NY Sun Column Takes on Wage Gap Myth Directly

By making absolutely everything from thoughts to casual glances sexual assault/harassment or even "rape" (which is really just a way to hyper-criminalize anything done by a man - these charges are almost never leveled against women who do the same things), feminists have completely diluted the seriousness of actual rape which is an extraordinarily serious and damaging crime.

By supporting women who make false accusations, they've caused society as a whole to doubt ANY woman who claims to have been assaulted, especially when politically-motivated feminists rally around her.

By running the Vagina Monologues on a continuous loop and making sure that every young woman thinks that respect, decency and modesty are all "oppression", they've turned generations of girls into nothing more than sex objects defined by their genitals and egotistical hypersexuality. Apparently this is the feminist definition of "woman". How does this "help" women?

By insisting on double standards favoring women throughout the legal system they've cast doubt on the validity of the entire system which causes BOTH men and women to question whether justice is actually being done. Every decision seems to be motivated by politics instead of justice. Who does this help?

By lying about fairy-tale "statistics" feminists have completely diluted the seriousness of actual wage discrimination (it still does happen to both men and women from time to time).

Political capital is clearly more important that actual women's lives to feminists. They spend their time making sure that every woman is walking around mistakenly believing herself to be an oversexed, underpaid rape victim instead of actually bothering to DO something constructive for a real victim of rape, discrimination or anything else. They're completely destructive to the women they claim to "help", all for political purposes. Why? Money. Plain and simple. You can't run a political front with no grassroots support unless governments and the taxpayers feel guilty enough to pay for it.

Just some of the many reasons why feminists disgust me so - unlike MRAs (many of whom are interested in genuine legal equality, equal opportunities, human rights and such), they're all about politics. More importantly, feminists truly do not care about the women who their politics injure.

What is the readership of the New York Sun, i.e. how popular is it? Is it second or third to the Times, or somewhere at the bottom of the pile?

Also, did anyone notice that implementation of this would result in discrimination against other underpayed groups, of which there must be some out there (i.e. certain minorities)?
Why shouldn't THEY get to pay a lower tax??
-ax

In his book "Why Men Earn More", best-selling author Warren Farrell debunks, once and for all, the gender wage gap myth. Since there are so many studies he cites in his book, to back his conclusion, I will merely quote here a summary of the book given on his web site (www.warrenfarrell.com) (Note: there are links to purchase the book on his site):

"Dr. Warren Farrell, the only man ever elected three times to the Board of the National Organization for Women in NYC, once asked, 'If men are paid more for the same work, why would anyone hire a man?'

"He may be sorry he asked. But during the years of research that followed, the answer evolved: Men earn more than women, but not for the same work—for 25 different workplace choices. Men’s choices lead to men earning more money; women’s choices lead to women having better lives.

"Men’s trade-offs include working more hours (women typically work more at home); taking more-hazardous assignments (cab-driving; construction; trucking); moving overseas or to an undesirable location on-demand (women’s greater family obligations inhibit this); and training for more-technical jobs with less people contact (e.g., engineering).
"Women’s choices appear more likely to involve a balance between work and the rest of life. Women are more likely to balance income with a desire for safety, fulfillment, potential for personal growth, flexibility and proximity-to-home. These lifestyle advantages lead to more people competing for these jobs and thus lower pay"

To get a more general sense of what ideological feminists are up to in their push for "pay equity", below is given some quoted material from page 313 of "Legalizing Misandry" (Nathanson and Young) (misandry is the sexist counterpart of misogyny).

First a brief definition of "ideological feminism":

p. xii. "The worldview of ideological feminism, like that of both Marxism and National Socialism - our analogies are between ways of thinking, not between specific ideas - is profoundly dualistic. In effect, 'we' (women) are good, 'they' (men) are evil. Or, to use the prevalent lingo, 'we' are victims, 'they' are oppressors."

Now on pay equity (p. 313):

"Sure, say feminists (and not only ideological ones), these programs [affirmative action and pay equity] discriminate against men. But that means is justified, they add, by its noble end: creating a 'level playing field'. They use the same rationale, at least privately, to justify the scams that we have discussed in connection with statistics abuse. Okay, they might admit when cornered, so lying to the public and even to government officials is wrong. Sort of. But, they might add to themselves and their supporters, doing so is justified in light of the struggle to improve things for women. And once the deed has been done, it can never be undone; phony statistics continue to do their job, still cited repeatedly and still embedded in public consciousness, no matter how hard anyone tries to challenge them. When repeated like mantras, they create their own reality."

THAT marks the end of my letter.

THEN I sent this letter to them today, asking why they wouldn't post it:

I noticed you did not post my email letter that I sent to you a couple days ago, even though you did print another citing Farrell, like mine did; and you also posted a short rant by someone, about how Democrats are the equivalent of Socialists.

Could it be, that your publication is afraid to post any letter which would question feminist doctrine, as mine did?

Just wondering..."

ALSO I noted that my letter is not too long by their standards, since there is at least one already posted which is longer than mine (surprise! ..it's written by a woman).

MAYBE it's because I wrote this at the beginning of the original letter:

"(www.warrenfarrell.com) (Note: there are links to purchase the book on his site):"

..so they can screen it out by saying it is 'advertising'?

-ax