In a State of the Union brimming with double-speak and misleading statements, it was easy to overlook the president’s repetition of the tired canard that somehow “equal pay for equal work” still eludes women. He slipped it in in the middle, between the bold proclamation that we need to “encourage the talent and ingenuity of every person,” and a call for supporting those who aspire to be “the next Steve Jobs.”
In giving the shout-out to the cause of “equal pay,” he checked off one box from what must be a long list of “must mentions” for any Democrat delivering such an address.
Corner readers surely know that work and lifestyle choices — not systematic discrimination — drive differences in the average pay of men and women. Women take more time off from work, gravitate toward more stable, safer, lower-paying jobs, and work fewer hours than men do, so it’s hardly a surprise that they tend to earn less. When women make different choices, you see different outcomes. And in fact, younger women without children living in urban areas are increasingly out-earning their male counterparts. And of course, sex discrimination is already illegal, and those laws provide workers who are truly paid less for equal work with recourse.
Class warfare, not the battle between the sexes, underpinned the president’s address, and for good reason. Women’s unemployment rate has consistently remained below men’s during this economic downturn. Women’s higher rate of academic achievement suggests that the next generation of working women will continue to gain in the economy, while men struggle.
So the real question is, when will Democrats finally be allowed to drop this tired feminist mantra from major political addresses?
— Carrie Lukas is the managing director of the Independent Women’s Forum.
Agreed- Its a complete falsehood that women are disadvantaged in the work place- all i know is that as a white collar worker male i wish i was a woman when being considered for promotion as they get positive discrimination.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Women take more time off from work, gravitate toward more stable, safer, lower-paying jobs, and work fewer hours than men do, so it’s hardly a surprise that they tend to earn less."
Every study I've read controls for these variables. It's a fundamentally obvious distinction between the two groups that would need to be controlled for. I'm deeply skeptical that there would be a systematic failure to do so.
Has the IWF compiled a critique of the studies showing their flaws?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama keeps trying to get voters to believe he is working to make it illegal to pay women less than men for equal work. In fact, that has been the law since the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Obama's only related accomplishment is the Lily Ledbetter Act, which extended the time limit for filing a discrimination claim. (Ledbetter waited a whopping 19 years before deciding she was the victim of discrimination. The court ruled against her.)
The Democrats keep pushing this issue, but there is nothing to push. If you believe you are the victim of discrimination, file a claim with the EEOC - and have some proof to back up that claim. Otherwise, shut up and grow up. The simple truth is that many women choose careers that pay less. Yes, a female kindergarten teacher earns less than the head of IBM - but so does a male kindergarten teacher. I know many women who earn more than I do, and it never occurred to me to claim discrimination. They are simply worth more in the labor market because of their skills, education, and experience.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse