ANTI-FAMILY WOMEN’S ORGANIZATIONS continue to repeat the nonsense that women are paid less than men because of discrimination. Heidi Hartmann, president of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, has gone so far as to say that marriage is bad for women and the government should not promote it. Instead, the government should “equalize” earnings and subsidize child care. Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, agrees that marriage often does not “produce good outcomes.”

The truth is, women are paid less than men because they choose to work fewer hours. They prefer less stressful jobs because of family responsibilities. Men are paid more because men work  longer hours and at more demanding jobs. A recent study by a British economist, Catherine Hakim, includes copious statistics to demonstrate these realities. The vast majority of women, Hakim contends, do not want full-time paid employment through adulthood. (Unfortunately, this study has been widely interpreted in the British press to mean that most women want to marry a rich man, as if marrying a wealthy man is the only way to avoid being a working mother.)

There is unfair discrimination for women, in the form of sex discrimination laws, not unfair discrimination against them. Furthermore, the last 35 years have seen wages for men with only a high school education decline significantly while hourly wages for women at the same education level have increased. This is almost certainly a factor in the rise in illegitimacy and divorce among the lower educated.

But these social scourges, and the immense unhappiness they cause, are of little concern to these female eunuchs perched on their crags high amove the masses. One hundred years ago, women’s organizations were maternalist and pro-family. Today, they are enemies of society, enemies of children, enemies of women, enemies of men, enemies of freedom, enemies of God and enemies of life itself.

                                                                                            — Comments —

Anodos writes:

Just a quick comment, if I may, on the post on women being paid less than men and feminists.

It reminds me of C.S. Lewis’ statements in The Abolition of Man. The thesis of that book is that man’s control over nature, through science, really comes down to man’s control over man–as we continue to overcome what is nature and God intended, we can only replace it by what man and government intends.

The same sort of dissatisfaction with existence is reflected in the attitudes of members of the NOW or the IWPR. They dislike the natural organizations of things because they want men and women to be equal (equal in what?) and so the government (and science) must be enlisted to thrust down the inequalities that naturally keep rising upwards. Their idea of man rather than God’s idea of man will be imposed.

“Equality” is always “Equality [in dignity].” And one’s idea of human dignity includes one’s idea of human nature, man’s end, and morality. These people are far more adept at passing laws reflecting their idea of morality than are traditionalists.

Laura writes:

Excellent.

But radical egalitarians have not been more successful than traditionalists in the greater sweep of time. For instance, no society, not a single one, legally recognized marriage between two people of the same sex until very recent years. Western society until very recently did not allow women to abandon their husbands, taking half of their husband’s property and their children too. Traditionalists have been overhwelmingly more successful over the course of time. But, the doctrine of equality is deeply compelling. People believe in progress when they believe in nothing else.

Please follow and like us: