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

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. It was a war whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes. In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes. It doesn't stop there. In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes. But guess what! It doesn't stop there. No, no, no, no.  In California, there's always another tax. After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda. The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes