Thursday, April 30, 2015

The Pink Tax Myth: Women Prefer to Pay More In Order to Flaunt Social Status and Sexual Value.

        Now that the ludicrous claim by feminists that there is a discriminatory gender wage gap has been  debunked,  they are claiming now that women suffer heavier taxes than men for the "exact same services and products". We can read such a claim right here by feminist Elizabeth Plank:

"Thought the wage gap was the biggest strain on your lady wallet? There's another reason being a woman drains your bank account, and it's got nothing to do with the fact that we make 77 cents to the dollar.

It's called the pink tax, and if you're a woman whose daily priorities include a moderate amount of grooming and personal hygiene, over the course of your lifetime it could cost you roughly $100,000...
Companies also charge more because they know that female consumers will buy these products, due in no small part to savvy marketing teaching consumers that certain products are just for women or men, but not both. As a result, women may not consider purchasing a product targeted towards men as an option, even if it costs less."

It's called the pink tax, and if you're a woman whose daily priorities include a moderate amount of grooming and personal hygiene, over the course of your lifetime it could cost you roughly $100,000...

Companies also charge more because they know that female consumers will buy these products, due in no small part to savvy marketing teaching consumers that certain products are just for women or men, but not both. As a result, women may not consider purchasing a product targeted towards men as an option, even if it costs less."

But with some investigation, we actually find out that women are not getting ripped off as feminists would like us to believe, but the fact of the matter is, female products and services are more complex than men's:

"They may do the same job and be made of the same materials. But the fact that a man’s shirt is a called, well, a shirt, and the woman’s version a blouse, will hit you straight in the pocket. 
According to a study published in the journal Gender Issues, dry-cleaning women’s shirts costs twice as much as men’s, on average.It means that if a male and female had one set of collars and cuffs dry-cleaned every month for ten years, it would cost a man £162, while a woman would fork out around £310. 
A study has shown that the dry-cleaning costs of women's shirts is twice as much as men's shirts, on average (picture posed by model)However, Martyn Lewis of the Textile Services Association, which represents dry-cleaners, claims there are good reasons for the price divide. He says: ‘It’s not that we see women customers coming and think, “Right, we’ll charge you a fiver more”.‘The reason is that the man’s garment comes in a standard shape so it can be placed on the shirt-finishing machine (a dummy onto which a shirt is fitted during pressing).‘A lady’s blouse is more shaped — for obvious reasons — and therefore it needs ironing by hand.‘We charge according to the garment, not the customer.’ 
Beware pink packaging when you’re shopping for personal-care products. It’s often a sign there’ll be a higher price tag.For example, one razor in a four-pack of Gillette Simply Venus 2 disposables for women cost 56p each — 13 pence more than those in the ten-pack of the male version, Gillette Blue II, on spokesman James Williams claims the price difference is there for a reason: men’s and women’s razors have different blades, heads and pivots to perform separate jobs. 
One razor in a four-pack of Gillette Simply Venus 2 disposables for women costs 56p — 13 pence more than those in the ten-pack of the male version, Gillette Blue II‘The hair women are shaving on their bodies — legs, underarms, bikini line — is very different to those men shave on their face and neck; they are different lengths and have different coarseness and density. 
‘Women are also typically shaving a much larger area than men and nearly every body part she shaves has curvature — either convex or concave — like the front and back of knees, ankles, back of the legs, bikini line and underarm, and is often more difficult to reach.’

Do you always like to smell your best? If so, you’ll be forking out more cash than a man for that, too.A 50ml bottle of Jean Paul Gaultier Eau de Toilette spray for women, which comes in a curvy bottle, will set you back £49 at Tesco. A 75ml bottle of Jean Paul Gaultier Eau de Toilette for men, in the shape of a manly torso, is priced considerably less at £38. Per 100ml, that works out as almost twice as expensive. 
Perfume expert Peter Sherlock told the Mail: ‘The reason perfumes for women cost more is due to the cost of extracting the scent from flowers.
A 50ml bottle of Jean Paul Gaultier Eau de Toilette for women costs £49 at Tesco. A 75ml bottle of Jean Paul Gaultier Eau de Toilette for men is considerably less at just £38 
‘On the whole, female fragrances contain a much bigger concentration of floral notes, for example the jasmine and rose in Chanel No. 5 —and so they cost more to make. Men’s fragrances tend to be more wood or citrus based and these are substantially cheaper ingredients.’ 
There is also the fact that famous females are more likely to be used to sell scent for women — considerably boosting the marketing spend, says retail analyst Chris Field, who adds that women customers are also more likely to pay for products which they view as ‘reassuringly expensive’.

The moment a woman steps onto a garage forecourt, mechanics seem to get pound signs in their eyes.According to one study, a repair job that costs a man about £180 will cost a woman £200. 
Susan Abbs, one of the UK’s few female garage-owners, says: ‘Women pay more because the moment they step into a repair garage they are in a male-dominated environment and out of their comfort zone. 
Susan Abbs, one of the UK’s few female garage-owners, says women are in a male-dominated environment at a garage and therefore out of their comfort zone, leading them to be charged more (picture posed by models)‘If a woman calls a plumber out, he’s coming into her space. In a garage, she is right in the middle of the lion’s den. 
‘Few women — and actually, few men — understand how a car works. But a woman is less likely to ask questions for fear of sounding silly.‘They also rely on their cars more for school runs, ferrying children about and getting to work. Therefore they are often more anxious to get the problem sorted — whatever it costs.’ 
Susan, who set up the Pullman Garage in South London over 30 years ago, says male staff at the bigger car repair chains tend to work on commission. ‘So if they make a woman insecure and worried enough to have all four tyres replaced instead of the two that really need doing, they are more likely to hit targets,’ she says.

You may have a gamine pixie style shorter than your husband’s. Yet hairdressers will still charge you considerably more for a cut, just because you’re female.At national salon chain Toni & Guy, for example, men’s hair services are £10 less across the board. 
At HOB salons, the price gap is even wider. A cut and finish is £50 for female customers, £18 more than the male price.
Retail expert Nick Swan, founder of says women are willing to pay more for ‘necessary luxuries’. 
‘Men see a haircut as a more of a chore and only get it because they need to and are not willing to pay too much,’ he says. ‘There’s also the fact many women don’t trust cheap haircuts and stick with the salon they know do a good job.‘It means that salons can charge over the odds because they know their female clients will keep coming back.’ 
To get some gender equality for your hair, look for a salon that charges by the hour, not by what sex you are. Lucy Cogan, celebrity hair stylist, of the Chapel, North London, says times are changing as men become more image conscious.‘These days, it can take as much time to do gents’ as women’s hair because modern men want more intricate and stylish haircuts,’ she explains. ‘It’s no longer just a short back and sides so an hourly rate is much fairer.’

One may come looking macho in a silver or black can and the other may be decorated with girly flowers and swirly patterns — but there’s likely to be little difference between your partner’s deodorant and yours as far as the active ingredients are concerned. 
That’s not always reflected in the price, however.One expert study by the University of Florida in the U.S. found that on average a woman’s anti-perspirant costs around 15p per ounce more than a man’s — and the only difference is the scent. 
As an example of this, Nivea Stress Protect Anti-Perspirant Deodorant — which comes in a feminine white and blue can — costs £1.43 per 100ml. The man’s version of Nivea Stress Protect — in a manly black and blue can — costs £1.32 per 100ml, both on Simonne Gnessen, co-author of Sheconomics, points out, however, that women enjoy paying more for some products. She says: ‘A woman’s sense of self is more closely tied to shopping. We associate high price with quality. It’s the “because I am worth it” effect. 
‘The marketeers have discovered they can get away with charging more for some female products because women actually feel better about paying more.’

If you compare briefs for a man and woman, there’s not much difference in price for everyday underwear. But when you consider the amount charged for bras, it quickly becomes clear how expensive it is to be female. 
Considering that the average British woman has six bras she wears regularly, and most are priced between £16 to £30 at the nation’s biggest underwear seller, Marks & Spencer, that works out at a cost of £138 year. This adds up to a lifetime total of nearly £10,000 from puberty and the first trainer bras, to the end of a woman’s life.Indeed, according to Office for National Statistics data, women spend twice as much as men on underwear every year because they also have to buy tights.And coming in at around £10 a pair, tights are more expensive than socks — and need to be replaced more owing to the fact they ladder more easily.

This is one cost a man never has to deal with.

Sanitary protection is not something that men will ever have to buy for themselves, but it is estimated that women will spend around £1,430 on sanitary products in their lifetime 
Considering that a woman will have up to 500 periods over a lifetime, it’s also an outgoing that can really stack up. According to industry estimates, most women will need at least 11,000 separate items of sanitary protection during her fertile years.As sanitary towels and tampons both cost an average of 13p each, this adds up to an outlay of £1,430 between the start of her periods and the onset of the menopause."


         Now that we got the fact how women's services and products can be easily explained because of the marketing and how more detailed they are, and not due to sexism, let's investigate what psychologists say about women liking expensive products.
 By reading two studies on market factors on women, we can see how women correlate more expensive products with higher sexual value, social status, partner's social status; which they use to signal to other women to back off:



Also, women tend to pay more for other services like health care for the fact they tend to use it more than men, but men pay more for auto insurance despite women getting in more car accidents in higher rates, because men tend to get into more fatal accidents. Time Business reports on those findings:

"The main explanation given for the health insurance gender discrepancy is a simple one: Women tend to use health care services a lot more than men. For a variety of reasons, women are more likely to go the doctor—or even have a doctor—than men, and insurance companies say they should pay for the privilege. Is this justification enough to charge exorbitantly higher premiums to women? It is from the insurance company’s perspective. Speaking of which … 
Men pay more for auto insurance. 
A CBS News post cites a new study from the insurance-shopping site CoverHound indicating that, on average, men pay roughly $15,000 over their lifetimes for car insurance. Again, some extreme extremes are highlighted: 
For instance, an 18-year-old male living in Nevada would pay an average of $6,268 a year to insure his sedan if he had the misfortune to grow up there. That’s 51% higher than what his twin sister would pay (assuming they have the same grades and driving records), who would fork out just $4,152 to insure an identical car, according to a CoverHound analysis.

This is all assuming that neither 18-year-old was incorporated in his or her family’s insurance policy, which is a much more cost-effective option than going it alone. In any event, insurance companies justify higher rates for young men because the numbers (and the assumptions) say that guys drive more aggressively and get into more accidents than young women.

There are exceptions to the 'guys pay more' rule: In a few states, women in the 35- to 50-year-old demographic—who are more likely to have kids distracting them in the car—pay higher car insurance premiums than men of the same age. 
As an AOL News story from last fall points out, many of the justifications for charging men more for auto insurance are based on outdated stereotypes. Men have historically gotten into more accidents than women at least partly because they drive more—about 60% of all miles driven in the U.S. But the driving gap is closing: Women account for roughly half of all American drivers today, up from 43% in the 1960s. And yet, even as the numbers show, women are more likely to get into car accidents, there seems to be one big reason why men must pay more: 
According to a study by the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, women were involved in more 5.7 crashes per million miles driven, while male drivers had 5.1 crashes over the same distance. But even though they get into fewer crashes, the Johns Hopkins study said men are three times more likely to die in a car crash. 

So we can finally put to rest yet another ridiculous feminist myth, that despite being thoroughly debunked, will probably be spewed frequently by the media, White House and academics- just like their beloved gender wage gap- but we'll be here challenging their claims.

Saturday, April 25, 2015

The Misandric Myth of Male Circumcision.

First of all, let's define our terms, because not many people know what "misandry" is:

misandrySyllabification: mis·an·dry
Pronunciation: /miˈsandrē/

Definition of misandry in English:


"Dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against men (i.e., the male sex)"

A lot of times readers won't comprehend a word or term, so in order to clarify and better communicate our meanings, we'll give the meaning of certain words we hardly encounter in literature.

Without further adieu, let's also clarify what are the biological and anatomical function of the human prepuce, commonly known as the foreskin of the male penis:

So from the start of the scientific explanation of the male foreskin, we can read that it has protective purposes which we will investigate which those are. In "
Immunological functions of the human prepuce" by P M Fleiss, F M Hodges, R S Van Howe", it states that the foreskin is multi-purposed and it has been demonized by the American medical community with false, erroneous assumptions and shoddy scientific research, and when you account for rigid studies, the benefits are obvious and alarming to a society that has culturally suggested circumcising its boys.

1. The foreskin facilitates sexual intercourse and it is more pleasurable to both participants:

2. The foreskin actually protects against STD's and has immunological secretions that helps protect men; and circumcised men are more likely susceptible to infections than uncircumcised men, unlike the we have been told by the American Pediatrics:

Despite the overwhelming evidence supporting what nature intended all along, that males SHOULD have their foreskin intact, almost 90% of the American male population have gotten the procedure of circumcision since the 1970's, with a decline since then, but also was reinforced through propaganda:

And this is our American Pediatrics Association using double-speak on the whole procedure claiming both risks and benefits of male circumcision. This is blatantly irresponsible and treating baby boys' autonomy with indifference and leaves it all at the mercy of the bias of parents:


Not only is the medical industry apathetic with men's health, but they also profit from it. Male foreskin is sold on the cosmetic market and used to create facial rejuvenation treatments:

And here you can find male foreskin for sale:

In this live footage of circumcision procedures, we can see how much pain baby boys can be in while immobilized by being strapped on a table like a mentally ill person. Look how apathetic the doctor and nurse can be while this child is screaming in pain!

And studies confirm that babies feel as much pain as adults and are more sensitive to them. This is yet another piece of evidence against the misandric, lying medical industry promoting circumcision claiming that babies don't remember or don't feel it as much:
'The brains of babies “light up” in a similar way to adults when exposed to the same painful stimulus, suggesting they feel pain much like adults do, researchers said on Tuesday.In the first of its kind study using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), scientists from Britain’s Oxford University found that 18 of the 20 brain regions active in adults experiencing pain were also active in babies.Brain scans of the sleeping infants while they were subjected to mild pokes on the bottom of their feet with a special rod -- creating a sensation “like being poked with a pencil” -- also showed their brains had the same response to a slighter “poke” as adults did to a stimulus four times as strong, suggesting babies have a much lower pain threshold.“Obviously babies can’t tell us about their experience of pain and it is difficult to infer pain from visual observations,” said Rebeccah Slater, a doctor at Oxford’s pediatrics department who led the study.“In fact some people have argued that babies’ brains are not developed enough for them to really feel pain... (yet) our study provides the first really strong evidence this is not the case."'

Source: fMRI reveals neural activity overlap between adult and infant pain - Oxford University

Circumcision of non-consenting babies can lead to negative emotional problems, PTSD and sexual problems in later life, as one study reveals:

Source: Male circumcision: pain, trauma and psychosexual sequelae. And for the full study.

For further reference, here you can read in detail a meta-analysis studies which also investigates the circumcised and uncircumcised population in the world.

Sexually Transmitted Infections and Male Circumcision: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

We have no excuses to keep torturing baby boys! 

Friday, April 17, 2015

When It Comes To Work-Related Gender Gaps, Men Work More Hours and Suffer More Fatal/ Non Fatal Injuries.

When it comes to the gender gaps in work feminists complain so much, they make sure to only focus on the already debunked discriminatory gender wage gap, but the Bureau of Labor and Statistics reveal more on the matter. Not only men work more hours on the average than women, but they suffer more work related injuries and fatal injuries.

On a 2013 report by the BLS, they revealed that employed men worked 53 minutes more than employed women, which means women have a greater likelihood to work part-time. When compared to full-time work, men worked 1.3 hours more than women.

Source: American Time Use Survey Summary June 18, 2014

Men make up of 91.7% of work related injuries, women worked 76.3% of men's hours in comparison, men have a higher rate of work related deaths at 5.7 rate while women make only 0.7.


Thursday, April 16, 2015

The Heavy Bias in Favor of Women in STEM Field.

 We've all heard the feminist movement claim that women suffer from sexism and misogyny in the STEM field ad nauseam, despite their many articles and news pieces about it, like this one by a feminist in Popular Science:
Institute gender-bias training. 
"Jo Handelsman and Corinne Moss-Racusin of Yale University published a study in 2012 showing that scientists of all ranks and genders were complicit in gender discrimination. It found that a male candidate is more likely to be hired (and paid more) and mentored than a female. A little diversity training couldn't hurt, and, failing that, "we could paint murals of admired female scientists throughout the halls of universities," Handelsman and Moss-Racusin write. Yes."

But The National of Sciences published a study where they found that women are shown favoritism in STEM jobs despite more men choosing for completing their PhD's in math-intense field, while women go more for health and people related fields. Here's what an article by the Washington Post on this study reveals:

"Is science finally becoming friendlier to women?

Wendy M. Williams and Stephen J. Ceci think so. As the co-directors of the Cornell Institute for Women in Science, they have spent much of the past six years researching sexism in STEM fields. And according to their latest study, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, women are no longer at a disadvantage when applying for tenure-track positions in university science departments. In fact, the bias has now flipped: Female candidates are now twice as likely to be chosen as equally qualified men."

And if we tackle this study a little further in their original paper, they found that in some cases, women can be favored 4 to 1,and i real-world scenarios, women face no discrimination at all when getting hired:

We can see in the section titled "Are female applicants superior to male applicants?"  the study illustrates how some have tried to explain correlation to better advantages to women being explained by the fact women applicants are of superior skills or talents than their male counterparts in tenure-track or tenured positions, but is this claim true? Let's see what this study found so far:

"Comparing different lifestyles revealed that women preferred divorced mothers to married fathers and that men preferred mothers who took parental leaves to mothers who did not. Our findings, supported by real-world academic hiring data, suggest advantages for women launching academic science careers."
 So we can clearly see that despite there being equal levels of applicants, employers are heavily biased against men,

This information can be found in: "Women in Academic Science" pages 101-102

As with the gender wage gap explanation, women are centering their career choices based on comfort, flexible hours and careers that allow them to dedicate their lives to their families, as the Pew Research Centre shows, more women are opting to be stay-at-home mothers rather than spending time on the work force diligently. 

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

A Study Reveals that Women Prefer Men with Personality Disorders.

Despite women having achieved success in their own personal lives and careers, we are still being told that are hardly good men left and that men are more preoccupied with "boyish" activities like video games, porn sites and magazines  and "lad cultures". Their complaint is basically men are engaged in other individual based activities and choosing their male peers for socialization rather than go out and date or marry women. We can see this example here in this article by the Wall Street Journal Titled, "Where have all the good men gone?":

"Still, for these women, one key question won't go away: Where have the good men gone? Their male peers often come across as aging frat boys, maladroit geeks or grubby slackers—a gender gap neatly crystallized by the director Judd Apatow in his hit 2007 movie "Knocked Up." The story's hero is 23-year-old Ben Stone (Seth Rogen), who has a drunken fling with Allison Scott (Katherine Heigl) and gets her pregnant. Ben lives in a Los Angeles crash pad with a group of grubby friends who spend their days playing videogames, smoking pot and unsuccessfully planning to launch a porn website. Allison, by contrast, is on her way up as a television reporter and lives in a neatly kept apartment with what appear to be clean sheets and towels. Once she decides to have the baby, she figures out what needs to be done and does it. Ben can only stumble his way toward being a responsible grownup."
It's always interesting how they love depicting men as the irresponsible, pot smoking children in these movies, but they also don't beg the question of why such mature and responsible woman is doing having unprotected sex with a man she doesn't know that she met on a dance floor? And after all? Isn't abortion the big progressive empowering thing to do according to feminists? So this movie clearly doesn't draw attention to the fact that women can simply have their cake and eat too by having all the power in going through with a pregnancy or not, and still expecting a man to have no say but all the responsibilities at the same time. But only the male character is the immature child in this movie? Excuse me, I have to open up a window to this manure smell can dissipate...

But do women really love good and mature men? Do women care about having and empathetic, emotionally available man in their lives whom they can carry a drama-free relationship? Not according to a new study by Hartpury College in England. 
Researchers V.Tamara Montrose and Carrie Haslam claim that even women of experience, on average, prefer men with narcissistic personality traits:

"Should have known better: The impact of mating experience and the desire for marriage upon attraction to the narcissistic personality"
HighlightsFemale desire for marriage may reduce attraction to the narcissistic personality.Mate sampling experience may reduce attraction to the narcissistic personality.Females desiring marriage were more attracted to the narcissistic male personality.More experienced females were more attracted to the narcissistic male personality.Narcissistic personality is attractive to females despite its negative qualities.

"Narcissistic males do not make good romantic partners. Narcissistic males lack commitment, engage in manipulative game-playing and are unfaithful. Despite this, they are still desired by females. Females value different traits in short-term and long-term partners. Previous mate sampling experience is also important to facilitate mate assessment. This study aimed to determine whether amongst young adult heterosexual females; their mate sampling experience and desire for marriage influenced their attraction to narcissistic personality traits in a potential mate. British females aged 18–28 provided information on past mating experience, future desire for marriage and rated their agreement with 20 statements relating to the extent that they found narcissistic personality traits attractive in a potential mate. Females with greater mating experience and those desiring marriage were more attracted to the narcissistic male personality. The narcissistic personality, whilst having many negative qualities, possesses qualities associated with status and resource provision. These traits are desirable in short and long-term mating contexts. Despite future long-term mating desires which are unlikely to be achieved with a narcissistic male and possession of substantial mate sampling experience, females view the narcissistic male as a suitable partner: a testament to the success of the narcissistic personality in facilitating short-term mating."


Now let's read on what are the specific traits of an individual with Narcissistic Personality Disorder:

Now let's sit and wait for the mental gymnastics from the feminist movement preaching down to us how we men control the sexual selection and how women don't select for abusive and criminal types. This is yet another example of the paradoxical, contradictory mixed messages men get from women, then they act surprised that men rather spend their time elsewhere and with their male peers than being at the mercy of half of the demographic who tell you what they want yet do everything in opposition to their claims.

Monday, April 13, 2015

Exposing the Feminist Myth that It is Mostly Men Policing Women While Breastfeeding.

Feminism for Beginners, sourcing the Guardian's article, "It's time we stop blaming women for having breasts"  says that men want to police women who breastfeed their children and that it's men sexualizing women's breasts rather than women insisting that we sexualize them:

"So, to recap, breasts imagined through a man’s eyes and painted by his brush are high art, but women choosing to use these parts of their own bodies to feed their children is potentially offensive and must be policed by men. Women in show business are enormously pressured to reveal their bodies (which must conform to narrow media-dictated ideals) and to use sex appeal as part of their selling points. But those who choose to wear clothes they feel confident and happy in may be subject to anger, outrage, or accused of being attention-seekers. The media is disgusted by such showing off, but will, nonetheless, heroically document each bikini moment with astonishing diligence. And though society repeatedly reminds us women’s breasts are there primarily for men’s pleasure and use, if women are assaulted they should realise it’s their own fault for having breasts in the first place and wearing the wrong sort of clothes on them."

 So is it actually true that it's men who disapprove of public breastfeeding more-so than women? Well according to the only poll done to record the views of men and women on the subject individually, men in every country recorded approved of public breastfeeding more-so than women. See the results for yourself in the screenshot and at the following link. Quote:

"In all three countries, men were more open to public breastfeeding than women. 77% of British men think it is generally acceptable for a woman to breastfeed in public, and 19% said it is generally not acceptable."

So there's yet another feminist myth we can put to bed. 

Women Control Over Half of all U.S. Wealth, Which Will Increase In Coming Years.

The following new report demonstrates to me how split-brained the rhetoric coming from the media is these days regarding gender issues. This is Business Insider admitting that WOMEN CONTROL OVER HALF of US personal wealth AND FILL MOST OF THE MANAGEMENT POSITIONS IN THE WORKPLACE but then the article turns around and says that women are still victims because women supposedly only earn 78 cents for every dollar men earn. You gotta see this to believe it. Quote:
"Women have overtaken men and now control more than half of all U.S. wealth and will likely take an even bigger piece of the pie in coming years, a new study has revealed.
About 51 percent, or $14 trillion, of American personal wealth is now controlled by women, according to the Bank of Montreal...This sea change has come as women have also moved to fill 52 percent of management, professional and related positions in the country...
Moving up the ranks has made women the primary breadwinners in 40 percent of U.S. households yet they only earn 78 cents for every dollar when compared with men"
Women now control more than half of US personal wealth, which 'will only increase in years to come'

And to further debunk this overused shibboleth of a discriminatory gender wage gap, here's CBS News reporting on how it's a complete myth that women make less money because they are discriminated against despite doing the same work as men:

"According to all the media headlines about a new White House report, there's still a big pay gap between men and women in America. The report found that women earn 75 cents for every dollar men make. Sounds pretty conclusive, doesn't it? Well, it's not. It's misleading.
According to highly acclaimed career expert and best-selling author, Marty Nemko, 'The data is clear that for the same work men and women are paid roughly the same. The media need to look beyond the claims of feministorganizations.'
On a radio talk show, Nemko clearly and forcefully debunked that ultimate myth - that women make less than men - by explaining why, when you compare apples to apples, it simply isn't true. Even the White House report: Women in America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being explains why. Simply put, men choose higher-paying jobs. 
Here are 8 reasons why the widely accepted and reported concept that women are paid less than men is a myth. The timing couldn't be better - today'sInternational Women's Day 2011. What better time to empower women with the truth instead of treating them like victims. And, in case you're wondering, Nemko's source of information is primarily the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics -rock solid.
Why the Gender Pay Gap is a Complete Myth
Men are far more likely to choose careers that are more dangerous, so they naturally pay more. Top 10 most dangerous jobs (from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics): Fishers, loggers, aircraft pilots, farmers and ranchers, roofers, iron and steel workers, refuse and recyclable material collectors, industrial machinery installation and repair, truck drivers, construction laborers. They're all male-dominated jobs. 
Men are far more likely to work in higher-paying fields and occupations (by choice)According to the White House report, 'In 2009, only 7 percent of female professionals were employed in the relatively high paying computer and engineering fields, compared with 38 percent of male professionals.' Professional women, on the other hand, are far more prevalent "in the relatively low-paying education and health care occupations.' 
Men are far more likely to take work in uncomfortable, isolated, and undesirable locations that pay more.Men work longer hours than women do. The average fulltime working man works 6 hours per week or 15 percentlonger than the average fulltime working woman. 
Men are more likely to take jobs that require work on weekends and evenings and therefore pay more.Even within the same career category, men are more likely to pursue high-stress and higher-paid areas of specialization. For example, within the medical profession, men gravitate to relatively high-stress and high-paying areas of specialization, like surgery, while women are more likely to pursue relatively lower-paid areas of specialization like pediatrician or dentist. 
Despite all of the above, unmarried women who've never had a child actually earn more than unmarried men, according to Nemko and data compiled from the Census Bureau. 
Women business owners make less than half of what male business owners make, which, since they have no boss, means it's independent of discrimination. The reason for the disparity, according to a Rochester Institute ofTechnology study, is that money is the primary motivator for 76% of men versus only 29% of women. 
Women place a higher premium on shorter work weeks, proximity to home, fulfillment, autonomy, and safety, according to Nemko.It's hard to argue with Nemko's position which, simply put, is this: When women make the same career choices as men, they earn the same amount as men. 
As far as I'm concerned, this is one myth that has been officially and completely busted. Maybe you should celebrate International Women's Day 2011 by empowering women with the truth instead of treating them like victims ... which they're not. 
Update 3/18/11: A reader was kind enought to send me a link to "An Analysis of Reasons for the Disparity in Wages Between Men and Women" prepared, under contract, for the U.S. Department of Labor in 1/09: 
"This study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action.Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers."