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

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. Likewise, it was a war that would witness a five-fold increase in the number of civilians employed by the federal government, as federal gove

Cullen Roche's Not So "Pragmatic Capitalism"

In his riveting new work Pragmatic Capitalism , Cullen Roche, founder of Orcam Financial Group, a San Diego-based financial firm, sets out to correct the mainstream schools of economic thought, focusing on  Keynesians, Monetarists, and Austrians alike. This new macroeconomic perspective claims to reveal What Every Investor Needs to Know About Money and Finance . Indeed, Roche introduces the layman to various elementary principles of economics and financial markets, revealing in early chapters the failed state of the average hedge fund and mutual fund operators -- who are better car salesmen than financial pundits, Roche writes --  who have fallen victim to the group think phenomenon, spawning the nearly perfect positive correlation to the major indexes, and thus, accounting for tax, inflation, and service adjustments, holistically wiping out any value added by their supposed market insight.  Roche also references popular studies, such as the MckInsey Global Institute's report whi

The Evils of Facebook in the War Against Reason

Facebook is one of the greatest frauds whereby thoughtless friends share or tacitly embrace ideas which, in doing so, adds personal, relatable flair to messages being distributed from largely unknown reporters.  In effect, these friends then subject a wider community to the thought that since their friends are supportive of such ideas, then they ought to carry some merit or authenticity.  Facebook commits a great disservice to communication, serving primarily to subject meaningful dialogue to inherently-binary measures of laudability or contemptibility.  Whereas scientific evaluation serves to extract emotion, Facebook serves to embolden the fallacy-ridden supposition that fact follows fanfare, that truth trails trendiness, and that democratic participation (by way of “likes” or “shares”) can reliably support truth or sustainably produce virtue. What's more, Facebook and other social media sites tend also to further the fallacy that the last breath, or more precisely the f