It is not irrelevant, it’s a hobgoblin summoned to keep people in a constant state of agitation and thus willing to support whatever policy is offered to make the hobgoblin go away.

“Women are paid less than men in nearly every job”

If a man & a woman work at the same job, with the same responsibilities, the same hours, and have the same qualifications and the man is paid more then she can sue her employer under the 1964 & 1965 Civil Rights Acts. Such suits are regularly made and sometimes they win and sometimes they lose, but the important thing is that an effective legal remedy already exists for unequal pay for equal work.

The complaint about “women getting paid less than men” is not about being paid less for the same job it’s a complaint about women, on average, getting paid less than men for different work. It is true that women are paid less on average (2005 Labor statistics show full-time pay for women averages 81% of men’s pay) although the de facto case for proof of discrimination falls apart when you consider that men differ from women in career choices, education, job choices, hours worked, & continuous years of employment. This logical gap from a clear difference in labor markets that can easily explain the pay differential to a case for sexism can only be crossed by generating a comparable worth calculation that is “proving” that “women’s” jobs are underpaid. This proof is divorced from modern economic theory and instead harkens back to discredited “labor theory of value” rationales in that is supposes there is an independent method for evaluating the value of a job in order to determine how much people “should” be paid. The method is fundamentally flawed in that it fails to recognize market forces working to determine pay levels and replaces it with a pseudo-objective evaluation that ends up being driven purely on the politics and prejudices of the evaluators. For some discussion on this see (http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/06/comeback-for-comparable-worth.html, http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007168, http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/3347411.html, http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/ComparableWorth.html, http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg16n3e.html)

Well, too many people, particularly agendized minorities, are incandescently aware of their rights, but seem oblivious to their responsibilities. They see people with what they themselves want, and feel — yes “feel” — that these things by right ought to be theirs, too, and that somebody has done them wrong if they are not immediately issued the perqs that, in fact, need to be earned. That is, they seem to see no connection between their own efforts — strike that — their own RESULTS, and the pay that results.

That’s how it works. You produce, and you benefit accordingly. Any other system is economically untenable as we have seen over, and again. Is it “fair” that the new guy has to prove himself, or herself? If you’ve been taught that all things MUST be equally equal all the time for everybody, and any inequalities are prima fascia evidence that you’ve been done wrong, well, then, by all means go to court.

Is it “fair” that the new guy has to prove himself, or herself? Hell, YES, it’s fair. Why should an employer, AND your co-workers put more effort, and resources into YOU than YOU are willing to put into the job? And, YES, you prove yourself worthy by doing MORE than the others at first.

You can — and we have — made all kinds of laws that attempt to repeal the law of gravity, but they fail every time, and miserably. Mortgage banking crisis, Q.V. Force, or, ahem, strongly encourage banks to lend to people money that they clearly could not, can not pay back, and WHOA! somebody done them wrong.

Yes. Somebody did. Nobody taught them simple, kitchen table economics. Everybody, it seems, taught people that they had this “right” to that mortgage, which is, in fact, the right to MY MONEY without the realistic ability to pay it back. Even the notion that they should pay it back is often subtly portrayed as somehow oppressive. You have a right to other peoples’ money? Not on my planet.

I have NOT wandered off point. When engaged in discussions like this in person with allegedly educated young people, after I’ve been told what their rights are, I ask them who gets to come tell THEM that THEY “owe” somebody else something? Who gets to come blame YOU for THEIR lack of success, I ask? Who has the “right” to YOUR money?

I am usually met with a blank stare. It’s an unknown concept to them. They have these rights, they get to receive, and “the government,” or “Business” owes them. Period. No thought, no concept that every single one of those businesses got started by — almost always — one or two people who took huge RISKS, and created an entity that now — in the absence of any economic education — seems always to have existed, like a river, or rain. Just open your mouth, and let your rain fall in.

I was a leader on a youth mission trip once for a week building houses for people. I’d given one bright young high school girl the task of measuring the length of the space where a long board needed to go, cutting a board to that length, and then nailing it in place.

She cut it a foot too short. Common mistake if you’re not used to using rulers, and cutting things. It is also common if you’ve never really been held accountable for what YOU actually DO; your actual results.

Well, you’d have thought…I don’t know what, but she was furious when I pointed out the simple, and obvious fact that she herself had measured it, and cut it, and it was a foot too short. I wasn’t mad. We were there to teach kids, not just save wood.

But she was educated in a school culture that “empowers” kids, where too often “there are no right or wrong answers,” so she could not grasp the simple reality, and the FINALITY that that particular board was too short, and the responsibility was hers alone.

It wasn’t FAIR, that the board was too short, you see. It wasn’t her fault. It was this, it was that… Boys had more experience with tools — actually, no, in this group, but, hey — and on, and on.

How did the boys — for the sake of argument — GET that experience that is now so unfair? By cutting boards too short, that’s how, and having it pointed out to them, too. Is that unfair? Or is that how you learn?

dg, please don’t bother. The freakin’ board was too freakin’ short (engage your sense of metaphor here), and your college senior seminar logic will not change that simple fact. Save it. SOMEBODY had to cut the board to the correct length.

Another: 7 out of 10 women have been raped. This is a gross exaggeration and does a disservice to actual victims of sexual assault.

All of this leads me to the statement, “Women are paid less than men in nearly every job (I believe that modelling and porn are two notable exceptions).”
Well, male and female teachers are paid identically, solely on seniority. This is true for thousands of government jobs. In the private sector, let’s see… a profit seeking boss can hire a woman who gets paid less for the same work or a man? If that were true, no one would hire men.This is capitalism after all.

Or you can have a PUMA, a true believer that women’s rights are human’s rights, be able to prioritize human rights over the rights of party and politics.

Some people just can’t wait to get all their slaves indoctrinated in the correct political speech codes, Book.

My own personal view is that someone who would deny abortion even in cases of rape or incest, would deny sex education classes that go beyond abstinence discussions, would emphasize an evangelical faith and literal reading of the bible (which emphasizes traditional roles for women), would probably not share the values or promote the policies sought by liberal women. Why would “true feminists” “cheer on” someone who wants to undo the gains that liberal women feel that they have achieved? I agree that they should be respectful towards her, but no more or less so than they should towards a male candidate. Somehow, I see more sexism in your and Bookworm’s comments and inferred expectations of how liberal women should act than in the actual actions of those liberal women. Help me understand where I am wrong…

If you asked Governor Palin, should women receive equal pay for equal work, her response would surely be “But of course! Every individual of every sort should receive equal pay for equal work.” The catch is in the government enforcement of any such a decree, moving from “Should” to “will” as well. Then the definition of what precisely constitutes equal work gets pulled in. As always, the end result is more government and more bureaucracy with a goal, but not the reality of, actual enforcement, and yet another American collapse. Socialists, rejoice!

But back to the incindiery anger of feminists toward Governor Palin. I certainly do remember the heady days of the 70′s, when feminism was all about granting women the FREEDOM to work if they wished, stay home if they wished, and do both if they wished. “I can bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, and never never never let you forget you’re a man” may actually sound sexist these days, but it was celebratory in its time. How much has changed! Feminism is now nothing more than a code word for a specific set of leftist agenda points.

True feminists would cheer Sarah Palin on while admitting they detest her politics and therefore would not vote for her. This incindiery anger and hatred, these attempts at total destruction, reveal modern feminism for the bitter facade it has become. A true feminist will cheer Sarah Palin on.