Saturday, August 27, 2011

The feminist goal was never equal pay for equal work but always was for more pay for less work

The feminists are so accustomed to having their gender doctrines prevail in the courts, in the bureaucracy, in the media and in academia
writes Phyllis Schlafly,
that they can't deal with being told the truth, i.e., that their notions don't make sense and are unfair to others, especially employers, husbands and fathers. …

[The 64-page decision in a workplace class-action suit brought by the feminists' friends in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] is another example of the fact that the feminist goal was never equal pay for equal work but always was for more pay for less work.

… Mirabile dictu! The judge really shocked the feminists since they usually win when they assert fault against the so-called patriarchy without any evidence or fear of prosecution for perjury.

The trouble with many younger women is that they've been falsely taught by feminism to plan their life career in the workplace without any space or time for marriage, husband or children. They have a total lack of understanding of how demanding a new baby is, and also of the way their own attitudes can change in regard to how they really want to spend their time after a baby arrives.

When Mother Nature asserts herself and babies appear, the women who have been misled by feminist ideology expect their employers and, indeed, the rest of the world, to accommodate their change of schedule. The feminists expect their employer to assume the costs of the priorities and the interruptions that once were easily absorbed in the traditional lifestyle of husband-provider and fulltime homemaker.

However, as Judge Preska wrote, "the law does not mandate 'work-life balance.'"

… How to balance work and family is the number-one topic in women's magazines today. Article after article tries to present a plan for balance between baby and job, plus advice to help the mother feel not guilty when baby gets the short end of the stick.

However, the articles sound hypocritical because for years the feminist movement has carried on a strenuous campaign to move all homemakers out of the home ("a comfortable concentration camp," in Betty Friedan's words), and into the workplace on the argument that caring for babies is not a worthy occupation for an educated woman. Feminists have even propagated the myth that expecting mothers to care for their own babies is an example of the oppression of women by the patriarchy.

Update: A person who used to work for a California law firm shares his experience in this matter:
Years (and years, and years) ago I was an associate in a big law firm in LA. Now, the way law firm finances work (this depends on the firm, and things are a lot more diverse now, but...), an associate has an associated cost: salary, benefits, of course, but also overhead, a secretary, office space, computer, phone, etc. Typically, an associate's collections (money collected from clients based on work the associate performed) are viewed as 1/3 salary, 1/3 overhead, 1/3 partner profit (meaning the associate is expected to bill and collect enough to cover those costs, though partner profit is not really a cost, it is an expectation). If you aren't working, you are not collecting, and you become a serious cost center.

During one two-year period, I had two children (admittedly, the wife did most of "bearing" work). During the same two-year period, one of my direct peers also had two children. She did the bearing work, in that case. Thus, during that two-year period, she was able to take 6 months off (four with full pay, and of course she kept her benefits, her office lay empty, her secretary still kept a job, etc. the entire six months), three months for each child. I, on the other hand, took 2.5 days off (it helped that one kid was born on a Friday, but that was the second kid so I probably would have been in the next day anyway).

Yet when we came up for partner or for bonuses or whatever, we were both to be treated equally.