Thread: Perhaps this is why men earn more than women

Perhaps men earn more than women because they work harder.

How many women are expected to be the financial provider for their husbands? Not very many.
Does a women ever have to worry that her husband might leave her because she does not work hard enough and earn enough money? Never.

What is one of the first questions a woman asks on a date? "So, what do you do for work?"
When women are alone, they often talk about the financial situations of their husbands or boyfriends. I have actually seen this. How many men talk about their wives/girlfriends like this?

Why should it be so surprising that men are earning more than women?
Men are under much more pressure to earn money than women. Women simply expect much more from their husbands than men expect from wives.

It is not women that think women should be paid the same as men; It is feminists!
Feminists just have difficulty understanding that most other women hold expectations that their man financially provide for the family.

When a man is under intense pressure to earn more money and provide for the rest of his family, he is going to be much more willing to relocate to a new job in another area, more willing to take a job that has a longer commute time, and he is going to work harder at his job to try to get an advancement. Not to mention that men are willing to work in more boring or less pleasant jobs to earn more money. How many women would be willing to spend six months out on an oil platform in the middle of the North Sea?

Feminists complain that men are earning more than women. But these men are giving this money to their wives! The mormons have a saying: "The man earns the money and the woman spends it." How does it matter if men are earning more money than women? Women are still the ones spending this money!

Until society places such a burden of expectations on women, it seems unfair for women to expect to earn as much as men.

The gender quotas that have been used are mostly only concentrating job opportunity into just a handful of the career women that really are working as hard as men. Just as has been the experience in other forms of "affirmative action" in various other countries, quotas can actually increase inequality. The benefits from the quotas go mostly to an "upper crust" of the discriminated gender/ethnicity. There is no reason to take job opportunity away from men to give to childless career women that are already earning as much as men, just because most of the other women are not focusing on their careers as much as men.

In Norway, when the law suddenly required that 40 percent of a company's board of directors be women, there were not enough qualified women available, so the small number of qualified women suddenly found themselves with positions on multiple boards, earning extremely high incomes, even though they could not possible be fully fullfilling their responsibilities on so many of these boards.

from "The Economist":

The evidence from Norway, the first European country to impose strict quotas, suggests that compulsion has been bad for business. Norwegian boards, which were 9% female in 2003, were ordered to become 40% female within five years. Many reached that target by window-dressing. The proportion of board members in Norway who are female is nearly three times greater than the proportion of executive directors (see chart).

To obey the law, Norwegian firms promoted many women who were less experienced than the directors they had before. These new hires appear to have done a poor job. A study by Amy Dittmar and Kenneth Ahern of the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan found that firms that were forced to increase the share of women on their boards by more than ten percentage points saw one measure of corporate value (the ratio of market capitalisation to the replacement value of assets, known as Tobin’s Q) fall by 18%.

I support helping women, helping them achieve financial independance, and making it easier for them to start families. But gender quotas are NOT the solution.

In Norway for example, a single business woman, Mimi Berdal, sat on the board of 40 different companies at the same time! There were not enough qualified women available to comply with the law. So the few woman that did have experience were suddenly in huge demand. Obviously this did not do much to help all the other women.

South Africa had the same experiences when they used racial quotas to require that 50 percent of every publicly-traded corporation be owned by Blacks. There were only a small handful of Blacks that had the money to buy the corporate stock, and a select few suddenly became extremely wealthy, again doing virtually nothing to help all the other Blacks. This is how Patrice Motsepe became South Africa's wealthiest man.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

In Norway for example, a single business woman, Mimi Berdal, sat on the board of 40 different companies at the same time! There were not enough qualified women available to comply with the law. So the few woman that did have experience were suddenly in huge demand. Obviously this did not do much to help all the other women.

South Africa had the same experiences when they used racial quotas to require that 50 percent of every publicly-traded corporation be owned by Blacks. There were only a small handful of Blacks that had the money to buy the corporate stock, and a select few suddenly became extremely wealthy, again doing virtually nothing to help all the other Blacks. This is how Patrice Motsepe became South Africa's wealthiest man.

You sick misogynist bastard. How dare you question the tearing down of every social construct of society, regardless of whether it was positive or negative towards the advancement of that society.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

In Norway for example, a single business woman, Mimi Berdal, sat on the board of 40 different companies at the same time! There were not enough qualified women available to comply with the law. So the few woman that did have experience were suddenly in huge demand. Obviously this did not do much to help all the other women.

South Africa had the same experiences when they used racial quotas to require that 50 percent of every publicly-traded corporation be owned by Blacks. There were only a small handful of Blacks that had the money to buy the corporate stock, and a select few suddenly became extremely wealthy, again doing virtually nothing to help all the other Blacks. This is how Patrice Motsepe became South Africa's wealthiest man.

This is why forced government solutions don't work.

Wow … there’s some really suppress issues in this section.

I just want to go on Record; Ladies … I’m not in this Lonely Camp.

Originally Posted by Cigar

Wow … there’s some really suppress issues in this section.

I just want to go on Record; Ladies … I’m not in this Lonely Camp.

If you're looking to zuck up to the ladies here, I'm glad to inform you that all of these feminists are anything but what one would call a lady, and they're all more interested in what their lesbo lovers have to say over what you have to say. None of them are going to accept you into their lonely camp. Trust me on that one.

Originally Posted by Libhater

If you're looking to zuck up to the ladies here, I'm glad to inform you that all of these feminists are anything but what one would call a lady, and they're all more interested in what their lesbo lovers have to say over what you have to say. None of them are going to accept you into their lonely camp. Trust me on that one.

That’s fine with me …

Not only do I like Women, I like Women who Love Women; it’s a Win Win … Sport … get with the program.

Either way, I don’t disrespect Women … It’s a Values thing for me, not a Conservative Slogan.

No. Men earn more than women because women WANT to earn less than men (as a group). And this makes a lot of sense for women, by the way, because they undercut men with this and get more jobs than men. For centuries, starting with the textile industry, women were employed in greater numbers than men, because employers got them cheaper. This is still evident today, when in our current 2009 economic depression, women's unemployment didn't go nearly as far as men's.

Well my Wife make more than me ... and I'm fine with that, because she's in Sales and I'm not!

Video that interviews Norwegian men and women, to investigate why the different genders prefer to do different types of jobs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRd...eature=related

Notice how those in academia completely deny any possible genetic/biological differences and try to ascribe all gender differences to social conditioning. I find it rather amusing how far they try to take the ideology of equality, even to the point of denying the obvious. As if even the possibility of inherent psychological differences between the sexes is threatening to the notion of equality.