So, the wage gap is true. Only, it’s men who earn less

Originally posted at David Horowitz’s NewsReal

The Left is still busily trumpeting the fallacy-filled idea of there being a wage gap in favor of men. In fact, the DNC recently sent out an email once again attempting to promulgate this lie, on the 90th Anniversary of Women’s Suffrage, no less. Hey, never waste a Crisis ™, real or imagined, and also never waste a chance to totally use women, right, Lefties? Have to keep those women in line! By in line, I, of course, mean completely shrouded in a veil of nanny state neediness and victim-hood.


As I said in my article about the 90th Anniversary of Women’s Suffrage, the woe-is-us “wage gap” myth has been shattered, despite the Left’s attempt to cover up pesky things like facts and figures and such. Math is hard:

They’ve gone so far as to scrub reports from the Labor Department itself that shatter this myth:

CONSAD found that controlling for career interruption and other factors reduced the pay gap from about 20 percent to about 5 percent. Data limitations prevented it from considering many other factors. For example, the data did not permit an examination of total compensation, which would examine health insurance and other benefits, and instead focused solely on wages paid. The data were also limited with respect to work experience, job tenure, and other factors.

The Labor Department’s conclusion was that the gender pay gap was the result of a multitude of factors and that the “raw wage gap should not be used as the basis for [legislative] correction. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers.”

What? Individual choice? That’s unheard of. Well, unless the choice is killing an unborn child, natch. Time Magazine is now even admitting the gender wage gap against women is unfounded. And, in fact, that some women are presently out-earning men. According to Time, we should think this is super awesome. They even titled the article “At Last, Women On Top“.  (I think that’s supposed to be titillating and edgy):


According to a new analysis of 2,000 communities by a market research company, in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of young women are 8% higher than those of the guys in their peer group….

Here’s the slightly deflating caveat: this reverse gender gap, as it’s known, applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities. The rest of working women — even those of the same age, but who are married or don’t live in a major metropolitan area — are still on the less scenic side of the wage divide.

Time, while excited about “women being on top”, still whines that it’s not every demographic of women across the board. But,  if it was, why would that be a reason to rejoice? Not content with just reporting something factually, Time Magazine had to editorialize and, in true Lefty fashion, showed their absolute idiocy. National Review sums it up:

As this new research shows, it’s women’s (and men’s) attributes and career choices that determine earnings. Yet there’s something troubling about Time‘s tone, which suggests that we should all be celebrating the idea of women dominating the workplace. To the extent that this trend is driven by men losing jobs and remaining out of work, and young men failing to attain the skills needed to meaningfully contribute to the economy, this is not good news at all.

Of course, we all want women to have the opportunity to compete and succeed in whatever profession they choose. But we want the same to be true for men. Furthermore, given that some women still wish to stay home or reduce their workload in order to spend time raising children, women’s higher earnings may actually be a symptom of hardship: More women are having to work more since the men in their lives can’t provide for the family alone or because they are providing for themselves.


Why would anyone rejoice at the prospect of a reverse wage gap? Why celebrate the sure to continue trend – based on education trends and business trends – of  men earning less? Contrary to the opinion of those who believe that men are the root of all evil and the only thing holding us back from Utopia, it is not a good thing if men are finding it harder to provide for their families. I know. That’s probably my self-loathing and gender traitor-iness talking.

Or maybe it’s reality and common sense talking. No good can come when there are large groups of men who are only under-employable, if employable at all. Nor from mothers who may be forced to work instead of staying home with their children, if they choose to do so.

I’m quite certain that Rosie the Riveter wasn’t meant to permanently replace Roger the Riveter. Well, until the government intervened to “help,” of course.


Originally posted at NewsReal.

Follow Lori  on Twitter

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on HotAir Videos