The Feminist Fib

Old Lies

We expect to hear a lot of lies during an election year, and this year is certainly no exception. What is surprising is how old some of these lies are, and how often they have been shown to be lies, years ago or even decades ago.

One of the oldest of these lies is that women are paid less than men for doing the same work. Like many other politically successful lies, it contains just enough of the truth to fool the gullible.

Women as a group do get paid less than men as a group. But not for doing the same work. Women average fewer annual hours of work than men. They work continuously for fewer years than men, since only women get pregnant, and most women are not prepared to instantly dump the baby on somebody else to raise.

Being a mother is not an incidental sideline, and being a single mother can be a major restriction on how much time can be put into a job, either in a year or over the years.

People like Hillary Clinton can simply grab a statistic about male-female income differences and run with it since her purpose is not truth but votes. The real question, however, is whether, or to what extent, those income differences are due to employers paying women and men different wages for doing the very same jobs, for the very same amount of time.

We do not need to guess about such things. Many studies have been done over many years — and they repeatedly show that women and men who work the very same hours in the very same jobs at the very same levels of skill and experience do not have the pay gaps that people like Hillary Clinton loudly denounce.

As far back as 1971, single women in their thirties who had worked continuously since high school earned slightly more than men of the same description. As far back as 1969, academic women who had never married earned more than academic men who had never married.

People who are looking for grievances are not going to be stopped by facts, especially if they are in politics. But where are our media pundits and our academic scholars? Mostly silent, either out of fear of being denounced as anti-women or because they have chosen to take sides rather than convey facts.

Nevertheless, there are enough scholars, including women economists, who have done enough honest studies over the years that there is no excuse for continuing to repeat a discredited lie, based on comparing apples and oranges. A book written by two women and titled “Women’s Figures” shows the results when you compare women and men with comparable qualifications.

It is much the same story with black-white comparisons. More than 40 years ago, my own research turned up statistics on black and white professors who had Ph.D.s from equally high-ranked institutions in the same fields, and who had published the same number of articles.

When all these things were held constant, the black professors earned somewhat more than white professors. But, since all these things are not the same among black and white professors in general, there is a racial gap in pay that allows some to loudly denounce racial discrimination among academics.

Those who wish to check out my statistics can get a copy of my 1975 monograph, “Affirmative Action Reconsidered.” It has not been updated because not all the same statistics will be released now. This is not unusual. Statistics that might undermine some other popular conclusions — whether on affirmative action, global warming or whatever — have been kept under wraps when other researchers tried to get them.

Too many people in the media and in academia abandon their roles as conduits for facts and take on the role of filterers of facts to promote social and political agendas.

In all too many educational institutions, from kindergartens to postgraduate university programs, students may never hear any facts that contradict the prevailing groupthink.

How many students taught by Keynesian economists will ever learn about the 1921 recession, when the Harding administration did nothing — and unemployment dropped steeply as the economy recovered on its own?

There are many reasons why old lies, refuted long ago, are still heard every election year, and in all too many other years.

From Lewrockwell.com, here.

The Traditional, Non-Feminist Path to a Happy Marriage

I don’t know who her PR agents were. I don’t know what her marketing strategy was. I just know that there couldn’t be a worse title for a truly valuable book than “The Surrendered Wife” by Laura Doyle. Even as I write it I cringe. But it got my attention. And maybe that was the goal…

Despite my reservations, I read the book in an effort to demonstrate how broadminded I am. “The Surrendered Wife” is a book about letting go. It is not a book about submissiveness. It is not anti-feminism. It is a book that demonstrates the destructiveness of trying to control another human being, particularly your spouse. So I read it. Cover to cover.

Perhaps my husband would enjoy if just once I would keep my big mouth shut.

I saw myself, and many close friends (you know who you are) in Ms. Doyle’s stories. And while she takes her philosophy to an extreme of passivity that I find unpalatable – i.e. “don’t express your opinion, just say to your husband ‘whatever you think'” – there is a lot of wisdom in her insights. Perhaps my husband would enjoy if just once in a while I would keep my big mouth shut and turn to him adoringly and say, “Whatever you think.”

Maybe. Maybe not. But I know he would appreciate it if I didn’t always tell him he took the wrong turn and the slowest route. He might appreciate it if I didn’t tell him how to talk to the waiter, what to order, and the exact amount of the appropriate tip.

Our husbands want to know they have our respect, trust, and, as Laura Doyle suggests, every time we control, direct, or even worse, criticize them, they know they don’t.

And it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. As with children. If we don’t expect our husbands to succeed, they probably won’t (unless he’s got a very contrary personality and responds well to reverse psychology!)

The nitpicking, the correcting, the “I know a better way” attitude is destructive on many levels – to the husband personally and to the marriage. I know that I don’t enjoy spending time with people who are always telling me I’m wrong – either directly or by implication.

And this situation sure doesn’t augur well for one’s intimate life. It doesn’t encourage closeness and desire.

FOR HIS OWN GOOD

Of course when we correct our husbands, we mean it for their good. We’re only doing it to help them. But most husbands don’t experience it like that. To them, it’s an attack. To them, it’s emasculating. To them, it’s depressing and destructive.

There’s nothing liberated or egalitarian about being critical.

There’s nothing liberated or egalitarian about being critical. Our husbands are not our project, our work in progress, a piece of clay for us to mold. And our husbands are not children. (It always annoys me when women refer, half-jokingly, to their husbands as one of their biggest children. Do they think their husbands find that flattering or amusing?) It won’t create a new/modern marriage if we whip our husbands into shape. But it is a quick road to divorce.

“But I do know a faster way to drive there,” wives complain. Good. Keep it to yourself. (I would say, “Unless asked”; Ms. Doyle would say, “Even then.”) You’ll get there five minutes later with a stronger marriage.

“But he’s handling the situation all wrong.” Give him a chance to figure it out for himself and grow from it. Don’t rob him of his opportunities to stretch and change.

There is an important caveat in the book that none of this advice applies to an abusive situation. Similarly, if there is, God forbid, a serious crime at stake. If your husband is about to commit armed robbery, don’t say, “Whatever you think!”

We have to lift our husbands through caring and respect. As Rabbi Eisenblatt writes in Fulfillment in Marriage: “…to the extent that the marriage partners appreciate and respect each other they will create a nourishing atmosphere in which each can grow and develop into a still better partner.”

Worth taping to the fridge.

POSITIVE EXPRESSIONS

Positive expressions of pleasure after tasks well done accomplish much more than harsh words. And don’t qualify those compliments. Drop the “but” as in: “That was nice of you to make dinner but why didn’t you clean up the kitchen?” “I appreciate that you went grocery shopping but why did you buy ten bags of potato chips?” Practice saying two simple words: “Thank you.”

A woman’s belief in her husband’s abilities and potential will inspire him to greater heights. Nagging will drag him down.

It’s not about being submissive. And I don’t know if it’s about surrendering either. It is about letting go. We don’t have to run the world. (The Almighty’s on that job 24/7.) We don’t have to control our husbands. We don’t have to dominate our children.

And the most surprising thing of all is not only do things not fall apart without us at the helm, sometimes they actually get better.

Postscript: Whenever I address this topic to women, they invariably say, “What about the men? Don’t they need to hear this?” Of course they do. There are many men who would benefit from the ideas in this book. Hopefully, their needs will be addressed. But asking, “What about the men?” can also be a way of avoiding personal responsibility. Don’t worry about the men for a minute. Look inward instead of outward. Do you see potential for growth and change? You go girl.

From Aish.com, here.

How To Be Included on Wikipedia

My name is Amber Berson, and in addition to being a writer, curator, and PhD student, I’m the Canadian ambassador for the Art+Feminism Wikipedia project. I’ve been working with Art+Feminism since 2014 to help train more female-identifying editors, and to generate more and better feminist content on Wikipedia. If you’re an artist or other type of creative professional, you may have wondered what it takes to get your own Wikipedia page. And, if you already have a Wikipedia page, you may have wondered how to change the information on your page to make it more accurate (or more flattering!). The tips in this guide are intended to help you understand Wikipedia’s guidelines and policies, and learn more about how you can approach digital archiving, conflict resolution, adding content to the Commons, etc. Hopefully, with all the information presented here, you’ll be able to have the best Wikipedia page possible.</i>

What is Wikipedia, and who writes it?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. More than that, it’s the world’s free online encyclopedia, accessed by nearly 500 million unique visitors each month in more than 250 languages. The English version of Wikipedia hosts more than 4.5 million articles, all of them collaboratively authored and edited by volunteers. If there’s an article about you and your work, it’s because someone took the time to make one.

How Wikipedia works

Wikipedia is a publicly generated resource. Anyone, anywhere can edit (almost) any article at any time. This means that once a page goes live, volunteer editors are able to edit and add to a page forever (although, there are also a small number of protected or locked Wikipedia pages that require special permission to edit, mainly for controversial topics or templates).

Anyone can become an editor on Wikipedia in order to modify existing pages or to create new ones. Editors can also contribute by translating articles (Wikipedia even offers a really cool content-translator tool) and by adding material to Wikimedia Commons—a collection of over 45,184,580 (and growing!) freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute.

To create a new page, all you need to do is create an account on Wikipedia and then add your new article. While only registered and signed-in users can create pages, anyone can modify a page, and the edits are simply attributed to their IP address. In addition to volunteer editors, Wikipedia employs bots to scan edits for plagiarism and carry out other mundane and repetitive tasks such as checking for typos.

Continue reading…

From The Creative Independent, here.

What Is ‘Woke’? A Woke Definition…

Here’s an hilarious article by Woke RationalWiki:

Woke might refer to:

These types of usage of the word originally derive from African American Vernacular English. This word is nearly a century old.

CLAIM: ‘Intimate Assault Is a Crime of Violence, Not Lust’ — True or False?

In the news reporting of the recent spate of regime-encouraged Hamas pogroms, rape is commonly described as solely a crime of violent aggression (of a piece with murder, looting, etc.), and not due to lust.

This is not just about tainting Hamas, it’s the feminist idea of encouraging female irresponsibility and promiscuity.

(I hope this discussion doesn’t appear insensitive.)

I don’t pretend to know the truth (could it be both aggression and lust? A third option?) but note well: the origin of this counter-intuitive claim is the fevered neo-marxists (*) who call themselves “feminists” (to learn more, input: “crime of lust” “crime of violence” in a search engine). So why should we give this notion any credit (the Genetic Non-Fallacy)?

Also, here are some counter-arguments:

  1. Why are females at greater risk than males (except in prison, I think)?
  2. If attraction has nothing to do with it, why the added risk of “date rape” (debatable)?
  3. Why are females aged 16-19 at disproportionate risk?
  4. Don’t Chazal imply the opposite regarding Dinah bas Yaakov (and other places)?
  5. If it’s purely about violence, how come we never even encounter the ukimta of “נתקשה לאשתו”? Violence and intimacy appear to simply be two distinct bodily functions among many, alternately taking over (in non-violent intimacy the “control” (והוא ימשל בך) can be mere metaphor).
  6. Here’s one study claiming that if prostitution were legalized in the United States, the rape rate would decrease by roughly 25% (for a decrease of approximately 25,000 rapes per year). Why would that be?
  7. If you hate someone, would the hatred increase or decrease after beating them up? Decrease (if anything). Then why did Amnon hate Tamar so much davka after the assault? And see commentaries.
  8. Lastly, a weaker, but perhaps still valid question: If the attacker’s intentions are solely violent, why would there ever appear a “יצר אלבשה” effect in the victim? Wouldn’t pure violence “kill the mood”?

Note: I can’t do effective research due to the subject matter.


(*) “Marxist” as in the notion it’s all “systemic”, you have no individual agency, and your puny disagreement with the comrades based on immediate introspection or the Five Senses is invalid, unscientific, and counter-revolutionary because you are helplessly conditioned by “Society” into dangerous falsehoods (we have elsewhere highlighted the fatal contradiction of knowledge in that idea).