Barack Obama and Equal Pay for Women

By Selwyn Duke

What do you call a man who sermonizes about the evils of paying women less than men but allows that very practice in his own office? While a certain unflattering noun would leap to the minds of most, we can now apply a proper one: Barack Obama.

Although the Illinois senator has vowed to make pay equity between the sexes a priority in his administration, it has been revealed that he doesn’t practice what he preaches. Writes CNSNEWS.com:

“On average, women working in Obama’s Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator . . . . Of the five people in Obama's Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one – Obama’s administrative manager – was a woman.”

Now, some might call Obama a hypocrite. Isn’t he guilty of the very invidious discrimination he claims plagues America? It’s certainly easy to take this tack, and many on my side will have a field day doing so. Yet, such an analysis only qualifies us for a job such as, well, working in a leftist senator’s office. Let’s look a little deeper.

Treating this topic recently, I cited member of the fairer sex Carrie Lukas, who wrote:

All the relevant factors that affect pay – occupation, experience, seniority, education and hours worked – are ignored [by those citing the wage gap]. This sound-bite statistic fails to take into account the different roles that work tends to play in men's and women's lives.

In truth, I'm the cause of the wage gap – I and hundreds of thousands of women like me. I have a good education and have worked full time for 10 years. Yet throughout my career, I've made things other than money a priority. I chose to work in the nonprofit world because I find it fulfilling. I sought out a specialty and employer that seemed best suited to balancing my work and family life. When I had my daughter, I took time off and then opted to stay home full time and telecommute. I'm not making as much money as I could, but I'm compensated by having the best working arrangement I could hope for.

Women make similar trade-offs all the time. Surveys have shown for years that women tend to place a higher priority on flexibility and personal fulfillment than do men, who focus more on pay. Women tend to avoid jobs that require travel or relocation, and they take more time off and spend fewer hours in the office than men do.

I then added:

To expand on this, women are more likely to decline promotions citing familial responsibilities; tend to gravitate toward lower-paying fields (e.g., favoring social sciences over hard ones); and, according to US Census Bureau statistics, full-time men average 2,213 working hours a year versus only 1,796 for "full-time" women. Thus, the same data telling us women earn less than men also explains why.

So it’s entirely possible that Senator Obama is a sexist, misogynistic creep who gleefully rubs his hands together and laughs demonically while scheming to persecute his female employees. Maybe he has nothing better to do. But far more likely is that the aforementioned factors explain his office’s inter-sex pay differential. Perhaps his male employees work more hours, have been more likely to accept promotions involving greater responsibility, have more experience, sacrificed “personal fulfillment” and instead chose more lucrative fields, and/or have greater seniority. Whatever the reasons, I’m quite sure of one thing: The phenomenon is attributable to natural, market-based factors and not a conscious desire to disenfranchise women.

Of course, I could nonetheless level charges of invidious discrimination in an effort to score political points – just as the senator has done. Instead, though, I will extend him a fairness that he denies to the millions of American businessmen he demonizes through implication. That is the right thing to do, Mr. Obama.

Ironically, fairness is what leftists claim to want to achieve when issuing their feminist, 77-cents-on-a-dollar rallying cry. Yet this is an often ambiguous concept. “OK, Duke,” you say, “you want specificity? How about equal pay for equal work?” Well, that’s an interesting concept.

I once read that female fashion models earn three times as much as their male peers. Then, it’s well-known that heavyweight boxers make more than lightweights. Would you support government intervention to ensure pay equity among fashion models and boxers? I mean, as for the latter, lightweights have to train as hard and also endure ruinous blows.

Of course, you might point out that to succeed in the lightweight division, you only have to beat lightweights, but to keep your teeth in the heavyweight division, you have to beat heavyweights, a more difficult task. So it’s fair, isn’t it?

I agree, but often fairness is reckoned very differently when the lower-paid group has been assigned victim status. For instance, in tennis, there long was talk about the “grave injustice” of offering female players less prize money at Grand Slam events. Yet it’s the same as in boxing. Whether or not the women train as hard, the fact remains that to succeed in women’s tennis, they only have to vanquish women, not the far stiffer competition on the men’s tour. Thus, in either sport, it’s ridiculous to rally for equal pay based on an equality argument because the systems are inherently unequal, in that both lightweight boxers and female tennis players are offered an arena in which to compete that excludes the best competition. Yet the competitors do have recourse. If lightweights want the glory and purses of the heavyweights, they can move up into that division. Likewise, if the women want the men’s money, they should play on the men’s tour.

Yet this doesn’t explain the discrimination against male fashion models in an industry where all and sundry compete in the same arena. They all do “equal work,” don’t they? Perhaps, and this is the problem with advocating social engineering in the name of fairness.

What we earn has nothing to do with idealistic notions of fairness but is determined by the value the market – our fellow citizens, in other words – assigns to our labors. Is it fair that rap thugs and sports stars earn more than doctors and teachers? Is it fair that mainstream media propagandists who peddle the wage-gap myth earn more than an alternative-media journalist who tries to debunk it (well, that’s not fair!)? Not just female fashion models but also heavyweight boxers and male tennis players earn more money for one reason, and one reason only. It has nothing to do with performing more arduous work but because the market values them more highly.

At the end of the day, the only question is who will determine wages and on what basis? Should it be 300 million citizens or a small number of politicians and bureaucrats, a market democracy or market autocracy? In other words, all of us, every day – through what we buy, watch and show interest in – essentially “vote” on what will get produced, how much people get paid, etc. Are we fair? Again, fairness is a hard thing to reckon. I can’t boast about our embrace of shock jocks and reality television, but I will use a variation on a famous Winston Churchill line: Market democracy is the worst system in the world . . . except for all the rest. I’ll take the “unfairness” of the market over that of pseudo-elite politicians any day. Now let’s contrast these two models.

Actually, the market does in fact discriminate. It compensates those who work longer hours, accept greater responsibility and risk, and prevail over stiffer competition more than those who don’t, for instance. (This is why I used the modifier “invidious,” meaning “likely to create ill will,” earlier in this piece – not all discrimination is created equal.) And, as I illustrated, certain groups benefit from this moral discrimination, such as heavyweight boxers and men. Then there are groups privileged simply because of what they are, such as female fashion models (however, “what they are” makes their employers more money). Now, I ask again, should the government intervene on behalf of lightweight boxers and/or male fashion models?

Regardless of your answer, a Big Brother market autocracy won’t. What it will do is train its sights on only politically-incorrect targets, such as men. Thus, in the name of eliminating discrimination, statists are creating second-class groups which are told that they alone may not enjoy compensation commensurate with the market’s assessment of their worth, simply because it’s fashionable to discriminate against them. You see, when jockeying for votes by playing group politics, some groups must be cast as villains. And guess what, men, you’re one of them.

Now that’s what I call invidious.

Not surprisingly, this social engineering is already having an effect. In this article, writer Carey Roberts explains:

Female physicists are getting $6,500 more [than men]. Co-eds who majored in petroleum engineering are being offered $4,400 more. And women computer programmers are being enticed with $7,200 extra pay. In fact for dozens of majors and occupations, women coming out of college are getting better offers than men . . . .

Why these disparities? Because in traditionally male-dominated professions, employers are willing to ante up more greenbacks to attract females in order to forestall a costly discrimination lawsuit.

And this is just the beginning. The left will never acknowledge that men earn more due to legitimate market forces, and since trumping those forces isn’t easy, expect more government action to achieve “fairness.” I wrote about this in my piece, the one I cited earlier:

. . . we can see a glimpse of the future in Norway, a land synonymous with über-feminism. In 2002, the nation embraced affirmative action on steroids, mandating that 40 percent of corporate boardroom members must be female. Since only seven percent were prior to this social engineering, just imagine how many highly qualified men are now denied jobs in the name of complying with this quota.

The implications of such government meddling are more profound than you may think, in that it harms women and children as well. As I went on to explain:

. . . as we force employers to deny positions, promotions and pay raises to qualified men in order to satisfy social engineers, many men will no longer be able to fulfill their obligation to put bread on the table. And this hurts the traditional family, forcing women out of the home to compensate for their now financially handicapped husbands and relegating children to day-care centers . . . . [And] It means, ladies, that your husbands, brothers and sons will find it increasingly difficult to get a fair shake in this Norway-quota brave new world.

So we can choose the discrimination of the market’s meritocracy or that of the statists’ bureaucracy. I, for one, will settle on the people’s determinations every time.

I say this even if they do sometimes give us things such as rap thugs, reality television, and Barack Obama.

                Protected by Copyright

Comments

[democrat]

"...it hurts the traditional family..."
Selwyn, you are such a loser. It's not saying much for "stronger" men when they advocate unequal pay in arenas where there's really no legitimate reason for it, other than women look for careers based on work-family balance. This may also explain why they typically live longer, due to the fact that men spend all this time at work, being stress out, and dying of heart disease.
At some point, you must admit that all men, including Obama, are afraid of women challenging their authority. It's also no secret that men find it easier to talk to other men and are not willing, most times, to go outside of their comfort zones.
And with the prices of gas, food, and everything else increasing, most families need two incomes to survive. I know that you hate this fact Selwyn, but it's not the 1950's. Get over it!

[well-paid working woman]

Well written and thoughtful, once again.

I am a 36-year old woman (currently living in Sonoma County, CA) who has worked in a male dominated industry for the past 10 years, a single mom for the first 8 of those 10 years.

My male coworkers work VERY long hours. Not a pansy 8-hour day with a one-hour lunch and how many ever 15 minute breaks they should take. With those long hours comes greater responsibility and greater risk to our company and their individual incomes. (80%, at least, have wives at home raising the kids, like the 1950's-rare in today's society)

As my time in the industry has grown, so has my pay, flexibility with hours and ability to be with my daughter. In no way do I find that I am a victim of society for being a female, in fact just the opposite. My need be to work fewer hours than the rest of my male coworkers meant I worked harder when I was there.

I have achieved respect the old-fashioned way...I earned it. Long live the "unfairness of the market".

[Joe]

What do you expect from a Democrat? Next thing he’ll be saying is, “No new taxes.” And “Mission Accomplished!”

[democrat]

Joe, I believe you have it all wrong. Both of those were the famous, well-spoken quotes from Republicans......and related republicans at that!

[democrat]

And "well-paid working woman," you may think that you are getting paid well, but believe me, you're not getting paid what they are, and "you earned it."

[Alice Alger]

Re: well-paid working woman

What an inspirational story! Hard work and perseverance again paying off in the arena of the marketplace. And on the part of a woman too! Someone who had to work harder than the men, (when she was there) so she could devote sweet time to motherhood. And now, after ten years of toil, struggle, commitment and devotion…Now, she has achieved (That is what’s missing in our society today, isn’t it; Achievement?)…Now, she has achieved a stunning salary. And respect. And the pride of knowing that yes, (wipe away the tear here)…she has, all by herself... Earned it!

[well-paid working woman]

to democrat.....No I am not getting paid what they are and you know what, I am okay with that because they are working to keep the mothers of their babies at home. That you could never make enough money to compensate for.

[democrat]

HELLO...This is not 1957, and unless those women want to stay at home, they shouldn't be required to just because someone's ego requires it. And actually, the fact that someone gets paid on their sex or other superficial bases isn't alright for those who believe that their work ethics are either equal or surpass those they compete against. And just in case you didn't know it well-paid-working woman, the t.v. does come in color now.

There's no use debating liberals on this topic (or most others). They would love nothing more than for every man and woman to work all day, leaving the children to be cared for (read: programmed) by the state. Democrat, did it ever occur to you that by staying home and raising healthy, virtuous children, that the accomplishments of women equal or even surpass those of the man that works in an office all day? There's more to life than money and power, my friend. The wisest of women know this...that's why their children are usually the most well-adjusted. It's not a matter of "being required to just because someone's ego requires it" -- it's about choice and personal fulfillment.

[democrat]

So, a parent staying home will automatically produce "healthy, virtuous children." That's a newsflash to me because if you look at the examples of most conservative, especially conservative Christians, their children grow up to be the most unadjusted, unhealthy children and adults known to this planet. So really, it makes no difference if a parent stays home or not if that parent isn't instilling values into their children, what's the use in them staying home? It takes a lot more to raising children than just "staying home." And as a matter of fact, both of my parents worked and I wasn't "programmed" by the state. And anyone with sense knows that the reason men and women are paid differently for the same jobs has nothing to do with being less skilled, and everything to do with the "bread winner" mentality. As I said before, if that's the choice someone wants to make, fine, but if in fact it's made for them just so that an ego will have room in the house, that's not healthy for the adults involved, or the children who now grow up thinking that someone's projected shortcomings is the key to a healthy relationship.

"...if you look at the examples of most conservative, especially conservative Christians, their children grow up to be the most unadjusted, unhealthy children and adults known to this planet."

That's flat out untrue, unless you consider a conservative worldview to be the mark of maladjustment (which I suspect you do).

"And as a matter of fact, both of my parents worked and I wasn't "programmed" by the state."

Judging from your comments on this blog, I'd say the programming was a success.

[John]

Democrat, no one is more programmed or more prejudiced than you are. You said "the reason men and women are paid differently for the same jobs has nothing to do with being less skilled, and everything to do with the "bread winner" mentality." Well, Duke proved both with anecdotal evidence and labor department statistics that this isn't true. Women are paid less because they work fewer hours and make different decisions about careers. But you don't care about facts because they're not in line with your agenda. Yes, you've been programmed very well.

[democrat]

As a matter of fact "no name," everyone who is looking at this world through a clear lens knows that Christians, and especially those who call themselves Conservatives, are some of the most judgemental people you could ever meet. After all, just look at the foot-tapping, sexually deviant representatives you have in the government who are a part of the GOP. Look at Rush Limbaugh, who is no better than anyone he criticizes, as he is a drug addict himself. Conservatives are some of the most judgemental people, and really, they have no room. As far as John is concerned, if anyone has been programmed, it's you. Everything that Selwyn writes isn't true to form. Yes, women may take different career paths, and some women may work fewer hours, but these differences still don't account for the percentage gap that exists between the wages of men and women. Your excuse for the inexistence of wage discrimination is as stupid as denying any other -ism that we have here in America.

How is being judgmental a criterion for maladjustment exactly? Passing judgment on immoral and unhealthy behaviors discourages people from engaging in them. I would argue that being judgmental is, to an extent, a mark of compassion.

Based on your arguments about Larry Craig and Limbaugh, however, it seems that what you're trying to say is that conservative Christians are hypocritical in their judgmentalism. There's really nothing I can say on that topic that hasn't already been said here:

http://selwynduke.homestead.com/AreChristians.html

[Zack]

Women get paid less because God doesn't want them to to have jobs. Woman was made to be man's helpmate and to bear God's greatist gift, children. That is what they should be in society, not breadwinners.

[democrat]

Personally Zack, I feel sorry for the woman who gave birth to you. If God didn't want them to have jobs, He would have specifically said so, He definitely doesn't need you to interpret whatever it is that He meant. Furthermore, the bible says the we are to obey the law of the land, and that law specifically states that no discrimination based on sex, race, or any other personal -ism be the basis for pay discrimination. And to all who are reading this post, notice the rhetoric in which Zack is using. This is exactly why there is unequal pay because some of the men who think this way are in higher positions and making these decisions about your daughters, mothers, etc. And he also proves my point that some men, like himself, don't want to look across the board and see women sitting there. It's funny how you "conservatives" and "christians" prove liberal points the longer you keep running off at your big, fat lips!

[well-paid working woman]

democrat: I attended church last week for the first time in.....oh three years (maybe), excluding weddings and funerals, which ultimately doesn't count. So I am not the christian fundamentalist you are identifying. Jump off your high horse for a moment and lose your preconceived notions of christians and conservatives holding down women. Does that exist??? Of course it does, in ANY demographic it exists. I am thinking of a name............SPITZER.

What shall I become if my achievements are based on victimization? Screw that, I will continue to work hard....we have come along way since the 50's (thankfully) and when my daughter is my age she will have more opportunities BECAUSE I WORKED HARD.

Stop whining.

I can't help but wonder if you are a complaining female or an elitist male.....

[well-paid working woman]

no name: Thank you for sharing the article "Are Christians Hypocrites". My father is a devout christian and I battle with his beliefs at times, this is insightful.

[Zack]

Democrat,

What is wrong with you man? The other kids take your lunch money at school? Push you around? Lock you in your locker for an extended period on a hot day? You have got to shake off that incessant whine of yours and start talking like a grown up. (Now I don’t mean that in bad way.)

You’re sorry for my mother, are you? Well don’t be. She’s in her sixties and I’m sure she could mop the floor with you. So, take a break until you’re ready to engage in adult conversation. You know the old rule, “children should be seen and not heard.” Or in your case read.

Zack

[democrat]

I was wondering the same about you Zack! Couldn't get a date with anybody except your zit medication on Saturday nights? Seems to me as if you mom is the only woman who will listen to you. Maybe you should come back whenever you're ready for adult conversation because what I'm saying to you is well above you head.
And well paid working woman, don't worry about what I am, but I know what you are!

[Zack]

Democrat,

No, you weren’t wondering anything of the sort about me. Not even a good try. I’ll leave you alone though. You’ve got enough on your hands with well-paid working woman. Be nice, or she might just give you another spanking; which of course, you sorely deserve.

God Bless,
Zack

[democrat]

Come on Zack, don't quit now!!! Not when all of the fun is just beginning. What's the matter, Hand getting tired? Can it not multitask between blogging and keeping you warm at night? Neither you nor "working woman" can handle me on your best days. Out of all the scandels between politicians, all she can come up with is either Clinton (from 8+ years ago) or Spitzer. Please, you guys have enough or YOUR plates with trying to cover up for the embarrassements you call representatives on your team.

[Zack]

democrat:

You vulgar little snot, you actually think the drivel you put up on this site has some meaning; like you’re adding to something and that people are impressed with your sissy wit. This is all you have isn’t it, airing your superiority on a blog read by a total of six people. What a pathetic blowhard you are! You aren’t bright enough even to be embarrassed by your own cornball ravings. I’ll bet you posted your last piece to me and patted yourself on the back, thinking that once again you got it over on somebody. Yes, you’re a real progressive crusader; though I’ll bet you’re timid as hell in person, aren’t you punk?

Zack

[well-paid working woman]

demobrat: I never mentioned Clinton......and the last thing I would ever do is profess perfection in any party. You are smart enough to know that is a pointless battle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLnu8lferFQ&feature=related

[democrat]

working woman, while you never mentioned Clinton, I know you were thinking it, because really, that's all you have. All you guys can do is continue to beat a dead horse. And compared to the nutjob we have in office now, getting a little blowjob on the side is nothing compared to sending our men and women off to die over oil.