Text Box:

The Emasculation of America

The Case Against Feminism:
Text Box: INTRODUCTION The allegation of unequal pay and advancement between the sexes is central to understanding how Feminism functions and has managed to become the epitome of modern activisms. This issue was the first major assertion the movement raised, is the cause’s most visible and greatest success, and continues to be one of the primary foundations of Modern Feminism. [See: About Feminism]. Feminism’s Proof of Pay/Jobs Inequality: The data Feminists broadcast to support their claim of female-discrimination in compensation and employment: “Women are paid 70-75% of what men earn.” This statistic is typically presented alone, as though it is absolute proof of female-discrimination: undeniable proof women are paid less than men for performing the same or equal valued work. The problem is, by itself, this statistic does not reveal female-discrimination—much less proves it exists. Statistical knowledge is not widely dispersed among the public, so misunderstanding such data—especially when authority figures use it in ways that manipulate and inflame—can be expected. To claim this data proves female-discrimination is like Masculinists [if there were such a movement] claiming “Women giving birth to 100% of babies” proves male-discrimination in parental and family rights. That’s right! Although it may not be apparent at first glance, drawing both conclusions from the referenced data is nonsense. College students learn to understand what such data actually means in “Statistics 101.” When a degreed professional in any social science related field uses this statistic as proof of female-discrimination, they are either being maliciously manipulative or showing their incompetence. Other commonly used statistics since the 1960’s include data like: “1-5% of top executives are women” and “Women occupy 5–20% of all management and/or professional jobs”. The problem with every statistic of this sort is that it takes 4-10 years of education to enter the highest status/pay career paths and 20-30 of continuous experience to master and reach the top of such fields. These are all grossly misleading and inflammatory statistics because they claim to represent something they do not. The only way to determine discrimination is to know the number of each sex, not that now occupy, but were equally qualified and experiences for such jobs—let’s say in the last 10 or 20 years—and the number of each sex that in fact acquired such jobs. The only way—without discriminating against men—equal numbers of women and men can occupy such jobs today is if more young women than men chose to enter the “right” career paths from the1950-60’s through today—which did not take place. The additional evidence Modern Feminist offered included arbitrarily attributing causation to phenomenon on the basis that they happen to coexist at the same time as the purported discrimination against women. Among the more significant of the abstruse coexisting forces were assertions that: [a] the now illegal practice of newspapers having separate male and female jobs listings in the want ads; [b] the lopsided use of masculine pronouns in publications and society-at-large; [c] individual case studies and/or self-reported stories; and [d] the fact that men occupied most of the key decision-making positions in our society. Feminists alleged the very existence of such phenomenon meant they were both a symptom and cause of female-discrimination—further substantiation was not necessary, thus not provided. Additional allegations with a specious causal connection to female-discrimination were to attribute it to nondescript: [e] forces emanating directly from males; and [f] auras indirectly driven by “masculinity” that forced or induced women to perform jobs that paid less than those performed by men. Exactly how these mysterious powers were exercised, and went about compelling women’s compliance was not specified. The problem with the above is they are all conjecture unsupported by concrete evidence or well-reasoned analysis. None of them have a verifiable causal relationship with sex-discrimination in compensation and employment—or anywhere else for that matter. Such claims are conclusively refuted by vast research in and objective observations of America’s labor market as well. The 70-75% unequal pay data originates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The BLS collects masses of data on jobs and pay nation-wide. Its statistics are, however, only useful for certain kinds of analysis and broad trends over time. BLS data reflects the average pay for predefined categories of jobs. It seldom reports data on individual positions, thus each category includes jobs with significantly different content. Another deficiency is that the BLS has no way to determine the inherent comparative value the actual work involved in any job category, much less individual positions in different job settings. In other words, pay is not the only, or even necessarily among the most important factors people consider in choosing a particular job, job category, or career path. BLS data does not have a way to gauge such factors, and therefore cannot serve as a basis for comparing jobs across job groupings at any level. A hypothetical example would be the job categories of Toolmaker and Civil Engineer (occupied mostly by men)—reported as being paid more than Senior Secretary and High School Teacher (occupied mostly by women). These categories are so broad they include people with one-month to decades of experience in work settings that can be very different. The data offers no way measure the comparative value of the work or “inherent worth” of the job in each group. Each job and career category’s relative worth overwhelming results from the decisions employees make about what they want and are willing to commit to do. BLS data does not identify such factors. The innate or long-term value specific jobs can only be strongly influenced by employers on the short-term—when there is a shortage or excess of a particular kind of labor. Employers do not have the means to cause long-term female-discrimination in pay/jobs. Second, independent research on compensation in the labor market has apparently not been performed by and retained in academia. If colleges teach the application of the technologies involved in compensation, they are rare. Academics seem to depend on BLS-type data produced by government agencies. The only meaningful data on pay/jobs is the research conducted by employers, who perform such studies because they must continually attract, motivate, and retain employees. To Feminists this, of course, means the data is comes from the very group that conspiring to underpay and repress women. As a result, academics do not understand, and has not given due consideration to that vast research. It may be interesting to note in passing that the BLS created a special high-level office in charge of “women’s” statistics. This, of course, implies the Agency had produced data that was female-prejudiced and male-biased. Statistics are inherently objective—only their interpretation and presentation can be manipulated. Hence the BLS has appointed only one sexes’ executive with the power to produce, review its output, and give federal credibility to sex-based data. And the primary data that position seems to protect (and fail to clarify its actual meaning) is the “women are paid 70-75% of men’s earnings” statistic. This Site’s Jobs/Pay Facts: From mid-1960 through the mid-1980’s the author managed compensation on behalf of a dozen organizations in diverse industries with a total of ~100,000 employees. He also had experience in employee, management, and organization development; succession planning, employment, benefits, and employee/union relations many years as well. During that period, the author went to great lengths to objectively evaluate Feminist’s legal cases with respect to unequal pay and advancement, as well as sexual harassment. He also participated in most of the hiring, promotion, and pay decisions, either directly as an advisor on a case-by-case basis or by creating and administering the policies upon which such actions were taken by other managers. Administering compensation with those employers provided the author access to the highest quality national compensation studies: surveys that reported the pay from thousands of companies of every size in most major industries; research that covered tens of thousands of professional, managerial, and executive positions occupied by a million or more such people. Those employers also participated in countless local market surveys in hundreds of communities that covered hundreds of thousands salaried and hourly employees at various levels as well. The following discussion is based on those experiences. “Women Earn 70-75% of What Men Are Paid”: What’s wrong with this data? Is this statistic a lie? If this large a differential is a factual, doesn’t it automatically violate the principle of equal protection and treatment under the Constitution? How can men earning 33-42% more than women possibly be justified? It is unarguable that substantial overall differences in pay and jobs between men and women exist. And Feminism’s “women are paid 70% (1960’s) to 75% (2000’s) of what men are paid” accurately represents that very real overall differential. The insurmountable problem with this data is that it measures the difference between the average pay for two social groups that on average perform types of work that is very different and unequal values in the labor market. The statistic does not reflect either the comparative value of the work being performed by these two groups or discrimination against women by employers. Is such a vast differential in pay against the law? No! Not any more than the men being ~20% physically larger and stronger than women is a violation of the Constitution. In the absence of deeper analysis statistics like these are meaningless. Why? Because men did not create these differences intentionally or alone, and unequal average overall pay has nothing to do with sex. It is the by-product of the long-term value of the actual work both sexes freely choose—the market value of the education, career, and lifestyle choices each sex’s “sub-culture” induced them to make. [See: About Feminism—p2.] The “Patriarchy’s” Conspiracy Against Women: The issue of whether or not a tacit (or even subconscious) male-conspiracy existed to suppress and underpay women is simply too practicably impossible and logically outrageous to be taken seriously. To repeat several questions raised elsewhere herein: If such collusion took place, it would require communications, wouldn’t it? The conspirators would have to make speeches at luncheon groups and associations; have to publish articles in business newspapers, magazines, and books; and have to produce articles and studies in trade business journals, right? In other words, for men to implement such an effort against women, it would have taken something of order of Modern Feminism’s prolific collaboration to discriminate against men, wouldn’t it? This site provides ample concrete evidence of Feminist’s campaign against males, doesn’t it? Feminist’s only support for their allegations that such a male conspiracy once existed is wild-conjecture. How could such collusion and collaboration take place for many decades without leaving a trail of comparable evidence? In sum, these averages fail to reveal why the difference in pay exists. Feminist declare it is caused by men without a modicum of verification. There are many reasons for the substantial difference in the sexes’ average pay, and none have anything to do with female-repression or exploitation. The explanation begins with young men and women choosing very different career paths and life styles; job categories that have very different inherent values in the labor market. In other words, while no longer as prevalent today, in the 1960-80’s the sexes had very different priorities in choosing the sort of work they wanted and were willing to do. It is this difference in both group’s collective preferences and decision-making that determines their comparative average pay. In other words, different jobs = different pay. Case Studies: The only thing more likely to be inconclusive than isolated cases selected and analyzed by an activists intellectually predisposed and emotionally committed to their cause is for anyone to use themselves as a case study and presume they are able to put their deepest convictions and feelings on hold, and then arrive at valid and reliable conclusions that apply to a group people. Insights can certainly be gained from objectively prepared individual case studies, but generalizations about entire populations cannot be drawn from those insights. When case studies are being reported, it probably means that actual studies have not been conducted, or the arguments presented are inconsistent with the actual results of such research. Case studies also tend to have a greater emotional impact than cold statistical analysis. If the limitations of case studies are not spelled-out, they may represent manipulation. Want Ads, Pronouns, etc.: In scientific research and observational studies, if two or more objects and events are present at the same time, concurrence alone does not establish a causal or complementary connection among them. Interdependency is gauged statistically by their correlation—the probability that when one exists, another will necessarily either emerge or be unlikely to do so. Correlations are measured by a coefficient that reflects the likelihood or positive connection between them at +1.0; a random relationship (i.e. no interdependency) at zero; and the improbability or negative simultaneous occurrence at –1.0. Social science professionals also use estimates of “low through high correlation” to reflect their informed estimates of correlation for occurrences that cannot be readily measurable Most of Feminist cultural observations, like the examples above, are speculative abstractions. They are seldom otherwise substantiated, and do not lend themselves to quantification. For example, the demands that Male/Female want ad headings be, male pronoun usage increased, or men being in decision-making positions cause female-discrimination were neither well-supported by logic or reason. Further, any reductions in sex-discrimination that may have resulted from altering these practices are not measurable. In other words, women now occupying higher-level jobs cannot be attributed to the prohibition of separate want ad headings, or increased female pronoun usage. Is it not far more likely to be due to the social pressure put on young women to make different education, career, and lifestyle choices by Feminism? In addition, employers did not place the ads under Male/Female listings to hire anyone based on sex. They knew which sex was most likely to choose to apply for certain positions, and wanted to make it easier for candidates to find the jobs they wanted. In other words, it is the applicant’s decisions about which jobs they want, and the individual’s qualifications and experience that dictates whether or not they are hired and at what rate of pay—not their sex. In any job category that continues to be preferred by one of the sexes, removing the headings only makes it harder for people to locate the jobs they want. The pronoun usage argument is so abstruse and conceptually far removed from sex-discrimination that further discussion seems unwarranted. How using he/him instead of she/her in literature is sex-discrimination or any more so than using feminine pronouns to refer to the earth, United States, or a large. Finally, the fact that males overwhelming make decisions that could be female-discriminatory certainly does not mean they actually did so. The same criticisms would apply to of other major Feminist observations, like “underrepresentation,” “glass-ceilings,” and the “modern patriarchy”—little if any apparent correlation. Feminists do not offer estimated the correlations of their cultural speculations. It is thus proposed that the causal/complementary relationship in the above examples is far closer to zero than to +1.0. HOW JOB VALUES AND PAY ARE DETERMINED From high school on, men and women begin planning the jobs they will pursue. They evaluate and prioritize the factors important to them a job and/or career. Many adults revisit such decisions several times in their life. It is the combination billions of individual decisions about various job factors that determines how many trained and competent employees are available for employers to compete with one another to hire in every job category in a free-market economy. With the exception of certain extraneous impeding factors—like geographic location, physical limitations, unions—and temporary abortions due to shortages or excesses in isolated job categories that may interfere with free-choice, it is people’s—not employer’s—people’s decisions about the work they want and are willing to do that dictates long-term pay levels. There are no “central planning and control” mechanisms in America. Nor do employers secretly get together locally and nationally to decide to pay job “X” (or men) one amount and “Y” (or women) another. There would have to be evidence of such practices and the requisite communications if collaboration was a reality, and Feminists offer no proof of such practices. [See: “Second-Leg...” at About Feminism—p2.] In choosing a job or career, different people consider many factors that are innate to the work itself, as well as personal issues. Those factors include the investment in education, knowledge, and on-the-job development required; the responsibilities, risks, and stress involved; the additional and irregular demands on their time and energy; the feasibility of leaving and reentering the field; the location, environmental conditions, and cleanliness of the work; and the risk of injury, dismemberment, or death involved. Most companies of any size use various job evaluation “tools” to arrive at an overall “value” for each job based the same factors people consider in choosing a job and career. These overall job values or “job evaluations” have historically proven to correspond with employee’s personal, job, and career preferences. Surveys of the labor market are also conducted on a large sample of all jobs in the appropriate local or national labor market to identify the actual pay levels that correspond to the job evaluations. Two key reasons for job evaluation are that some jobs cannot be readily or adequately surveyed, and evaluations dramatically reduce survey complexity and the need to collect huge quantities of detailed data. Market survey data corresponding to the job values is then subjected to linear regression analysis and converted into grades levels and pay ranges for all jobs. Jobs that were not include in the surveys are classified into grade/range structure derived from the surveyed positions based on their comparative job evaluations. Individual differences in qualifications, experience, and performance of the people are thereafter recognized within those ranges for each graded based on periodic performance appraisals. This is a relatively complex system that is hard for most people to fully understand at a distance. For example, two survey titles might be something like “light assembly” and “heavy assembly.” Titles are typically accompanied by a brief description of the key elements of the actual work involved. If a given job is not a good fit with the brief description, it is not included in the survey. If mostly women happen be in the first job and are lower paid, and mostly men in the second job and are higher paid, the difference in pay is not the result of discrimination against women, its due the operative words “light” and “heavy” and what those words mean in terms actual job content. Equality in pay requires more of both sexes being willing to qualify and perform the kind of work one another is now doing. In the 1960-80’s, the leading evaluation tools had all proven valid predictors of market values, regardless of which sex fills the job, and labor market studies consistently found no significant differences in pay between the sexes. Feminists could not successfully litigated pay/jobs sex-discrimination cases in which a popular job evaluation tool, combined with labor market surveys was involved. During that period, Feminists also showed no interest whatsoever in understanding or considering such free labor market processes involved in compensation and employment. Instead they sought to suppress and overpower such information with global averages, speculation, and inflammatory rhetoric. Feminism’s gradual relocation from the public “streets” to the secluded “hallways of academia” has not altered the movement’s basic motivations with respect to pay/jobs. Feminism’s well-educated women’s ambitions lie in the higher income and status jobs. How about female-discrimination in that labor market? The largest and most reliable professional, management, and top executive evaluation tool and survey during the 1960-80’s was provided by Hay Associates. Their evaluation method had dozens factors categorized under three headings: know-how, problem-solving, and accountability. Each company’s evaluations were also monitored and adjusted as necessary to equal a national rating norm. Hay’s surveys covered a huge percentage of the national workforce in such positions. The overall system offers absolutely no means of distinguishing differences in job values or inputting and extracting survey data based on sex. It was virtually a “sex-discrimination proof” valuing tool and survey.

EmasculationOfAmerica.com

Last Updated: 7/20/08