Wage gap science attention gap

Since at least 1944, when congresswoman Winifred C. Stanley (R) N.Y., introduced H.R. 5056 (Prohibiting Discrimination in Pay on Account of Sex: PDPAS (in 1944 they weren’t so focused on teasing catchy acronyms out of what Bills were named), feminists have been building a myth that any discrepancy in pay between men and women is based pretty much exclusively on sexual discrimination.

Male congress creatures were slow thinkers since they waited until 1963 to pass the Equal Pay Act. Or maybe they were sufficiently cowed by a huge surge in bra burning; a power of women unmentioned in A Handmaid’s Tale. This initial Federal attempt at rebalancing the compensation universe took nearly two decades.

Then, it took nearly 60 more years before we could run the experiments to determine if such a Bill made sense. But now we know, take home pay differentials aren’t really the problem they’ve been claimed to be.

Lets pay attention to the science. Especially since the current generation of feminists have their panties even more twisted over the patriarchy of heterosexual white men – the updated epithet for ‘male chauvinist pig’.

In the abstracts quoted below, I haven’t bothered to emphasize the critical bits. If they aren’t obvious to you, you aren’t ready for the science.

Harvard
Department of Economics, Harvard University
July 5, 2019
Why Do Women Earn Less Than Men? Evidence from Bus and Train Operators
Abstract:

“Female workers earn $0.89 for each male-worker dollar even in a unionized workplace where tasks, wages, and promotion schedules are identical for men and women by design. We use administrative time card data on bus and train operators to show that the earnings gap can be xplained by female operators taking, on average, 1.5 fewer hours of overtime and 1.3 more hours of unpaid time-off per week than male operators. Female operators, especially those who have dependents, pursue schedule conventionality, predictability, and controllability more than male operators. Analyzing two policy changes, we demonstrate that while reducing schedule controllability can reduce the earnings gap, it can also make workers—particularly female workers—worse off.”

Science magazine
Science 19 Oct 2018:
Vol. 362, Issue 6412
Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality
Abstract:

“What contributes to gender-associated differences in preferences such as the willingness to take risks, patience, altruism, positive and negative reciprocity, and trust? Falk and Hermle studied 80,000 individuals in 76 countries who participated in a Global Preference Survey and compared the data with country-level variables such as gross domestic product and indices of gender inequality. They observed that the more that women have equal opportunities, the more they differ from men in their preferences.”

Stanford
Stanford University Graduate School of Business & University of Chicago
May 2020
The Gender Earnings Gap in the Gig Economy: Evidence from over a Million Rideshare Drivers
Abstract:

“The growth of the “gig” economy generates worker flexibility that, some have speculated, will favor women. We explore this by examining labor supply choices and earnings among more than a million rideshare drivers on Uber in the United States. We document a roughly 7% gender earnings gap amongst drivers. We show that this gap can be entirely attributed to three factors: experience on the platform (learning-by-doing), preferences and constraints over where to work (driven largely by where drivers live and, to a lesser extent, safety), and preferences for driving speed. We do not find that men and women are differentially affected by a taste for specific hours, a return to within-week work intensity, or customer discrimination. Our results suggest that, in a “gig” economy setting with no gender discrimination and highly flexible labor markets, women’s relatively high opportunity cost of non-paid-work time and gender-based differences in preferences and constraints can sustain a gender pay gap.”

Public Library of Science
February 21, 2020
The persistence of pay inequality: The gender pay gap in an anonymous online labor market
Abstract:

“Studies of the gender pay gap are seldom able to simultaneously account for the range of alternative putative mechanisms underlying it. Using CloudResearch, an online microtask platform connecting employers to workers who perform research-related tasks, we examine whether gender pay discrepancies are still evident in a labor market characterized by anonymity, relatively homogeneous work, and flexibility. For 22,271 Mechanical Turk workers who participated in nearly 5 million tasks, we analyze hourly earnings by gender, controlling for key covariates which have been shown previously to lead to differential pay for men and women. On average, women’s hourly earnings were 10.5% lower than men’s. Several factors contributed to the gender pay gap, including the tendency for women to select tasks that have a lower advertised hourly pay. This study provides evidence that gender pay gaps can arise despite the absence of overt discrimination, labor segregation, and inflexible work arrangements, even after experience, education, and other human capital factors are controlled for. Findings highlight the need to examine other possible causes of the gender pay gap. Potential strategies for reducing the pay gap on online labor markets are also discussed.”

Women’s, excuse me, womxn’s, choices (IIRC, choice is a high value for them) are overwhelmingly the cause of the difference in take home pay. Not rates of pay based on sex. Womxn want their choices subsidized. They want equal outcome despite unequal exposure to danger, unequal hours worked, unequal educational choice, unequal working conditions, and unequal occupational choice.

Gender appropriationists

Well, if they can play Rugby
California will now house prisoners according to gender identity instead of biological sex

So, buy stock in California prison construction. Last I heard there were hundreds of gender identities. Will furries have to be separated by species? Lions and lambs; cats and dogs.

And another question. If men who pretend they are women don’t have to apologize; why, when some white person is caught appropriating black racial identity, do they have to apologize? It’s mostly the same people who demand an apology for the latter and scream at you if you question the former.

What science are they following?

Asking for J. K. Rowling.

Choices

“Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these, ‘It might have been.’”
― John Greenleaf Whittier

Michelle Obama: Having kids was a “concession” that cost “my aspirations and dreams.”

Her husband said:

“I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

Having kids, then, should be a choice. And like every other choice, it means there’s something else you didn’t, or can’t, choose. Michelle apparently agrees with the punishment part of Barack’s teachings, if not the choice bit.

Sasha and Malia could not be reached for comment.

She was a front runner right up until the first votes

Elizabeth Warren, Once a Front-Runner, Will Drop Out of Presidential Race

That is from the New York Times. So, unless you want to wade through a mess of juvenile psephology bemoaning Democrats’ rampant electoral misogyny, the following excerpt should do you nicely:

“Ms. Warren has told associates that she does not plan to offer an endorsement when she drops out later on Thursday, according to a person close to her. She had what this person called “cordial” conversations with her former rivals but is still weighing whether to take a side.”

That means whether to endorse the angry multi-millionaire Commie with coronary issues, or the demented plagiarist under Ukrainian investigation.

Yup, not gonna be the VP unless you cozy up to the right septuagenarian white male.

My question is, “Who wants a geeky VP running mate who places a not very close third in her home state primary, and who reminds people how likeable Hillary Clinton is?”

Biden has the comic relief meme handled already, and Warren couldn’t supply it anyway. Sanders doesn’t need anyone who even suggests they know what any given “FREE! FREE! FREE!” plan would cost.

If only she were a person of color, she’d have a better shot. She once had a plan for that, but it died on the campaign trail of tears.

Real empathy

Ann Althouse is sarcastic about trans-female athletes:

Today, the pressure to be empathetic toward transgenders is so great that I believe women, known for our empathy and our desire to appear compassionate, will let go of competitive sports and return to the inclinations that dominated back in the days when I went to high school. It’s a trade-off, a trade-off between the potential for athletic victory and the feeling of being kind and inclusive. The latter is something quite valuable and within the reach of all women. The former is a dream, and it’s only a dream for an elite few among women.

I find her reasoning sarcastically oversubtle as well as specious.

True empathy would not involve women giving up on sports, just giving up on winning (which she does mention). More women should enter sports to ensure the transgenders can boost their self esteem and have a legal way to seriously injure real women in the MMA. That’s how women can be most empathetic, and such self-effacement is easily within the reach of even more women than currently play sports.

After all, without women, who are the female impersonators going to defeat?

Update: 3:20PM.

I finished this post and then read a few comments at Althouse, where she resists admitting sarcasm. If that is accurate, here’s exactly what Althouse supposes women will forgo, and that is very, very sad:

Update: Feb-18-20 3:43PM
Later visit to Althouse: She took quite a bit of flack in comments on her post; compelling a second post in defense of the first. She claims Glenn Reynolds’, “So, traditional-gender-roles folks, you have the trans crowd to thank for returning us to the 1950s!” correctly interprets her point.

To me that sounds like sarcasm was the point, but she refuses to entertain such interpretation. She goes to a lot of trouble to say she was simply making a neutral prediction that female empathy will overcome female competitive drive in sports: Because the majority of females in sports will prefer to abandon competition in favor of “compassion and empathy” for transgenders.

Right there you have evidence that transgender women aren’t women. Where’s the transgender empathy for real women?

Who needs some empathy? Female impersonators? Or real women denied success because the female impersonators got permission from cowed bureaucrats to deny their (the impersonators) biology?

Althouse isn’t, she says discreditably, taking a position on the question of transgender “women” competing with actual females, she is just predicting an outcome based on her estimation of actual female psyches. For a retired female law professor, she proposes a surprisingly dim, pinched, and patronizing view of actual females.

For a female law professor and less than obscure blogger: Eschewing any position on anti-scientific, misogynist aggression against females is, in fact, a position. That the aggression is transgender doesn’t dial the female empathy obligation up to 11.

To invoke one of her themes, I call it “civility bullshit.”