I put together a compilation of all the Trump and Son episodes to date that ‘star’ Aunt Nancy Pelosi. This is a Sanford and Son parody that I make. All these episodes have Donald Trump as Fred G Sanford and Nancy Pelosi as Aunt Esther.
All of the episodes are in a playlist HERE.
(Hat-tip to Wintery Knight’s FACEBOOK) In a lively yet in-depth discussion, Piers Morgan drills down to the core of human existence with Stephen C. Meyer, the prominent ‘intelligent design’ advocate. In this Piers Morgan Uncensored special, Meyers firmly rejects the idea that a scientific worldview leads to atheism, arguing instead that ‘the universe requires a creator or cause’. When Richard Dawkin’s name is mentioned, Meyer claims that he actually really loves the atheist firebrand and admires his intensity. Lastly, Morgan and Meyers agree that the question of God’s existence is tied to more than just cold hard facts, but also human nature itself.
EXAMPLE 1: Yale students form a human chain to block a Jewish student from entering the University
Do we have a historical precedence of this happening?
EXAMPLE 2: UCLA Jewish student trying to attend class is forcibly prevented entry by 6 masked Pro-Hamas students while UCLA guard stands by and DOES NOTHING. “I am a UCLA student…my class is over there. I want to use THAT entrance. Let me go in.”
Do we have a historical precedence of this happening?
Sophie and Noah were the most popular baby names in Germany last year, but in several regions including the national capital strong local variations exist, including the primacy of Mohammed for boys.
Germany’s state funded language institute has revealed its baby name statistics in 2023, and said Mohammed is the most popular boy’s name in a group of cities. The German statistics combine homophones, meaning Mohammed is counted alongside Mohamed, Muhammed, Mohammad, Muhammet, Muhamet, and others, in the same way it counts Sophia and Sofia together, which is the most popular girls’ name for 2023.
7 years ago, the UAE’s Foreign Minister issued a warning to the West. His words now sound prophetic:
7 years ago, the UAE’s Foreign Minister issued a warning to the West.
His words now sound prophetic.pic.twitter.com/JLYcABVH31
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) April 19, 2024
More via RAIR:
In 2015, as the Syrian civil war triggered a refugee crisis in the Middle East, wealthy Gulf states, including the Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar, chose to seal themselves off from refugees, fearing the infiltration of Muslims and terrorists through refugee corridors and permanent admission, a decision heavily criticized at the time but now recognized as justified by critics in both the Arab and Western worlds.
The recurrence of Islamic supremacists holding demonstrations in Germany is finally raising some concern from mainstream media and left-wing politicians. Following the recent Islamic demonstration in Hamburg, the Foreign Minister of the United Arab Emirates has mocked Germany for not heeding his warnings about the threat Islam would pose. Since the migration crisis in 2015, the Gulf states have increasingly isolated themselves. Many Arab nations have long resisted accepting refugees from within their own region. Western countries, however, seem to have learned nothing from the Arab countries’ rejection of refugees to preserve their countries and protect citizens. Instead, they have flooded their countries with people who want to kill them.
Calls for a Caiphate in Germany
Last Saturday, shocking scenes unfolded in Hamburg, capturing the entire nation’s attention. Thousands of Muslims participated in a demonstration, brandishing signs advocating for an Islamic caliphate. The crowd fervently echoed chants of the Islamic battle cry, “Allahu Akbar,” while hundreds offered the Islamic salute. Sharia-adherent females, fully veiled as in Islamic states and terrorist organizations, remained segregated from the men.
The demonstration was orchestrated by the terror-tied Muslim Interaktiv group, which is a successor organization to the Islamic terror group “Hizb ut-Tahrir” (HuT), which has been banned since 2003. Germany’s controversial Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution claims to be “closely monitoring” this movement, which advocates for the establishment of a caliphate governed by Sharia law. Mobilizing the Umma (the global Muslim community) to establish their Islamic Civilization is their admitted goal.
The rhetoric during the march included open threats toward Germany, with speakers warning of consequences for politicians and the media once “the sleeping giant awakens.”
[….]
Unglaublich, inakzeptabel und unverständlich, wie sich Menschen, die in Deutschland eine Heimat gefunden haben, gegen Deutschland wenden. Aber das ist typisch für politische Islamisten. https://t.co/M6VXyywIoX
— Ahmed Alattar (@VAEAMBDE) April 28, 2024
[….]
Gulf states reject refugees.
In 2015, during the onset of a refugee crisis in the Middle East triggered by the Syrian civil war, it was notable the Gulf states in the Arab region opted to close their doors to refugees. This decision came despite their status as some of the wealthiest nations globally, including the Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar.
Their rationale stemmed from a deep-seated rational fear of inadvertently allowing Islamic extremists and terrorists into their territories through refugee influxes and permanent resettlement programs. Consequently, they chose to prioritize security concerns over humanitarian aid.
Back then, the Gulf states faced substantial domestic and international criticism, particularly from within the Arab world and Western nations. However, with the benefit of hindsight, critics now acknowledge the validity of their apprehensions.
But the fear did not revolve exclusively around Islamic and terrorists when the Emirati Abdullah bin Zayed spoke of Europe believing, in its political correctness, that it “knows the Middle East and Islam better than WE do”. By “WE” he meant: ‘We Arabs and Muslims’. The Gulf states were also concerned that they did not want to import political-Islamic ideologies, radical mentalities, and certain forms of crime through uncontrolled migration flows. ….
Police finally showed up to throw out the pro-Hamas protesters who had invaded and occupied a building at Columbia University. This was after the protesters demanded concessions from Columbia, including free food deliveries.
As a way of supporting Matt’s monologue, here is one of my favorite quotes from Milton Friedman:
Industrial progress, mechanical improvement, all of the great wonders of the modern era have meant little to the wealthy. The rich in ancient Greece would have benefited hardly at all from modern plumbing — running servants replaced running water. Television and radio — the patricians of Rome could enjoy the leading musicians and actors in their home, could have the leading artists as domestic retainers. Ready-to-wear clothing, supermarkets — all these and many other modern developments would have added little to their life. They would have welcomed the improvements in transportation and in medicine, but for the rest, the great achievements of western capitalism have rebounded primarily to the benefit of the ordinary person. These achievements have made available to the masses conveniences and amenities that were previously the exclusive prerogative of the rich and powerful.
Milton Friedman, Free to Choose (Orlando, FL: Harcourt Inc., 1980), 147-148.
I had to pot this gal, as, you hear someone say there are classes like 18th century lesbian French poetry at higher education/ivory league universities. But this girl is a professor teaching what? (pic linked):
This was part of what she asked for:
TWITCHY goes on to note in humorous fashion, the rest of the story:
Look at the Columbia zoomer feminist protestors:
They crave a hijab. They long for a niqab. Their hearts desire a man to come along and whisk then away, a dashing Vizier Charming to ride off with them to his harem. pic.twitter.com/a7D9FdbnZj
— Peachy Keenan (@KeenanPeachy) April 30, 2024
It’s like Where’s Waldo trying to find a male among the Columbia occupiers. Masked college girls are just really into Hamas. pic.twitter.com/BmCeGzLsvg
— Richard Hanania (@RichardHanania) May 1, 2024
Their nightmare: Their dream: pic.twitter.com/TPxvoxd6mN
— Uberminch (@uberminch) April 30, 2024
I will post some links and an excerpt from my previous “prophecies” via: July 12, 2013 | July 14, 2013 | and the excerpt from November 10, 2015 — but first, a recent article by Victor Davis Hanson:
…. Berkeley law dean Erwin Chemerinsky kindly invited his own law students to his home for dinner—only to have his hospitality hijacked by pro-Hamas activist students that commandeered a microphone to spout their drivel, leading to a scuffle with his wife. The cry-bully mob offered no exemption to the dean—who in antisemitic fashion was portrayed on campus posters as a veritable IDF vampire. They also seemed indifferent to (or emboldened by?) the fact that Chemerinsky in the past has often offered advice about how to get around statutes prohibiting race-based hiring by not explicitly mentioning the operative agenda of diversity. And of course, in the past he had encouraged more campus protests to combat “racism”.
Most college presidents, many hired under DEI pressures, are now being eaten alive by their own ideologues, shocked that pro-Hamas activists are at heart fascistic and anti-Semitic and, well yes, spout “hate speech”.
So terrified college presidents talk tough, virtue signaling to alumni and donors by issuing “deadlines”, and promising“consequences” —but otherwise usually ending up negotiating and extending or making new deadlines to their campus occupiers. So the pro-Hamas crowd takes over their campuses, and often forces all students either to finish the semester remotely or to have their graduation ceremonies cancelled or abbreviated. And all to the applause of Hamas in Gaza and delight of the mullahs in Iran.
The left in the last 30 years absorbed America’s main institutions and hallmarks. And now from Disney and Anheuser-Busch to the Ivy League to CNN and blue-state big cities, it has more or less destroyed their brands and reputations.
The progressive touch eventually turns everything to dross.
Here is my warning: The Creature from the Leftist Lagoon
My other thoughts for here is something I have said for quite a while now: “leftism” eats itself. It always has. We have seen socialist groups fight for their agenda to be paramount (thinking of Russian and German historical hegemony that led to many deaths to accomplish this goal… before the end result of the power structure and well-known leaders took power — which caused even more deaths).
Because of the flag issue, already there is talk of the Jefferson Memorial (the founder of the party running around from activist issue-to-issue ~ they do this because they replace the God shaped vacuum with politics)… banning Gone with the Wind (even though a black woman [the first time in our history] won “Best Supporting Actress)… etc.
The hubris of the left can be seen as well in thinking that they [politicians] can control weather (the sun) by legislation. Or changing gender by the stroke of a pen. Pride predates the fall.
[….]
ALL THAT BEING SAID… there is a dangerous aspect to this. As the left eats itself, they have historically looked for scapegoats. Jews and Christians are typically the fall-guy… especially in the 20th and 21st Century.
The left “KNOWS” its goals are well meaning, and so find acknowledgment that they are true and society “NEEDS” them ~ again, based on the “well meaningful’ness.”
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because ‘ought to have known better,’ is to be treated as a human persons in God’s image.”
C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2002), 292 (Full text).
So, in the West as these “well-meaning” ideals works themselves out, expect more legal, cultural, and violent expression against those who hold to a historical, conserving theology and expressing this in public life…
Many of the then students, like Mark Rudd, Jeff Jones, and Bettina Aptheker to name a few, are still revolutionary activists.
The above find was via AND MAGAZINE’S post, The Communists On Campus. To which they note a legal organization with deeply Communist ties and goals:
Yesterday pro-Hamas protesters occupied Jackson Square in New Orleans. This was the first such occupation in the country not on a college campus. New Orleans police moved in quickly to break up the encampment. Social media documented the presence during the occupation and clearance of a number of legal “observers” from a group called the National Lawyers Guild (NLG). They were there to intercede on behalf of the folks illegally occupying a public space.
Who are these guys?
Well, it turns out that the NLG is a group with long-standing ties to the Communist Party and a history of involvement with Antifa and the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. They also have ties internationally to enemies of the United States.
The NLG started back in the 1930’s. It was composed largely of members of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The express goal of the CPUSA was the creation of a Communist state here in America.
By the late 1930s, most non-Communist members of the NLG quit in protest against its overtly Communist policies. One prominent member of the group who resigned, then-Assistant Secretary of State Adolf A. Berle, Jr., said on quitting.
“The National Lawyers Guild was formed in the hope that expression might be given to the liberal sentiment in the American bar. It is now obvious that the present management of the guild is not prepared to take any stand which conflicts with the Communist Party line. Under these circumstances, and in company, I think, with the most progressive lawyers, I have no further interest in it.”
(MORE)
And in this video you hear the call for a “legal observer” at the 47-second [or so] mark:
Violence Erupts at Virginia Commonwealth University as “Protests” Turn Into Riots
More on the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) at DISCOVER THE NETWORKS.
TWITCHY stats the party off thus:
Here is the original challenge:
Lol.
I responded in TWITCHY’s comments thus:
A recent comprehensive compilation of the history of human warfare, Encyclopedia of Wars by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod documents 1763 wars, of which 123 have been classified to involve a religious conflict. So, what atheists have considered to be ‘most’ really amounts to less than 7% of all wars. It is interesting to note that 66 of these wars (more than 50%) involved Islam, which did not even exist as a religion for the first 3,000 years of recorded human warfare.
Even the Seven Years’ War, widely recognized to be “religious” in motivation, noting that the warring factions were not necessarily split along confessional lines as much as along secular interests. And the Thirty Years’ War cannot be viewed as “religious” in that you should find certain aspects if this were the case. For instance, professor Cavanaugh offers the following short critique after a long list of historical instances [included below] building-up-to and during the Thirty Years’ War.
(RPT)
More TWIXES:
UPDATES!
Steve Forbes and John Carney react to President Biden attacking former President Trump’s tax cuts and how Americans are paying more under Biden on ‘Kudlow.’
Originally posted August 2013
Lonely Conservative [now no longer] mentions the inevitable:
Ah well, I guess they figure if they lose enough money on Volt production they can just come back to the taxpayer trough for another big bailout.
Nearly a year ago General Motors was losing almost $50,000 for each Chevrolet Volt it built. Now GM’s business model, driven by trendy environmentalism, calls for it to cut the price and lose even more money.
The green lobby wants more hybrids and plug-in electric cars on the roads. Therefore the president wants 1 million electrics humming around by 2015 — and the carmakers have to ignore market reality under pressure to do what the environmentalist-political complex demands.
Even if it makes no sense. ….
This time it’s because the automaker is going to drop the price by $5,000. USA Today reports that with “a full $7,500 federal tax credit, the price is cut to $27,495,” a figure that doesn’t include some state tax credits.
Aside from those whose egos demand that they use their cars to scream out their moral superiority as environmentalists, and maybe a few enthusiasts who dabble in the technology, does anyone really want these electric cars? Their dismal sales numbers simply do not justify their existence.
(IBD)
UPDATED EXAMPLE….
Hat-tip to The Renegade Institute for Liberty at Bakersfield College (FACEBOOK):
…. Last month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized the “strongest-ever pollution standards” for cars that accelerate the “adoption of cleaner vehicle technologies.”
A coalition of 5,000 U.S. car dealerships criticized the EPA standards, noting that the regulations require a bump in EV sales “that is far beyond the consumer interest we are experiencing at our dealerships.”
“Despite generous government, manufacturer, and dealer incentives, our customers continue to bypass EVs over concerns about affordability, charging infrastructure, performance in cold weather, and resale value,” the coalition stated. ….
In updating this post I found a wonderful site:
EDITOR’S NOTE: this is how the USSR ended up with warehouses FULL of “widgets” (things made that it could not use or people did not want) no one needed in the real world. This economic law enforcers George Gilder’s contention that when government supports a venture from failing, no information is gained in knowing if the program actually works. Only the free-market can do this.
GEORGE GILDER – UNCOMMON KNOWLEDGE
This week on Uncommon Knowledge, author George Gilder discusses his conception of knowledge, power, and the economy, as described in his latest book, Knowledge and Power: The Information Theory of Capitalism and How it is Revolutionizing our World. He argues that a low entropy, or predictable and stable, carrier is required for the emergence of knowledge — whether it be a fiber optic cable and communication, or a social system governed by the rule of law and economic innovation. Such a social system is not spontaneous, but rather developed through sacrifice and a religious order.
Larry Elder destroys the wide-spread myth regarding the idea that the women’s soccer team is paid less than their male counterparts. The callers point was simple and powerful, in essense he was saying how could someone demand equal pay when they were chasing away viewers — which — lowers revenue. Rapinoe is solely responsible for the women’s soccer ratings to sink by 43% this year. The “Sage” also reads from a couple articles zeroing in on the lie (or myth if you like) of this position (they follow the video):
Here are the articles:
Here is the best comment from my YouTube Channel:
Older Videos:
Christian Hoff Sommers
MISES INSTITUTE
(MISES) …At Forbes, Mike Ozanian note that generally speaking, men’s soccer generates revenues at much higher levels:
The men’s World Cup in Russia generated over $6 billion in revenue, with the participating teams sharing $400 million , less than 7% of revenue. Meanwhile, the Women’s World Cup is expected to earn $131 million for the full four-year cycle 2019-22 and dole out $30 million to the participating teams.
But what about the US women’s team specifically?
According to the Wall Street Journal:
From 2016 to 2018, women’s games generated about $50.8 million in revenue compared with $49.9 million for the men, according to U.S. soccer’s audited financial statements. In 2016, the year after the World Cup, the women generated $1.9 million more than the men. Game revenues are made up mostly of ticket sales. In the last two years, at least, the men’s tally includes appearance fees that opposing teams pay the U.S. for games.
So, very recently, women have begun to outpace the men in ticket sales. But, as the WSJ admits: “ticket sales are only one revenue stream that the national teams help generate.”
And what about revenues from broadcasts? It seems that “TV ratings for U.S. men’s games tend to be higher than those for U.S. women’s games, according to data collected by U.S. Soccer.”
Moreover, Politifact was unable to confirm that total revenue is, in fact, higher for the women in recent years:
During the three years following the 2015 Women’s World Cup, the women’s team brought in slightly more revenue from games than the men’s team did. While marketing and sponsorships are sold as a bundle, there are anecdotal signs that the women’s brand is surging in popularity.
However, it’s harder to say whether the women are ultimately paid less than the men, due to the lack of transparency and the complicated variables that feed into the compensation. Several experts said the reality may be murkier than a shouted catchphrase [i.e., “equal pay!”] can capture.
For the sake of argument, let’s say the women do bring in more revenue. The fact this is such a recent development would help explain why the pay structure has yet to catch up with revenues. Moreover, if US Soccer is going to risk paying out-sized salaries and benefits, it’s going to have to first be comfortable that the women’s teams are a reliable and sustainable revenue source….
Biology 7 — Sociology 0
The Matildas were missing several established internationals on Wednesday night, including star striker Kyah Simon. They also rotated players more than usual, which contributed to a lack of cohesion. However, there is no denying losing to a team of school boys is far from ideal preparation for the world’s fifth ranked team in their quest for Olympic gold at Rio. The following is with a H/T to GAY PATRIOT [now – sadly – defunt], and is from RACONTEUR REPORT
More proof that no one in the Pentagon or DoD can read:
A team of 14 year old boys kicked the asses of the Oz Women’s Olympic Team, the latter being ranked as one of the Top 5 women’s teams headed to the 2016 Olympics in Rio this summer.
Australia’s national women’s soccer team have suffered a devastating defeat in the lead up to the Rio Olympics – going down 7-0 to the Newcastle Jets under-15 boys side.
Despite the embarrassing defeat on Wednesday night at Valentine Sports Park in Newcastle, the Australian team will travel to Brazil as one of the gold medal favourites.
While the Matildas played with a rotating squad, there is no denying losing to a team of school boys is far from ideal preparation for the world’s fifth ranked team in their quest for Olympic gold at Rio.
[….]
And I don’t know the IOOC policy on dudes who “identify” as women, but if you can find a dozen or so gender-bender boys about 14-15 years old, and get them entered in Women’s Soccer at this years’ Olympics, they’ll have a pretty easy shot at the medal round.
Just saying.
(Nov 27, 2015) Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talks to Christina Hoff Sommers (Host of The Factual Feminist) about feminism, free speech and trigger warnings, Gamergate, cultural libertarians, and much more. Gender politics and discussions about equality have dominated the national conversation for the last few years. Is it possible to achieve perfect gender equality? What issues are trying to be addressed by feminism in the 21st century? If you’d like to hear about the current state of the feminist movement in the US as well as the state of human rights in other parts of the globe check out this playlist:
BONUS TOPIC: WAGE GAPS
Oldest to Newest
The Gender Wage Gap Uses Bogus Statistics | FACTUAL FEMINIST — The gender wage gap came into focus this week, but not in the way the White House wanted. A reporter asked about AEI’s study showing that Obama administration female staffers make only 88% of their male counterparts’ salaries. Christina Hoff Sommers examines spokesman Jay Carney’s response in this premiere episode of her video blog, “Factual Feminist.”
Is There Systematic Wage Discrimination Against Women? | FACTUAL FEMINIST — The Factual Feminist is back to answer your questions in this week’s mailbag! This week: Is there evidence of system-wide discrimination against women? Also, Christina responds to commenters who question her research because of where she works, and other questions.
Gender Activists Dismayed By This New Reason For The Wage Gap | FACTUAL FEMINIST — It is just not true that, for the same work, women earn 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. Factors such as college major, occupation and length of time in the workplace explain most of the pay gap. AEI’s Sally Satel explains the discovery of another factor contributing to that gap.
World Cup Pay Gap: Here’s Why It’s Justified | FACTUAL FEMINIST — Critics are up in arms about the World Cup gender gap. The prize money for women is far less than for men. Commentators attribute the gap to sexism and structural inequities. Could they be right? Let’s review the evidence.
Originally Posted June 2017
(fixed most links and replaced bad media)
The reason for this page: Below are three posts combined into ONE LONG POST… sorry. In this post you will find all the information to refute and respond to the completely bogus stat Democrats use about the “gender Wage Gap.” This will be a permanent page found tucked away in the “bar” across the top of my blog. IT HAS EVERYTHING for someone who has never heard a counter to this idea, or for someone who “knows it” but is looking for specifics. Enjoy.
This update is with thanks to MRCTV Blogs:
Progressive feminists have labeled today “Equal Pay Day” and have allied themselves with the White House and Democratic lawmakers. The whole theory of the “gender wage gap” rests on this study by none other than The Institute for Women’s Policy Research. The study claims that, when considering every median income for all full time annual workers, women make 21.7 percent less, or more popularly worded, 78 cents for every dollar a man earns.
But, the Independent Women’s Forum calls both the day and the gap “fictitious”:
“Feminist groups and Democratic lawmakers call today Equal Pay Day, a fictitious holiday that’s premised on the notion that the workplace is openly hostile toward women. What’s more it’s a Trojan horse for horrible policy. The statistical difference between women and men’s average earnings isn’t driven by widespread sexism, but largely from different choices men and women make throughout our lives. The Administration and its allies know the wage gap statistic is grossly misleading; in fact, last year the White House conceded the figure is flawed, yet continues to regurgitate it again this year,” said Sabrina Schaeffer, Independent Women’s Forum executive director.
‘If I said 77 cents was equal pay for equal work, then I completely misspoke,’ and apologized, ‘I certainly wouldn’t have meant to say that,” says White House official Betsey Stevenson.
“The White House admitted what IWF has stated all along – that when you control for a number of variables that impact pay – the pay gap shrinks considerably, nearly disappearing.
As Mark Twain said, “Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.” The 77 percent number is merely an average that compares the salaries of all men and women with full-time jobs but does not compare similar jobs. It does not take into account, for example, that more men choose to be engineers and more women choose to be social workers. It also doesn’t account for women taking time out of the workforce and men putting in longer hours.
The U.S. Department of Labor found that, when educational and career choices factor into the equation, women make 94 percent of men bring home. Childless urban women actually make more than men in all of these major cities. Pew Research also notes that there is a big gender gap in colleges and with college graduates, favoring women.
Video from NewsBusters ~ Alex Castellanos ended up
writing a response to his above “tiff” with Maddow
This is partly an import from a previous post dealing with this topic via my old blog, and partly an update. In my original post entitle, Glass Ceilings, Veteran benefits, and Other Liberal Mantras, I chronicled the following:
The Glass Ceiling
President Clinton said that women make .73 cents on every man’s dollar. He used this as a campaign issue to try and smear Republicans. Kerry said that women make .76 cents on every man’s dollar, and likewise used this stat as a political smear. The question then is this, are these two persons correct?
YES! If you compare all men to all women, then yes, there is a disparage. This stat doesn’t take into account a few things. It doesn’t consider the fact that women tend to choose the humanities when entering college and men seem to choose the hard sciences. So by choice women tend to choose professions that pay less. Not only that, when you compare Oranges to Oranges, you get something much different than expected, or that we would expect from the liberal side of things. If a woman and a man have had the same level of education and have been on the same job for an equal amount of time, the woman makes $1,005 while a man makes $1,000, a difference of $5 dollars every thousand dollars a man earns.
So part of the problem — exemplified by this article in THE NEW YORK TIME’S by a woman Medical Doctor — is the amount of time put into the career versus a male counterpart:
…But the productivity of the doctors currently practicing is also an important factor. About 30 percent of doctors in the United States are female, and women received 48 percent of the medical degrees awarded in 2010. But their productivity doesn’t match that of men. In a 2006 survey by the American Medical Association and the Association of American Medical Colleges, even full-time female doctors reported working on average 4.5 fewer hours each week and seeing fewer patients than their male colleagues. The American Academy of Pediatrics estimates that 71 percent of female pediatricians take extended leave at some point — five times higher than the percentage for male pediatricians.
This gap is especially problematic because women are more likely to go into primary care fields — where the doctor shortage is most pronounced — than men are. Today 53 percent of family practice residents, 63 percent of pediatric residents and nearly 80 percent of obstetrics and gynecology residents are female. In the low-income areas that lack primary and prenatal care, there are more emergency room visits, more preventable hospitalizations and more patients who die of treatable conditions. Foreign doctors emigrate to the United States to help fill these positions, but this drains their native countries of desperately needed medical care.
If medical training were available in infinite supply, it wouldn’t matter how many doctors worked part time or quit, because there would always be new graduates to fill their spots. But medical schools can only afford to accept a fraction of the students who apply…
Continuing with the medical profession example, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES [partly] correctly pointed out that many women look for these lower paying jobs because they allow for greater (family rearing) flexibility:
…The answer, they speculate, is that women are choosing lower-paying jobs on purpose because they offer greater flexibility in hours and are generally more family-friendly. The researchers acknowledge they don’t have the data to prove that this is the case, but the data they do have is consistent with this theory.
If so, they say, that would be a victory for women (and even men.) Studies show that many doctors are burned out and would rather take jobs that allow them to have a good quality of life. Now — thanks in large part to the growing ranks of female doctors — such jobs are available. They just come with lower salaries.
“Instead of being penalized because of their gender, female physicians may be seeking out employment arrangements that compensate them in other — nonfinancial — ways, and more employers may be beginning to offer such arrangements,” the researchers wrote….
Click to ENLARGE
More HERE
…..Thomas Sowell is the most well written on this subject. In fact, in his book, ECONOMIC FACTS AND FALLACIES, he devotes a whole chapter to this topic. In one area he points the following out, and keep in mind that in most countries mining or other hard-labor jobs are much more the norm than in America:
…various countries’ economies, there are still particular industries today where considerable physical strength remains a requirement. Women are obviously not as likely to work in such fields as men are— and some of these are fields with jobs that pay more than the national average. While women have been 74 percent of what the U.S. Census Bureau classifies as “clerical and kindred workers,” they have been less than 5 percent of “transport equipment operatives.” In other words, women are far more likely to be sitting behind a desk than to be sitting behind the steering wheel of an eighteen-wheel truck. Women are also less than 4 percent of the workers in “construction, extraction, and maintenance.” They are less than 3 percent of construction workers or loggers, less than 2 percent of roofers or masons and less than one percent of the mechanics and technicians who service heavy vehicles arid mobile equipment.
Such occupational distributions have obvious economic implications, since miners earn nearly double the income of office clerks when both work full-time and year-round 20 There is still a premium paid for workers doing heavy physical work, as well as for hazardous work, which often overlaps work requiring physical strength. While men are 54 percent of the labor force, they are 92 percent of the job-related deaths.
He goes on to point out that this volunteerism of choices continues onto Ph.D.s,
Given the asymmetrical effects of career obsolescence on women and men, it is hardly surprising that women tend to work in fields with lower rates of obsolescence— as teachers and librarians, for example, rather than as computer engineers or tax accountants. Even as the proportion of women receiving Ph.D.s rose dramatically from the 1970s on, male-female differences in the fields of specialization remained large. As of 2005, for example, women received more than 60 percent of the doctorates in education but less than 20 percent of the doctorates in engineering.
He then goes on to point out that do to life choices based on being close to family [kids], and choices made around work and family:
The most important reason why women earn less than men is not that they are paid less for doing the very same work but that they are distributed differently among jobs and have fewer hours and less continuity in the labor force. Among college-educated, never-married individuals with no children who worked fill-time and were from 40 to 64 years old— that is, beyond the child-bearing years— men averaged $40,000 a year in income, while women averaged $47,000.30 But, despite the fact that women in this category earned more than men in the same category, gross income differences in favor of men continue to reflect differences in work patterns between the sexes, so that women and men are not in the same categories to the same extent.
Even women who have graduated from top-level universities like Harvard and Yale have not worked full-time, or worked at all, to the same extent that male graduates of these same institutions have. Among Yale alumni in their forties, “only 56 percent of the women still worked, compared with 90 percent of the men,” according to the New York Times. It was much the same story at Harvard:
A 2001 survey of Harvard Business School graduates found that 31 percent of the women from the classes of 1981, 1985 and 1991 who answered the survey worked only part time or on contract, and another 31 percent did not work at all, levels strikingly similar to the percentages of the Yale students interviewed who predicted they would stay at home or work part time in their 30’s and 40’s.
In fact, as of a few years ago, women make more of the enrollment statistics in college, but will, through life choices, spend less time on the job that they went to school for than their male counterparts. All this brings me full circle to a great article that updates the above via the Wall Street Journal. They point out that much of the emphasis on this are by special interest groups that want to fix the problem — in my mind’s eye — with outdated thinking that no longer fits the evidence. In a recent VIRAL article found at The Atlantic Monthly “WHY WOMEN STILL CAN’T HAVE IT ALL,” Anne-Marie Slaughter talks about the talent businesses lose due to their inflexibility of allowing women to juggle family and work via a work schedule that doesn’t force an “either-or” schedule on them. BECAUSE when forced into an either-or situation, women choose family. Its in their nature. Here she talks a bit about her column:
CAREER OR FAMILY – Anne-Marie Slaughter
Mona Charen, a favorite author of mine, columnist, and part of the Clare Booth Luce Institute (a conservative policy institute for women), comments on Slaughter’s article in her’s, “GROW UP: LIFE HAS TRADE-OFFS,” by agreeing with her that women were sold a lie. Both in the prevailing view by the left that counters women’s nature as well as statistical lies:
…Even with a supportive husband who was willing to “take on the lion’s share of parenting … (while) I was in Washington,” she found that she didn’t want to be away from her two teenaged sons, particularly when one was having trouble in school.
“Want” is the critical word here. Slaughter made a choice, as adults do. She writes, “I realized that I didn’t just need to go home. Deep down, I wanted to go home. I wanted to be able to spend time with my children in the last few years that they are likely to live at home, crucial years for their development into responsible, productive, happy, and caring adults.”
Slaughter’s wants mirror those of other women (high-earning and otherwise). A 2007 Pew survey found that among working mothers with children 17 and younger, fully 79 percent said that they would prefer part-time (60 percent) or zero (19 percent) work outside the home. Only 21 percent said they would choose full-time employment while their children were young. This was down from 32 percent who preferred to work full time in 1997.
Despite endless repetition by Democrats and feminists, the idea that women earn less than men for the same work is fiction. Single women without children earn just as much, and sometimes more, than comparably qualified young men. Women earn less (over their whole careers) because they choose to. And they choose to because they place more value on child rearing than on money or status.
A better feminist would applaud women for this and stress the incomparable contribution mothers make to society. Instead, feminists define progress as the “first” woman this or that and the degree to which a woman’s life parallels a man’s. Feminists have been missing what’s best about womanhood for decades…
This is much of the left’s “padded” thinking mind you! the WSJ’s article, titled: There Is No Male-Female Wage Gap: A study of single, childless urban workers between the ages of 22 and 30 found that women earned 8% more than men, is a great update to the above:
Tuesday is Equal Pay Day—so dubbed by the National Committee for Pay Equity, which represents feminist groups including the National Organization for Women, Feminist Majority, the National Council of Women’s Organizations and others. The day falls on April 12 because, according to feminist logic, women have to work that far into a calendar year before they earn what men already earned the year before.
In years past, feminist leaders marked the occasion by rallying outside the U.S. Capitol to decry the pernicious wage gap and call for government action to address systematic discrimination against women. This year will be relatively quiet. Perhaps feminists feel awkward protesting a liberal-dominated government—or perhaps they know that the recent economic downturn has exposed as ridiculous their claims that our economy is ruled by a sexist patriarchy.
The unemployment rate is consistently higher among men than among women. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 9.3% of men over the age of 16 are currently out of work. The figure for women is 8.3%. Unemployment fell for both sexes over the past year, but labor force participation (the percentage of working age people employed) also dropped. The participation rate fell more among men (to 70.4% today from 71.4% in March 2010) than women (to 58.3% from 58.8%). That means much of the improvement in unemployment numbers comes from discouraged workers—particularly male ones—giving up their job searches entirely.
Men have been hit harder by this recession because they tend to work in fields like construction, manufacturing and trucking, which are disproportionately affected by bad economic conditions. Women cluster in more insulated occupations, such as teaching, health care and service industries.
Yet if you can accept that the job choices of men and women lead to different unemployment rates, then you shouldn’t be surprised by other differences—like differences in average pay.
Feminist hand-wringing about the wage gap relies on the assumption that the differences in average earnings stem from discrimination. Thus the mantra that women make only 77% of what men earn for equal work. But even a cursory review of the data proves this assumption false.
The Department of Labor’s Time Use survey shows that full-time working women spend an average of 8.01 hours per day on the job, compared to 8.75 hours for full-time working men. One would expect that someone who works 9% more would also earn more. This one fact alone accounts for more than a third of the wage gap.
Choice of occupation also plays an important role in earnings. While feminists suggest that women are coerced into lower-paying job sectors, most women know that something else is often at work. Women gravitate toward jobs with fewer risks, more comfortable conditions, regular hours, more personal fulfillment and greater flexibility. Simply put, many women—not all, but enough to have a big impact on the statistics—are willing to trade higher pay for other desirable job characteristics.
Men, by contrast, often take on jobs that involve physical labor, outdoor work, overnight shifts and dangerous conditions (which is also why men suffer the overwhelming majority of injuries and deaths at the workplace). They put up with these unpleasant factors so that they can earn more.
Recent studies have shown that the wage gap shrinks—or even reverses—when relevant factors are taken into account and comparisons are made between men and women in similar circumstances. In a 2010 study of single, childless urban workers between the ages of 22 and 30, the research firm Reach Advisors found that women earned an average of 8% more than their male counterparts. Given that women are outpacing men in educational attainment, and that our economy is increasingly geared toward knowledge-based jobs, it makes sense that women’s earnings are going up compared to men’s.
In a response to a reader in a previous blogpost on this subject, I pointed out that there are physiological differences between the sexes that are undeniable and that promote women making choices to pause a career and build a home life. Here is my response:
You should know that there is a hard wired difference between men and women, whether by evolutionary means or creative means. A most recent example is what wakes the sexes at night:
Psychologist Dr David Lewis said: ‘There is nothing more likely to leave you feeling drained and depressed than disturbed sleep, especially when this happens over several nights.
A graphic explaining the different sounds which will wake men and women
‘As this unique study shows while some sounds, for instance your partner coughing or snoring beside you, disturb men and women equally, other noises such as a howling wind cause men to be more disturbed than women.
‘Women are more likely to be disturbed by a crying baby.
‘These differing sensitivities may represent evolutionary differences that make women sensitive to sounds associated with a potential threat to their children while men are more finely tuned to disturbances posing a possible threat to the whole family.’
I could call my husband lazy, sexist and insensitive but his failure to hear a crying child while he’s sleeping might not be his fault at all. Researchers have actually found that women are hard-wired to wake up to the sound of a sobbing baby. A 2009 study by the British Mindlab sleeping lab found that a baby’s crying is the number one sound most likely to rouse a woman and didn’t even factor into the male top 10. Men were more likely to wake to the sounds of a car alarm, howling wind, or a buzzing fly.
This difference is what the market responds to. The fact that women typically WANT to be at home with their family MORE than the man… AND, women typically CHOOSE jobs that pay less. But free markets is not what the left is about, egalitarianism is.
Below, Michael Medved deals with two issues from President Obama’s recent Executive Order “Payment Fairness Act” push through. He [Medved] deals first with the continuing distortion of Obama’s family history by Obama himself. Then he gets to the meat of the issue (followed by some of the WSJ article mentioned in the clip):
Here are excerpts from the WSJ article:
…In its annual report, “Highlights of Women’s Earnings in 2012,” the Bureau of Labor Statistics states that “In 2012, women who were full-time wage and salary workers had median usual weekly earnings of $691. On average in 2012, women made about 81% of the median earnings of male full-time wage and salary workers ($854).” Give or take a few percentage points, the BLS appears to support the president’s claim.
But every “full-time” worker, as the BLS notes, is not the same: Men were almost twice as likely as women to work more than 40 hours a week, and women almost twice as likely to work only 35 to 39 hours per week. Once that is taken into consideration, the pay gap begins to shrink. Women who worked a 40-hour week earned 88% of male earnings.
Then there is the issue of marriage and children. The BLS reports that single women who have never married earned 96% of men’s earnings in 2012.
The supposed pay gap appears when marriage and children enter the picture. Child care takes mothers out of the labor market, so when they return they have less work experience than similarly-aged males. Many working mothers seek jobs that provide greater flexibility, such as telecommuting or flexible hours. Not all jobs can be flexible, and all other things being equal, those which are will pay less than those that do not.
Education also matters. Even within groups with the same educational attainment, women often choose fields of study, such as sociology, liberal arts or psychology, that pay less in the labor market. Men are more likely to major in finance, accounting or engineering. And as the American Association of University Women reports, men are four times more likely to bargain over salaries once they enter the job market.
Risk is another factor. Nearly all the most dangerous occupations, such as loggers or iron workers, are majority male and 92% of work-related deaths in 2012 were to men. Dangerous jobs tend to pay higher salaries to attract workers. Also: Males are more likely to pursue occupations where compensation is risky from year to year, such as law and finance. Research shows that average pay in such jobs is higher to compensate for that risk.
While the BLS reports that full-time female workers earned 81% of full-time males, that is very different than saying that women earned 81% of what men earned for doing the same jobs, while working the same hours, with the same level of risk, with the same educational background and the same years of continuous, uninterrupted work experience, and assuming no gender differences in family roles like child care. In a more comprehensive study that controlled for most of these relevant variables simultaneously—such as that from economists June and Dave O’Neill for the American Enterprise Institute in 2012—nearly all of the 23% raw gender pay gap cited by Mr. Obama can be attributed to factors other than discrimination. The O’Neills conclude that, “labor market discrimination is unlikely to account for more than 5% but may not be present at all.”…
Again, and again, the Dems from the President on-down spread this lie! I will now add another post dealing with this myth, lie, political tactic. Below will be a few video/audio clips as well as The Wall Street Journal and Powerline posts/articles on the matter.
Professor Christiana Hoff Sommers was recently interviewed by Larry Elder explains this nonsense in an erudite and concise manner:
Powerline says that the President is in trouble when it can’t even fool CNN: AEI’s Mark Perry sets out the “analysis” proving pay discrimination at the White House here in a form even the folks at CNN can understand. If Obama can’t fool those who want to believe at CNN with this line, who ya gonna fool? Again, Powerline posts (10-20, 2012)Thomas Sowell’s response to the matter:
At the Hofstra University presidential debate this past Tuesday (I’m working from the WaPo transcript here), Candy Crowley called on Katherine Fenton to ask this groaner of a question: “In what new ways to you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?”
This is such an old canard I thought that Governor Romney might challenge the premise of the question. Equal pay for equal work is the law of the land, Katherine. The proposition that the statistical disparity in pay you mention results from employment discrimination has been examined and disproved many times over. The great Thomas Sowell addressed it in chapter 3 of Economic Facts and Fallacies (summarized in the video below). Katherine, the premise of your question falls into the category of “fallacy.”
What is truly scary is that everyone may know your pay at some point… this may be no-longer private:
The first bill President Obama signed into law was the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, but five years later, the White House is still talking about the gender wage-gap.
At a White House briefing on Wednesday, Betsey Stevenson, one of President Obama’s economic advisers, said female employees need to know how much their male colleagues earn, so they can tell if they’re being paid equally.
(Via The Lonely Conservative – now defunct ~ see To Love My Country for more) …The Washington Post & the Los Angeles Times slammed [the above] graphic put out by the White House as being sexist.
It pictures two women, one in a pink dress carrying a handbag, the other in an orange dress, and both are wearing oh-so-practical stilettos. This is exactly what working women wear to work every day, right? All those women who are lawyers, and doctors, and cashiers, and investment bankers, and biochemists, and nursing assistants and architects and engineers and cashiers at the Piggly Wiggly? Perhaps this is why Obama was so focused on dry-cleaning bills at the White House signing ceremony? This is just not great messaging or symbolism for a White House that wants to also focus on women in minimum wage jobs. It screams “Sex and the City,” not “9 to 5.”
Ouch!
It didn’t get much better for Senate Democrats. Republicans took a look at their payroll records and found they also have a wage inequality problem.
It turns out President Obama isn’t the only hypocritical Democrat, in fact Senate Democrats have their own problems when it comes to equal pay. We pulled the official payroll records of various offices and calculated the average pay for men and women in each office for the most recent 6 month period available. Since some employees only worked a portion of the six month period, we calculated how much each person was paid per day in order to give an accurate representation. Here’s what we found:
That means on average, these five Democrats on the ballot in battleground states pay women in their office 79 cents for every dollar made by a male employee.