Text Box:

The Emasculation of America

The Case Against Feminism:
Text Box: In sum, it is employees not employers that dictate pay levels based on the decisions they make about the work they choose to invest their energy and lives performing. Women traditionally chose jobs, careers, and lifestyles that had different attributes than those historically chosen by men. Distinctions have now begun to disappear, largely due to Feminism’s influence. But it is still the inherent attributes of jobs that dictate their long-term pay-levels—not the sex of the person making the choices. Thus a retail sales clerk, office clerical worker, and factory laborer are paid differently because of characteristics of the work they do. Job evaluation compares positions and establishes their relative values the same way candidates in the labor market make such decisions. It measures factors like education, experience, knowledge, technical/specialized skills, problem solving, financial risk, working conditions, and hazards or safety. One of the questions in those evaluations or surveys was never “Is the occupant of the job male or female?” THE ECONOMICS OF JOBS/PAY In a free-market economy, employers will not pay more for labor if an even close to equivalent lower-cost option is available. They will try the latter first. There is contemporary verification this concept is a reality. For example, one very visible application is the “Golden Handshake” and many of the “down-sizing” programs that have recently swept through the business community. These programs include the actual elimination of jobs when a substantial business turndown is involved. Many implementations, however, also have the objective of purging many of the highest paid, most experienced, and typically older employees who are doing work that must continue to be performed. In such cases, either lower paid, less qualified, and experienced younger replacement will eventually be hired or the work will be divvied up among other existing positions. The latter increases the value of those jobs, eventually requiring higher pay for all of the “enriched” jobs. This illustrates the “even close to equivalent lower-cost option” at work. In other words, long-proven economic theories say hiring, promotions, and retention in a free-market economy are inherently biased to favor the lowest cost, adequately qualified, and available candidates. Thus, if quantities of “underpaid” women actually exist in the labor market, they would not only be hired and advanced more rapidly than men, but would eventually replace their “overpriced” competitors. Of course the prerequisites are that such women need to have the same formal education and otherwise acquired knowledge; have had, not equal, but similar and sufficient practical experience in the same career path; and have had close to the same performance history. It is important to note that Feminism has succeeded in influencing vast numbers of young women to prepare themselves educationally and then enter many of the higher paying professions and management careers. The same economic principles lead to two additional major consequences. First, to the extent the creation of new high pay/status jobs opportunities is greater than number of both sexes normally entering the labor market, plus the additional females, both sexes comparative income would rise equally—in the unlikely event affirmative action reporting did not lead to preferential treatment for women. Second, to the extent fewer new higher-level jobs are created, some of the additional women will be hired in and promoted to jobs equally qualified males would have gotten. Third, to the extent employers available jobs exceeds the supply of all available adequate candidates, the average pay for those jobs will decline for both sexes. Pay will continue to decline as long as the supply of candidates exceeds available jobs, and will increase when there are more jobs than candidates. Economic consequences like the above do not appear to have been addressed by Feminism’s leaders and experts since the 1960’s. The Rigidity of the Labor Market (and Global Statistical Averages): It takes several decades for people to educate themselves, develop on-the-job-mastery, and finally reach the top of most managerial and professional fields. And those who fail to do so far outnumber those who succeed. In order to achieve the average equality in jobs and pay Feminists demanded in the 1960-80’s, the same number of women as men would have had to embark on equally valued and paid professional career paths in the 1930-50’s. Regardless of women’s reasons for not making such decisions, this simply was not the case. While far more women decided to entered the higher status/paying career paths in the 1960’s, 1980’s and 1990’s, approximate numerical parity between sexes in these fields was only achieved in the 2000’s. In that context, how long will it take for women to reach pay-level parity with men as a result of Feminism’s current influence on young women’s job, career, and lifestyle choices? Let us now explore this question further. The average earnings of women vs. men in 1950-54—long before Feminism could have effected women’s on decision-making—was 64%. By 1965, 9 million women entered the labor market, reaching a total of 21 million, or 32% of the workforce. By 1982—while Feminism’s influence on women was escalating dramatically, it not reaching its peak—20 million more women entered the labor market. However, women’s pay as a percentage of men’s dropped significantly—to 58%. This must be due to sex-discrimination and backlash against Feminism, right? Nonsense! A massive number of women, representing a huge portion of the total workforce had entered the workforce, almost exclusively in the lowest paying job categories. Between 1982 and the 2000’s, yet another 20 million more women were absorbed by the labor market. This group, for the first-time, included a significant portion of well-educated women who have chosen to enter career paths that lead to the higher pay/status positions. Women are now 48% of the total workforce, and occupy roughly 50% of most managerial, professional, sales, and technical positions as determined by the BLS. The ratio of women’s to men’s pay reached 73% by 2000. But it is vital to recall that the women are now at or a few steps above the entry level of those careers. They have not had sufficient time to gain the same experience or prove themselves [aka “go-through-the ropes” and “pay-their-dues”] to be fully qualified candidates for the highest pay/status positions. And, if equal treatment were to actually prevail the same percentage of those women will succeed and fail as men—i.e. even if affirmative action planning continues to give women an advantage, it will be a very long time before the occupancy of the executive suite, department heads, and elected officials can reach pay-level parity. The effects of women making different career decisions than men in the real world may be difficult to understand. Perhaps the following over-simplified model of the labor market and how global average data works will help. This data has been derived by examining current gross BLS averages and arbitrarily force-fitting that data into a tabular form as an general illustration of how the market functions: JOB VALUE/PAY LEVEL NO. OF MEN NO. OF WOMEN $ 25,000 42,000,000 50,000,000 $ 50,000 21,000,000 10,000,000 $100,000 9,000,000 4,000,000 $250,000 3,000,000 1,000,000 TOTAL @ AVG. PAY: 75,000,000 @ $50,000 65,000,000 @ $36,923 PERCENT FEMALE TO MALE PAY: 73.8% During the 2000’s ~35% (57.7%-M /42.3%-F) more women than men attended colleges and ~50% more attended graduate schools. This is about three million more women than men will enter the labor market at the higher levels. Let us assume 3 million women college graduates and another 2 million less well-educated women enter the above labor market over a five year period. Suppose two-thirds of those women had studied the right disciplines to eventually reach the top jobs, and thus were employed in the second ($50K) average job value/pay level. Let us also assume half of that group is promoted to the third ($100K) pay bracket by the end of that five year period. Note that both assumptions are improbable because the portion of women graduates in the “right” disciplines is lower, and pay does not normally advance quite so quickly. Let us also assume 2 million male college graduates—75% in the “right” fields—plus 3 million less well-educated men join the workforce as well. Let us finally assume neither the half of the college graduate men will advance to the next higher bracket as well. For simplicity, not existing employees at any level will advance. Note that more men are initially in the upper level jobs than women, and would normally advance in greater numbers, thus would pull women’s average pay down.) Finally we sill disregard inflation. On this basis, what would the average pay look like after the first fives years?: JOB VALUE/PAY LEVEL NO. OF MEN NO. OF WOMEN $ 25,000 45,500,000 54,000,000 $ 50,000 21,750,000 11,000,000 $100,000 9,750,000 5,000,000 $250,000 3,000,000 1,000,000 TOTAL @ AVG. PAY: 80,000,000 @ $49,375 71,000,000 @ $37,323 PERCENT FEMALE TO MALE PAY: 75.6% If the above model was replicated in exactly the same manner again ten years into the future, with the exception that about half of both sexes who made it to the third (i.e. $100,000) bracket above, were promoted to the highest job value/pay level, what would the model look like after 10-years? JOB VALUE/PAY LEVEL NO. OF MEN NO. WOMEN $ 25,000 50,000,000 58,000,000 $ 50,000 22,500,000 12,000,000 $100,000 10,150,000 5,500,000 $250,000 3,350,000 1,500,000 TOTAL @ AVG. PAY: 86,000,000 @ $49,157 77,000,000 @ $38,636 PERCENT FEMALE TO MALE PAY: 78.6% The above data are a highly leveraged in favor of increasing women’s average pay—i.e. it is skewed to accelerate women’s pay versus men’s in improbable ways, and still reflects only a 4.8% point gain after a decade. This indicates the imperviousness to short-term change gross statistical averages tend to be. The above model specifically shows it takes a very long time for significant changes to evolve and be reflected in average pay in the labor market. In the real world, between 1955 and 1982, 29 million women entered the labor market overwhelmingly at the lower-levels—almost tripling—their numbers, and those massive changes only reduced women's average earning versus men’s by six (6) percentage points. Based on such data, the author estimates that equal pay between the sexes is only achievable—assuming the current preferences for women in education and careers continues—in 50 to 100 years. It is also important to note that—as the above examples show in its movement from one period to the next—all other things remaining equal, the law of supply and demand means any gains in women’s average pay will lead to proportional reductions in men’s average income. Finally, to the extent new job creation at all levels is less than the available fully qualified candidates, some men will be by-passed, demoted, or unemployed as long as women benefit from affirmative action or preferential treatment in education and careers. In sum, the macro-economic, social, and statistical facts from the labor market overwhelmingly indicated that the sexes were and still are paid the same for similar levels of performance of equivalent market-valued jobs; indicate that a supposedly male-imposed “glass ceilings” are a myth; and that women’s lower average pay has not resulted from female-prejudice and male-bias in the workplace. THE SOCIAL REALITIES OF PAY/JOBS While the situation has changed today, during the 1960-80’s very few young women wanted and were willing to make the same educational and career investments as young men in fields like engineering, science, accounting, law, business, public affairs, etc. that typically lead to the “big-bucks” and “highest-image” jobs. The first page of Feminism’s Effects presents data indicating that substantially fewer young women than men were enrolled in higher education, which of course would have been the first step in preparing for the higher status jobs and better pay. A more important consideration than numbers or percentages is the reasons each of the sexes are going to college and the fields of study they chose to pursue. Studies reporting such comparative variables could not be found. Firsthand observations, however, suggest that the reasoning in 1960-80’s was similar to today. Nothing now prevents or inhibits either sex from choosing to study for any degree, or pursue any career. Such decisions are based on people’s personal priorities, as well as any influences from the social environment each person allows to affect their thinking. As suggested above, while social pressures come from all directions—education, religion, and overall culture—the most powerful identifiable source is each sexes’ sub-culture—their same sex parent, peers, grandparent, etc. The author attended five colleges as an undergraduate from 1961 through 1974, two graduate schools from 1976 through 1984, as well two graduate schools in 1999 to 2001. As an undergraduate, he observed that about one-third of both sexes seemed to attend college because “it was the thing to do;” or because they had the resources to do so and saw college as a better option than working. This third often had no particular career in mind. Most of the remaining two-third of males seemed to choose fields of study leading to the higher pay/status jobs, like engineering, science, law, business, public affairs, etc. But, the remaining two-third of females made different choices. About half (i.e. 1/3) chose fields of study leading to professions traditionally performed by women—social services, counseling, nursing, teaching, etc. While it may infuriate Feminists, the remaining one-third of young women seemed to primarily be on campus with one goal in mind—to find a husband likely to be a good provider—and many openly admitted doing so. In other words, the fact that women occupy lower-paying jobs than men is predominantly the result of the collective educational investment and career commitment decisions females chose their own volition 30-50 years ago. Those choices were heavily influenced by traditional thinking from the female-subculture, thus females avoided higher-stress, overtime demanding, and lifelong-commitment fields like engineering, accounting, marketing/sales, medicine, accounting, and management. They also by-passed manual labor that had longer learning curves (i.e. the skilled trades), uncomfortable or unclean setting (i.e. factory work, garbage collectors, construction, etc.), or were dangerous or deadly (steelworkers, garbage men, frontline combat, etc.). While there were exceptions, employers did not intentionally exclude females from any job they wanted, were willing, and physically able to do. Feminist literature makes much of individual case studies that involved women convinced they were purposely excluded from professional fields, like law, accounting, and medicine or management jobs. Male nurses and teachers also report similar perceptions. Most such cases suggest that the central issue involved is not so much sex-discrimination as the sexes’ having acquired different gender qualities that have historically proven more effective in the fields each sex traditionally chose. When the opposite sex then enters those fields, they either resist acquiring the predominant sex’s more effective qualities and traits, or presume their own sex’s are superior and try to impose them on the established environment. The result is gradually escalating social conflict—a failure to adjust, to at least some extent on both sides. WHY WAS LEGISLATION ENACTED? The pressure put on Congress by modern Feminism was probably at the level legislators faced with the Suffragettes prior to 1920. [See: “Modern Feminism” at middle of About Feminism webpage.] When Congress heard testimony from both activists and employers, they apparently realized the latter’s arguments were legitimate. In other words, unlike women’s suffrage, there was no actual “righteous” justification for creating new legislation. This was not a situation in which only one sex had a right that the other possessed. Feminists were fallaciously reinterpreting freely-chosen differences in job selection between the sexes into a fictitious accusation of sex-discrimination. As a result, Congress faced with a dilemma. While Feminist’s claims of discrimination in pay/jobs were disproven by objective facts, considerable popular opinion in support of their arguments had emerged. In addition, most legislators are men who are reared to provide for, protect, and respect women, thus many were “suckers-for-the-sale.” In this context, failing to take action was not seen as a politically wise or gender appropriate choice. But Congress must have resisted such pressures enough to give due attention to the nondiscriminatory way America’s labor market actually works. They apparently concluded, beyond a reasonable doubt, that equally qualified and experienced women and men were already being paid the same for performing equally valued work. Congress accordingly chose to enact legislation that wisely reflected the key principle underlying a free labor market: the basic idea that it is the value of the work being done, not the sex of the person occupying the job that must ultimately to determine pay. Hence the principle that the sexes must be paid equally for equal work was the incorporated into the legislation they enacted standard, instead of the principle advocated by Feminists that men and women must be paid equally based on their sex. This effectively prevented that standard from becoming the law of the land. The complications and disruptions to the labor market—as well as suppression of people’s freedom of choice—that would have inevitably resulted from legislation that established the latter principle are unfathomable. Had this concept adopted, the government would have ended up dictating pay levels. Why Haven’t Employers Fought Back? In the 1960-80’s most compensation specialist and business leaders knew that female-discrimination in the workplace was largely a nonexistent figment of Feminist’s imagination. However, they were under the same social pressures imposed by its activists on Congress, although to a much lesser degree. Upper-management was overwhelmingly men as well, and therefore susceptible to same gender vulnerabilities when it came to confronting Feminism as Congress. In addition, Congresses’ role in society in such situations is proactive—they are expected to establish policy in the form of laws and regulations that reflect the public’s will and then enforce them. Businesses role in society is different—beyond directly advocating positions on economic issues—they are expected to implement public policy—not attempt to make or resist it. Feminism’s arguments, when viewed in their entirety, are far more psychosocial than economic. Simply stated, it was not, and still is not within the authority the pubic delegates to its business institutions to fight against such causes, even if it their mission is seen as completely unjustified in their collective view.

EmasculationOfAmerica.com

 Last Updated: 7/19/08