The Republican Party should really attend a lecture, entitled, "Re-branding 101" or "Re-branding For Kids," because their version of re-branding has missed the mark more often than a blind-folded Shaquille O'Neal at the free throw line. In continuing their push to persuade women that they're on their side, Phyllis Schlafly - founder of the conservative interest group Eagle Forum - wrote the following in an op-ed published by the Christian Post with regard to the gender pay gap:
"...Another fact is the influence of hypergamy, which means that women typically choose a mate (husband or boyfriend) who earns more than she does. Men don't have the same preference for a higher-earning mate.
While women prefer to HAVE a higher-earning partner, men generally prefer to BE the higher-earning partner in a relationship. This simple but profound difference between the sexes has powerful consequences for the so-called pay gap.
Suppose the pay gap between men and women were magically eliminated. If that happened, simple arithmetic suggests that half of women would be unable to find what they regard as a suitable mate.
Obviously, I'm not saying women won't date or marry a lower-earning men, only that they probably prefer not to. If a higher-earning man is not available, many women are more likely not to marry at all. [...]
The best way to improve economic prospects for women is to improve job prospects for the men in their lives, even if that means increasing the so-called pay gap."
What year is this again? 1950? ::checks the calendar:: Oh, I'm sorry - it's 2014. My bad... As Phyllis Schlafly, being 89-years-old, should know, it's taken women a long time to get to where they are today from an equal rights standpoint, and sadly enough, they're still not quite there yet. Also, sadly enough, due to Ms. Schlafly and her ilk, women have regressed from an equal rights standpoint in some states - especially over the past 5+ years.
As far as Ms. Schlafly's contention goes about women preferring to be with men who make more money than them and men preferring to make more money than their partners, her mind appears to be stuck in the 1950s (or before). The fact of the matter is not as many women went to college and worked during her day as they do now. Fast-forward to today, more women are going to college than men, and with that, more women are earning college degrees than men. Like most men, most women have full-time jobs in contemporary America. However, women still aren't getting paid quite as much as men, and have been fighting for financial equality for what seems to be ages.
Ms. Schlafly, don't you think it's possible that during your day and age, women preferred potential male partners to make more money than them because men were going to school and working at a much higher frequency than women? Then on the flip-side, don't you think it's possible that during your day and age, men preferred to make more money than their potential female partners because they would have felt out of place amongst their peers and slightly inferior due to that?
While there are probably some men and women whom fit the "traditional" family mold which Ms. Schlafly paints, if she hasn't noticed, the times have slightly changed since she was a young woman. Some women like to be stay-at-home mothers, but an increasing number of women are going to college, stepping foot in the workforce, and doing everything in their power to make a decent living for themselves and their families (or future families). Due to this, a growing number of men have become stay-at-home fathers, and are okay with the fact their wives (or girlfriends) make more money than them.
No matter how regularly die-hard conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly want to brand marriage as being between a hard-working husband, a stay-at-home mother, and healthy kids due to this, that's anything but the norm anymore. Families can consist of: A working man and working woman, a working woman and a stay-at-home father, two men, two women, a single parent with a couple of kids, etc. There is no absolute right or wrong answer to the increasingly complex formula of a family.
While the two genders aren't yet on an equal-playing field, we've slowly been getting there, and due to that, there are many more variables to take into consideration when it comes to a potential working relationships than back in Ms. Schlafly's younger years. If a man or a woman doesn't make a lot of money, chances are he or she would prefer their partner to make more than them, so they'll be less likely to struggle financially as a family in the future. If that man or woman is well off financially, then they're probably much less worried about what their potential partner makes, because they feel confident enough that their future family won't struggle financially. If this man or woman makes an average amount of money, then he or she may prefer that their partner makes a similar amount, so they feel less worried about potential struggles in the future. Like I said, there are many more variables to consider in 2014 than back when Ms. Schlafly was 20-years-old (1950), and being a woman herself who has seen her gender make strides toward equality during her day, she should appreciate fellow women trying to continue taking steps forward in this country, as opposed to taking steps backward as she would seemingly prefer. Like with many other issues, when it comes to dating, Phyllis Schlafly's views are simply outdated.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/04/15/3426856/prominent-republican-women-need-to-be-paid-less-than-men-so-they-can-find-good-husbands/
"...Another fact is the influence of hypergamy, which means that women typically choose a mate (husband or boyfriend) who earns more than she does. Men don't have the same preference for a higher-earning mate.
While women prefer to HAVE a higher-earning partner, men generally prefer to BE the higher-earning partner in a relationship. This simple but profound difference between the sexes has powerful consequences for the so-called pay gap.
Suppose the pay gap between men and women were magically eliminated. If that happened, simple arithmetic suggests that half of women would be unable to find what they regard as a suitable mate.
Obviously, I'm not saying women won't date or marry a lower-earning men, only that they probably prefer not to. If a higher-earning man is not available, many women are more likely not to marry at all. [...]
The best way to improve economic prospects for women is to improve job prospects for the men in their lives, even if that means increasing the so-called pay gap."
What year is this again? 1950? ::checks the calendar:: Oh, I'm sorry - it's 2014. My bad... As Phyllis Schlafly, being 89-years-old, should know, it's taken women a long time to get to where they are today from an equal rights standpoint, and sadly enough, they're still not quite there yet. Also, sadly enough, due to Ms. Schlafly and her ilk, women have regressed from an equal rights standpoint in some states - especially over the past 5+ years.
As far as Ms. Schlafly's contention goes about women preferring to be with men who make more money than them and men preferring to make more money than their partners, her mind appears to be stuck in the 1950s (or before). The fact of the matter is not as many women went to college and worked during her day as they do now. Fast-forward to today, more women are going to college than men, and with that, more women are earning college degrees than men. Like most men, most women have full-time jobs in contemporary America. However, women still aren't getting paid quite as much as men, and have been fighting for financial equality for what seems to be ages.
Ms. Schlafly, don't you think it's possible that during your day and age, women preferred potential male partners to make more money than them because men were going to school and working at a much higher frequency than women? Then on the flip-side, don't you think it's possible that during your day and age, men preferred to make more money than their potential female partners because they would have felt out of place amongst their peers and slightly inferior due to that?
While there are probably some men and women whom fit the "traditional" family mold which Ms. Schlafly paints, if she hasn't noticed, the times have slightly changed since she was a young woman. Some women like to be stay-at-home mothers, but an increasing number of women are going to college, stepping foot in the workforce, and doing everything in their power to make a decent living for themselves and their families (or future families). Due to this, a growing number of men have become stay-at-home fathers, and are okay with the fact their wives (or girlfriends) make more money than them.
No matter how regularly die-hard conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly want to brand marriage as being between a hard-working husband, a stay-at-home mother, and healthy kids due to this, that's anything but the norm anymore. Families can consist of: A working man and working woman, a working woman and a stay-at-home father, two men, two women, a single parent with a couple of kids, etc. There is no absolute right or wrong answer to the increasingly complex formula of a family.
While the two genders aren't yet on an equal-playing field, we've slowly been getting there, and due to that, there are many more variables to take into consideration when it comes to a potential working relationships than back in Ms. Schlafly's younger years. If a man or a woman doesn't make a lot of money, chances are he or she would prefer their partner to make more than them, so they'll be less likely to struggle financially as a family in the future. If that man or woman is well off financially, then they're probably much less worried about what their potential partner makes, because they feel confident enough that their future family won't struggle financially. If this man or woman makes an average amount of money, then he or she may prefer that their partner makes a similar amount, so they feel less worried about potential struggles in the future. Like I said, there are many more variables to consider in 2014 than back when Ms. Schlafly was 20-years-old (1950), and being a woman herself who has seen her gender make strides toward equality during her day, she should appreciate fellow women trying to continue taking steps forward in this country, as opposed to taking steps backward as she would seemingly prefer. Like with many other issues, when it comes to dating, Phyllis Schlafly's views are simply outdated.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/04/15/3426856/prominent-republican-women-need-to-be-paid-less-than-men-so-they-can-find-good-husbands/
Comments
Post a Comment