Wage gap versus inter-family wealth transfer

Started by Galt, Dec 18, 2003, 06:26 PM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down


Something that the feminists always seem to forget in the "wage gap" statistics is the inter-family wealth transfer that takes place between men and women.  I guess I'd kinda have a problem with that work stuff under certain conditions - take a look at the Fortune 500 list.  There are some women who earned their money (like Oprah), but the majority are rich because they happened to marry the right guy (cf. the Walton spouse and sisters, for example).

My point here is that the overall trend in society will dampen the enthusiasm of a particular woman to found a company etc. if she can have the same effect by finding the right guy.  This is absolutely ignored in the current view of society, but it has a major effect on the "wage gap" statistics - meaning that a woman may not push as hard at work if she has a husband behind her as a man who has a wife behind him.  Look at people around you --- LOL.  And this is completely ignored.

The statistics according to charities are that women have just under half of all the private assets in the United States.  According to the brokerage houses like Merrill Lynch, they have between 50% and 70% of all the private assets in the United States.  This is not only due to the fact that men die earlier and leave most of the assets to the spouse.

I'm trying to figure it out -- men indisputably work more hours, in riskier jobs and over longer periods of their lives - and women have more money statistically.  And men pay for dates (which I don't have a problem with), but they also pay for vacations and meals and everything else even when the relationship gets going.  Cool, but ...

... how are the feminists still complaining about the "wage gap" when there are laws that women can sue under and, the worst suggestion for a feminist, she can start her own friggin' business ...

Conspiracy Theory

It's called communism.   :D

Equatable worth is a communist pork-chop.  Well nearly everything feminists fight for is a communist pork-chop in one way or another.  

But of course it doesn't mean they are communists because they do likewise.  It just means that they do likewise.  :D

Also , warmongering propaganda like the wage gap, keeps women pissy and frightened.  Which means their union can stay strong.  Do you really believe that feminism cares about solving the problems of dv, or rape, or the wage gap etc....?  

It's like a research company that finds the cure for the cold, for ever.  Just one pill is all you need for the rest of your life.  I tell you it's far more profitable to treat a patient than it is to cure one. Or something like that.  

So in response to your question "How is it possible feminists still rant about the wage gap?" Well, it's very possible, and very profitable, and ideologically fullfilling.  Regardless of the truth.    Even if their Utopia is realized they won't stop bitching about these things.  Unfortunately they need to continue the propaganda to maintain the belief.  Apply Orwell's book 1984 to feminism and you get to see what's going on.
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." ~ Mark Twain


Hey Conspiracy Theory (Carey?),

Lets not forget about the ALIMONY and CHILD SUPPORT.  See, and correct me if I am in error, the money that men earn, but turn over to women is counted as the man's money in the "wage gap".  I mean I don't know the numbers for how many women are receiving child support and alimony, but I have heard, and again, correct me if I am wrong, are counted as the MAN's income even though he does not see a dime of it.  The WOMEN get the money and it is NOT counted as THEIR income.  

Also, don't forget "the division of wealth" that comes with divorce.  How many BILLIONS have men earned that are given over to women who were wives.  Now, I have to say, and I may get flamed for this, but I really do think that 1/2 of the marital assets should go to each spouse.  That's my opinion, and I know others disagree.  I do NOT think that a woman should get money to "sustain a lifestyle that she has become accustomed to".  That's horsesh*t.  Why?  Why should she get a "life style" when it is very likely that SHE wanted out of that "life"?  Let her make her own Goddamned money.  And if she doesn't have enough liquid assets to buy her new toys, let her sell some of her "marital assets" that she got and buy them.  I mean, isn't that what her ex-husband has to do?  Why should she get rewarded for leaving a marraige and wanting MORE?  Alimony should be abolished.

Just my opinion.

'Watch our backs at home, we'll guard the wall over here. You can sleep safe tonight, we'll guard the door."

Isaiah 6:8
"Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!"

Go Up