GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Powered by Genesis

The gender pay gap: a myth?

February 24, 2015 by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism)

Like others, I don’t care much about the Oscars. But I understand that Patricia Arquette made a stir on Sunday night, with her speech about “All women deserve equal pay”.

Let’s be clear: Women and men absolutely deserve equal pay, when we’re talking about equal work. That is: work of the same category and experience level, that either a woman or man could do, done with equally good results, under equally good (or bad) conditions.

The point of contention is: Are left-wing feminists really talking about that? Are they correct to claim a large gender gap exists? And are left-wing politicians correct, when they claim to be the answer?

Powerline reminds us of research from 2011 about the gender gap being a myth. And also how, on the surface at least, Hillary and Obama are hypocrites – for example, Hillary has paid her women 72 cents on the dollar (compared to her men). While left-wing hypocrisy is a delightfully inexhaustible subject, the first piece is most interesting for the points it makes.

Basically, research supports the idea that men *on average* tend to choose more dangerous (or less popular) careers; more stressful specializations within the same career; and more uncomfortable and undesirable work locations. And tend (on average) to work longer hours including more nights and weekends, and to take fewer lengthy mid-career breaks. When adjusted for such factors, the gender pay gap disappears – or even turns slightly in favor of women.

If you disagree, please feel free to post your facts/logic in the comments.

UPDATE: Peter Schiff makes a good point, that if he *could* pay a woman less for the same work, women would have a competitive advantage. He “would be an idiot to hire a man” – and would gladly hire nothing but women. He doesn’t, because it just isn’t so. (At least in financial services. Maybe, over in show business, George Clooney’s career will indeed age better than Patricia Arquette’s.)

UPDATE: At the same link, Schiff adds, “in adult entertainment [as opposed to Arquette/Hollywood] women are paid much more…this disparity has nothing to do with discrimination…The porn audience cares about the female stars…So pay rates reflect market forces…I wonder if at the next Adult Video News awards a male winner will demand equal pay during his acceptance speech?”

Filed Under: Annoying Celebrities, Arrogance of the Liberal Elites, Equality (Real or Faux?), Hillary Clinton, Obama Arrogance Tagged With: Annoying Celebrities, Arrogance of the Liberal Elites, Equality (Real or Faux?), feminism, gender pay gap, Hillary Clinton, Obama arrogance, women's rights

Even Michelangelo Signorile shows No Self-Awareness

April 4, 2014 by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism)

In the comments to V’s post, Even Andrew Sullivan Is Disgusted with the Gay Left, commenter Donny D has kindly pointed us to Signorile’s scoop that proves the Left’s sincerity about rainbows and tolerance:

Dear Andrew Sullivan, ‘Left-Liberal Intolerance’ Did Not Bring Down Mozilla’s CEO…

According to Sullivan, the gay mafia has struck again, destroying [Mozilla ex-CEO Brendan Eich] and bringing him down because he would not conform to its thinking…

But…it wasn’t the Prop 8 contribution, and Eich’s refusal to renounce it, that eventually did Eich in. He was being defended by company executives…Eich only announced he was stepping down after it was revealed late Wednesday that he’d given money to Pat Buchanan’s presidential campaign in 1992, and later to Ron Paul’s campaign…

It all just became too much for Mozilla to bear…It’s about a company based in Northern California that has many progressive employees…

Get it? In Signorile’s world,

  • left-wing progressives *are not* a Mafia that viciously hounds anybody who deviates from their orthodoxy of thought…
  • because left-wing progressives *did not* destroy Eich over his crimethinkful deviation on Prop 8 (a deviation shared by a great many Obama supporters that year, 2008)…
  • rather, left-wing progressives destroyed Eich over his crimethinkful deviations on Ron Paul, and on Pat Buchanan way back in 1992.

Which deviations naturally merit a campaign of personal destruction, making the destruction perfectly understandable within a proper concept of tolerance. (cough)

To be clear, I don’t like what Buchanan stood for in the 1992 campaign, either. But “that was then” and, rather more importantly, I get it that freedom is a 2-way street. “Freedom means freedom for everybody.”

And Signorile’s use of Ron Paul is fascinating. Signorile is saying, in effect, that consistent support for small government and individual liberty (what Paul stands for) is unforgiveable. Boy, I sure am impressed with the Left’s wonderful tolerance for freedom of thought, now.

Filed Under: Equality (Real or Faux?), Ideas & Trends, Liberal Hypocrisy, Liberal Intolerance Tagged With: brendan eich, Equality (Real or Faux?), Ideas & Trends, Liberal Hypocrisy, Liberal Intolerance, Michelangelo Signorile, pat buchanan, ron paul, thoughtcrime

More leftists run amok

March 21, 2014 by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism)

After V’s posts on the progressive, feminist lesbian who stands with the religion that actually oppresses women, and the transsexual who feels that her sex change operation should get her off the hook for murder, I thought I’d throw in a couple more examples.

1) In Michigan, a teachers’ union contract openly discriminates against men, whites, and Christians. From the Ferndale school district’s clause about promotions:

Special consideration shall be given to women and/or minority defined as: Native American, Asian American, Latino, African American and those of the non-Christian faith.

I could note the poor construction, and the apparent ignorance of the fact that many Latinos are part of what progressives would call “white privilege”. But what’s far more disturbing is that teachers – or, a school district – could be so disrespectful of basic American legal, civic and moral principles.

2) There’s more on that bossy left-wing professor who assaulted a pro-life, 16 year old girl last week in Santa Barbara. From the police report:

In essence, Miller-Young told me that she felt “triggered” by the images on the posters…

Miller-Young said that she and others began demanding that the images be taken down. Miller-Young said that the demonstrators refused. At which point, Miller-Young said that she “just grabbed it [the sign] from this girl’s hands.” Asked if there had been a struggle, Miller-Young stated, “I’m stronger so I was able to take the poster.”…

Miller-Young went on to say that because the poster was upsetting…she felt that the [pro-life] activists did not have the right to be there…

I told Miller-Young that I appreciated the fact that she felt traumatized by the [pro-life] imagery but that her response constituted a violation of law…

Miller-Young replied that [the pro-lifers] coming to campus and showing “graphic imagery” [in common areas] was insensitive to the community…

Miller-Young also suggested that the group had violated her rights. I asked Miller-Young what right the group had violated. Miller-Young responded, “My personal right to go to work and not be in harm.”

Miller-Young elaborated that one of the reasons she had felt so alarmed by this imagery is because she is about to have the test for Down Syndrome. Miller-Young said. “I work here, why do they get to intervene in that?”

I explained to Miller-Young that vandalism, battery and robbery had occurred…

Get it? Mireille Miller-Young wants to get off the hook for alleged acts of vandalism, battery and robbery because *her feelers were hurt*.

Miller-Young could potentially have a Down Syndrome baby that she might then want to abort, and how dare anyone take (or publicize) any stance that might make her feel guilt over that? Telling Miller-Young your truth (remember when lefties used to love the idea of everyone ‘telling their truth’?) is now “harm” to her that justifies her use of physical violence.

This looks to me like a classic case of a woman who might have a personality disorder, seeking to control/abuse other people. God bless the sane policeman!


Now for some better items. The Delaware Supreme Court has upheld self-protection rights for residents of public housing. And they were unanimous. Remember, the criminal residents already had guns, so this ruling is a help to the law-abiding residents.

And in California, three Asian-American State senators thankfully blocked an effort to bring back racial discrimination in college admissions, after California voters had rejected it in 1996.

Filed Under: Abortion, aborting gays, Equality (Real or Faux?), Leftist Nutjobs, Liberalism Run Amok, Racism (Real / Reverse / or Faux), Social Issues Tagged With: "Reverse Racism", aborting gays, abortion, Equality (Real or Faux?), ferndale school district, Leftist Nutjobs, Liberalism Run Amok, Mireille Miller-Young, Social Issues

Harassment, censorship and disease

March 14, 2014 by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism)

Some quick links.

  • More LGBTQ harassment stories had to be recanted? Sadly, yes. One hoax by a teen in CA, another hoax by a teen in the UK.
  • In more UK news, the BBC censors a LGBTQ question about free speech(!), lest homophobic Muslims be offended. America’s future?
  • In more Islamic news, it appears that CODEPINK founder Medea Benjamin was harassed…by the police of a Muslim country’s airport jail. She was traveling to help the Palestinians, against liberal and highly-tolerant Israel. Ironic?
  • Depressing: CDC warns that gonorrhea is on the verge of being untreatable.
  • Something lighter: chicks have officially discovered the pastime of “groin gazing”. (cough)

Thanks to reader Peter H, for about half the items!

Filed Under: Equality (Real or Faux?), Free Speech, Health & medical, Islamic Intolerance, Liberal Dhimmitude, Social Issues, Transgender Issues Tagged With: codepink, Equality (Real or Faux?), Free Speech, gonorrhea, Health & medical, Islamic Intolerance, Liberal Dhimmitude, medea benjamin, Social Issues, Transgender Issues

New Mexico gets it wrong

August 25, 2013 by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism)

Via Ace and Breitbart, NM’s Supreme Court has ruled that New Mexico law compels photographers who religiously disbelieve in gay marriage to serve gay weddings.

If the law does: Then it’s a bad law, a law that violates natural human rights to freedom of association and to freely-chosen work. It is not good for gays; picture a gay photographer being required by law to serve the wedding of some social conservative whom he or she despises.

Filed Under: Equality (Real or Faux?), Freedom, Gay America, Gay Marriage Tagged With: Equality (Real or Faux?), freedom, Gay America, gay marriage, new mexico, new mexico supreme court, photography

Bradley/Chelsea Manning: Should we care?

August 25, 2013 by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism)

All week, I’ve had a nagging feeling that the GP blog should say something on this…but what? And why? After all, it’s just celebrity nonsense.

But I will make this easy observation: If Manning likes men, and always felt herself to be a woman, then she was never actually a gay man whose struggle with homosexuality drove her actions. She was/is just a straight woman who broke her oath.

Filed Under: Annoying Celebrities, Equality (Real or Faux?), Gay Victimization, Gays In Military, Leftist Nutjobs Tagged With: Annoying Celebrities, bradley manning, chelsea manning, Equality (Real or Faux?), Gay Victimization, Gays In Military, Leftist Nutjobs

On long discussions and gay-related policy news

August 19, 2013 by Kurt

Jeff’s brief post on Friday linking to a piece in The Onion has generated one of the longer discussion threads here in recent months at GayPatriot.  At the risk of mischaracterizing or oversimplifying it, much of the discussion has centered around the policy goals of gay activists of various stripes, as well as whether or not, criticizing or finding fault with some of those goals means one sympathizes with the aims of various anti-gay activists.

I think it is well-known to most regular readers that several of the contributors at GayPatriot, for instance, are either ambivalent or agnostic about the policy questions regarding same-sex marriage.  I, for one, feel that the courts are the wrong place for the argument over so-called “marriage equality” to proceed and that it is better taken up through the legislative process.  Likewise, I don’t feel that one needs to call it marriage if doing so antagonizes a significant portion of the populace who feel that marriage has a traditional meaning which they would rather not modify.  I’ve said before and I’ll say again that what we’re really talking about when we talk about same-sex marriage is a matter of  1). how the state recognizes a contractual relationship between two individuals, and 2). whether or not it has any business granting special privileges to those in a “traditional marriage” which it does not grant to others.  I’d argue that a debate that focused on the desirability of certain policy choices would be much more productive and much more worthwhile than one centered on emotional claims about “rights” and “equality.”  I’d also say that a more dispassionate debate about the implications of policy is more in keeping with both conservative and libertarian principles.

My aim today, though, is not to revisit that debate or to consider the implications of the recent Supreme Court decisions on those issues (though I’m still planning to do so in a future post), but to bring up some of the questions raised by the fact that today New Jersey became the second state (after California) to ban “conversion therapy” for gay youths.  My personal view on the issue is that “conversion therapy” doesn’t work in most cases and, to the extent that it is practiced, it should really only be viewed as an option for adults who choose to willingly commit to it.  In other words, New Jersey’s ban is in accord with my personal view on the matter, and yet, for philosophical reasons, I’m still bothered by some aspects of the legislation.

Neo-neocon expresses reservations similar to mine when she writes:

It is no use pretending that therapy—and the licensing of therapists by the state—is not at least partly a political endeavor subject to political fashion rather than a science. Nor should therapists be completely unrestricted. For example, therapists are already prohibited from sexual contact with patients—even willing patients, even adult patients—because it is considered inherently exploitative. But the most harmful practices that could be used by conversion therapists (for example, electric shock) could be banned without banning the entire enterprise. And as the articles point out, mainstream therapy organizations have already condemned conversion therapy and do not advocate it.

But apparently none of that would be enough for the advocates of this bill; the therapy itself must be defined by the government as inherently and unfailingly abusive (what’s next, taking children away from parents who don’t applaud and celebrate their gayness?) As the nanny state grows, so will these essentially political moves by the government. This bill opens the door for a host of governmental abuses in which the state dictates the enforcement of politically correct thought through the mechanism of so-called therapy, and therapists become the instruments by which the public is indoctrinated in what is currently politically acceptable and what is verboten.

Chilling, indeed.

At the risk of invoking the “slippery-slope” argument, I can’t see a way around the concerns that Neo-neocon expresses.  I’d have preferred to let the market regulate itself without getting the state involved in this way.  Once the state has weighed in on this question, though, where can we expect it to weigh in next, and will it ever stop trying to regulate the way parents raise their children?  I can’t see that it ever will.

It’s an unfortunate reality that many gay kids grow up in homes that are not especially loving, nurturing or supportive.   The state, though, is none of those things, either, no matter what the expressed intentions of lawmakers might be.  Increasing the reach of the state into individual lives should not be a comfort to any of us.

Filed Under: Conservative Ideas, Constitutional Issues, Equality (Real or Faux?), Family, Gay Conservatives (Homocons), Gay Marriage, Gay Politics, Gays & religion, Gays / Homosexuality (general), Liberty Tagged With: Conservative Ideas, Equality (Real or Faux?), gay marriage, Gay politics, gays & religion, Homosexuality (General), LGBT Youth, liberty

Categories

Archives