Skip to main content

Household Pressures and Assumed Responsibilities Largely Responsible for the Illusion of Inequity Sold As the Gender Pay Gap

The gender pay gap, on the whole, may after all be the consequence of the specific pressures applied to males in their unique respective roles as the anticipated providers of their respective households, an incentive buttressed by the market for courting women. 

Meanwhile, women are rewarded for distinctly different traits which are not necessarily inclusive of their respective capacities to generate income for the household. The general market outcome -- that is, those discernible averages based on gender -- may spawn from the ubiquity of academically-repugnant, yet pragmatically-desirable preferences mutually expressed, desired, perpetuated and encouraged by men and women in their social conventions.

Comments

  1. I had this put to me in terms, with which I'm sure you can relate, supply and demand terms. Biologically speaking the male, with nearly infinite gametes, and being unencumbered with child birth and (mostly) rearing, is designed to increase his odds of successfully passing on his genetic material by spreading the seed widely, essentially by being freed up to be more productive. Sexually and otherwise. Conversely the female, with her very limited supply of eggs, and the time it takes to rear a child to self-sufficiency, must employ a much more selective, stingy if you will, strategy. Her best odds for successfully passing on her traits are to save herself for the most virile and viable candidates rather than waste her time with just any Tom, Dick, or Harry, thus using her energies to find “the one” and to bear children rather than "squander' it on bread winning etc. So you see, it's in our genetic makeup for the males to be industrious and the females to lean toward domesticity.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Goldmoney: Real Money Purposed for the Future

The institution of money entered the minds of sophisticated traders several millennia ago, when instead of bartering with limited numbers of people within the cumbersome double coincidence of wants, large-scale economies developed from the reach and transparency of commodity money which was scarce, durable, fungible, transportable, divisible, recognizable, and usable in and of itself. 

While we may appear to have transcended those primitive times and those so-called barbarous relics, the truth is that we have merely mutilated the concept of money by clandestinely replacing it with its more manipulable and abstract representative, the proverbial coat check without the coat. 

This is but the device of a large-scale social experiment run in real time, and we are its unwitting and unconsenting subjects who’ve largely never heard of the Federal Reserve’s dual mandate, much less its missions of “maximum employment” and 2-percent annual inflation.

Yet there is hope after all.

Finally, after deca…

The Kaepernick Craze: Exposing the Nation's Fools One Conversation at a Time

The Kaeparnick craze and other viral movements haven't merely pressured people into becoming simpler caricatures of their prior selves, but they have manifestly exposed people for how foolish and uninformed they've been all along. 



In his final year in the NFL, Kaepernick ranked 17th in passer rating and 34th the year before that. 

He played through an entire season in only two of his six years in the league, and his best full-season performance ranks far outside of the NFL's top-250 single-season passing performances in the league's history. 

For reference, the oft-criticized Tony Romo posted a career passer rating of 97.1, as compared to Kaepernick's 88.9. 

Romo's passer rating dipped below 90 for only one season of the eleven seasons he played, whereas Kaepernick failed to eclipse the 90 mark on three of his six seasons, a full 50 percent of his time in the NFL. 

In fact, Kaepernick accomplished this feat only once if we are to discard those other two seasons in …

Bitcoin: Are You Feeling Lucky?

The popular cryptocurrency, bitcoin, has tumbled greater than 50 percent since its all-time high set just a month ago near $20,000. 

Since then, it has traded as low as $9,000 before rebounding modestly back over the $10,000 mark. 
The short story of bitcoin (XBT) is powerfully illustrated by its graduation from its initial use case as an easy, inexpensive medium of exchange to an erratic and highly speculative risk asset which scarcely resembles anything more. 
And despite the chance that it regains steam, it is steeped equivalently in bubble territory at $9k as it is at $20k or even $100 or $100k. 
Plainly, it is a bubble at nearly any price. 
The only difference is the anchoring effect which seduces the investor into interpreting the drop as a buying opportunity. 
So while the fundamentals and the use case haven't dramatically changed since the decline, the greedy investor assumes that the price has dropped because of reasons unrelated to its future viability. 
This is wishful thinkin…