner Circle admitted refusing a second date with a guy after finding he had a lower salary than them. However men were less concerned with cash - as 96 per cent of them told researchers they were not bothered if they female date was a bigger earning high-flyer" [ref 8].
So basically, women supposedly face social discrimination against having ambition/options and they need to be better represented amongst the Fortune 500 board members, however men... errr… (hear comes the truth) still need to be a provider regardless.
![[Image: 23a0f95dae99310b2c7d335042d601b8d37b4d04...be0f31.jpg]](http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/23/23a0f95dae99310b2c7d335042d601b8d37b4d048d87d0b82743dafcb7be0f31.jpg)
3. What about the Spending Gap?
The "gender gap research" also fails to explain the relative importance of not just earning but also spending between genders [ref 10]. Men will, on average, spend more money on women, that women spend on men. So then, even if women do face discrimination in terms of earnings--which is debatable--they certainly are not lacking in terms of receiving power.
4. These feminist solutions lack precision, balance, and practicality
The authors suggestions are largely:
* One-sided -- e.g., fail to include any admission that attractive women face advantages across sexual, societal, economical and vocational areas [ref 10],
![[Image: k9516.gif]](http://press.princeton.edu/images/k9516.gif)
* Plus Vague and impractical -- e.g., under the heading 'Improving Free Occupational Choice', they recommend "focusing on policies that target the dramatic occupation and industry sorting of men and women into separate and financially unequal types of work throughout their careers" [ref 4, p.47] yet provide no specific instructions as to what this could look like or as to how the ROI would be calculated.
![[Image: 7251_strip.gif]](https://shiftingunits.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/7251_strip.gif)
Recognizing the inherent differences between men and women--across biological, vocational, social and sexual spheres--does not necessarily limit the ability for institutions to provide everyone, regardless of gender, with equal rights and opportunities. But until 21st-century feminism incorporates the importance of playing to our relative strengths, both men and women will suffer the consequences. Rather than a sense of equality, feelings of confusion and frustration will prevail.
References
[1] Khadem, N. (2016). "Australian women make 83¢ for every $1 a man earns: report." LINK
[2] Selected Roosh V forum posts: Yuan (2014). "5 Reasons Why The Gender Pay Gap Is Bogus" - LINK . Scotian (2015). "The gender wage gap: Why it may never close" - LINK
[3] McRaney, D (2010). "Confirmation Bias". LINK
[4] Chamberlain, Andrew (2016), "Demystifying the Gender Pay Gap, Evidence From Glassdoor Salary Data". LINK
[5] Roosh V (2015). "What Is Neomasculinity? - Red pill truths". LINK
[6] Roosh V (2015). "My Education Was A Complete Waste Of Time". LINK
[7] Buss, D. M. (1989). "Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures". LINK
[8] Riches, C (2016). "That's rich... women decline to date men who earn less - however good looking" LINK
[9] Prawn of the Patriarchy (2016). "We’ve all heard of the gender ‘income gap’, but what about the ‘expense gap’?" LINK
[10] Baer, D (2014). "Scientists Identify 3 Reasons Why Attractive People Make More Money". LINK
1. Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics used by Feminists
This article perfectly sums up how statistics are open to not just manipulation (intellectual fraud), but also interpretation (ignorance and/or cognitive distortions such as confirmation bias [ref 3]), and blatant misrepresentation (agenda running).
In the same article that uses the headline "Australian women make 83¢ for every $1 a man earns", its source is quoted as noting "... when variables such as age, education, experience, occupation, industry, location, year, company and job title, are taken into account, the adjusted gender pay gap shrinks from 17.3 per cent to 3.9 per cent" [ref 1].
In essence, the article headlines with the claimed gap of 17.3% whilst, within the article itself, indicates that the actual gap is closer to 3.9 per cent when controlling for confounding variables like occupation. I find it hard to believe that this is ignorance on behalf of the author, and conclude that this is pure agenda pushing.
1.1. A lack of Contextualisation in the Research
It is also telling that the source cited, 'Demystifying the Gender Pay Gap' [ref 3], fails to control for any individual personal characteristics. Whilst they at least had the guts to note this limitation [ref 4, p.45], it nonetheless indicates that there are likely to be significant personal traits that can explain this remaining gap, e.g., the belief that earning a high salary is important for attracting a mate.
This relates to the second point --
2. NeoMasculinity Embraces Truth, Modern Feminism runs from it
Truth-seeking and the scientific method are integral to the neomasculine movement [ref 5,6]. Conversely, one core problem with modern feminism is that is fails to recognize unassailable truths about the nature of men and women.
In the case of the alleged gender gap problem, Andrew Chamberlain theorizes that the core problem is that "women are systematically excluded from certain occupations" and "encouraged to work only in certain industries" which "represent social biases against women that most observers would consider unfair" [ref 4, p.46]. The argument of equality thus follows that, if women can work in any industry, STEM or not, then so can men… right? A man should be able to study as an Arts major or work as a Child-care Assistant, yeah? Well, yes, but not if they want to attract a good mate.
In general, "females value cues to resource acquisition in potential mates more highly than males whereas Characteristics signaling reproductive capacity were valued more by males than by females." These statements are not based on mere theory but rather very well-established data, "from 37 samples drawn from 33 countries located on six continents and five islands; total N (i.e., participants) = 10,047” [ref 7]. Put another way, females want a provider, males want a hottie.
To link this to modern dating, a "survey" (notably without a description of methodology unfortunately), concluded that "60% of the 2,000 women surveyed by London dating app The Inner Circle admitted refusing a second date with a guy after finding he had a lower salary than them. However men were less concerned with cash - as 96 per cent of them told researchers they were not bothered if they female date was a bigger earning high-flyer" [ref 8].
So basically, women supposedly face social discrimination against having ambition/options and they need to be better represented amongst the Fortune 500 board members, however men... errr… (hear comes the truth) still need to be a provider regardless.
3. What about the Spending Gap?
The "gender gap research" also fails to explain the relative importance of not just earning but also spending between genders [ref 10]. Men will, on average, spend more money on women, that women spend on men. So then, even if women do face discrimination in terms of earnings--which is debatable--they certainly are not lacking in terms of receiving power.
4. These feminist solutions lack precision, balance, and practicality
The authors suggestions are largely:
* One-sided -- e.g., fail to include any admission that attractive women face advantages across sexual, societal, economical and vocational areas [ref 10],
* Plus Vague and impractical -- e.g., under the heading 'Improving Free Occupational Choice', they recommend "focusing on policies that target the dramatic occupation and industry sorting of men and women into separate and financially unequal types of work throughout their careers" [ref 4, p.47] yet provide no specific instructions as to what this could look like or as to how the ROI would be calculated.
Recognizing the inherent differences between men and women--across biological, vocational, social and sexual spheres--does not necessarily limit the ability for institutions to provide everyone, regardless of gender, with equal rights and opportunities. But until 21st-century feminism incorporates the importance of playing to our relative strengths, both men and women will suffer the consequences. Rather than a sense of equality, feelings of confusion and frustration will prevail.
References
[1] Khadem, N. (2016). "Australian women make 83¢ for every $1 a man earns: report." LINK
[2] Selected Roosh V forum posts: Yuan (2014). "5 Reasons Why The Gender Pay Gap Is Bogus" - LINK . Scotian (2015). "The gender wage gap: Why it may never close" - LINK
[3] McRaney, D (2010). "Confirmation Bias". LINK
[4] Chamberlain, Andrew (2016), "Demystifying the Gender Pay Gap, Evidence From Glassdoor Salary Data". LINK
[5] Roosh V (2015). "What Is Neomasculinity? - Red pill truths". LINK
[6] Roosh V (2015). "My Education Was A Complete Waste Of Time". LINK
[7] Buss, D. M. (1989). "Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures". LINK
[8] Riches, C (2016). "That's rich... women decline to date men who earn less - however good looking" LINK
[9] Prawn of the Patriarchy (2016). "We’ve all heard of the gender ‘income gap’, but what about the ‘expense gap’?" LINK
[10] Baer, D (2014). "Scientists Identify 3 Reasons Why Attractive People Make More Money". LINK
