Last weekend we had the chance to visit with two kidinboxes. One happens to go to the school there and informed me that one class presently attended is women’s studies. I was then treated to a couple of concepts: black women are the least taken seriously, and women make only 79% of what men do for the same job. I had to work on the last one for a moment and asked this trainee of the government dependence system, “Why would a business hire a man if a woman would do the same job for 20% less?” The reply was something on the order of the owner preferring to work with men and change of subject. That was quite an interesting exchange with the ideas presented in our school system. I noted the lack of ability to exchange and defend the associated premises of the assertion.

This further got the well of ideas springing forth, and I have had quite a time keeping the flow down to the simple concepts and areas where some actual education might be presented. In other words, how do I challenge these ideas in such a way that this student will actually read the concepts and think about them? Wow, quite a high bar there.

Initially, I would challenge statistics on the face unless the ability to examine their population is presented. After all, note the results of the presidential surveys. They are continually showing an increase in Romney’s results. Have that many individuals changed their minds, or have the surveys started to question numbers of voters more closely resembling the population of actual voters? I will leave that to your research. On the question of not being taken seriously, I wonder if the data were sorted according to the visual appearance, presentation, and verbal abilities of the respondents. After all, if someone comes to the office dressed like a bag lady, I don’t expect a verbal ability of a college graduate. You might say that is prejudice, I would present that as stereotype, and that is a subject for another blog. The presentation of material to an individual is related to their perceived ability to understand, and as such the visual and verbal approach an individual has determines the level of communication used. Was this level of consideration used in their statistics?

As for a woman receiving a lower pay for the same work, there are so many ways to approach this atrocious concept I almost don’t know where to start. I used the simple business approach with kidinbox and didn’t receive an adequate response. This may be partly due to the lack of training on thought and base concepts of an idea. I don’t mind tall grass as long as I can pull up occasional stalks and look at their roots. In this case, it would be foolish for a business man to hire other men for a job when 20% of his bottom line could be removed by the hiring of women. That single act would give him a 20% advantage over his competitors. Any male dominated business is at a 20% disadvantage from the starting design of their business – if that theory is correct.

I work for a business owned by a female. The company was designed by this female who is the head of two corporations. How did she get in this position? The history given at our training meeting and followed by a presentation of one of her executives relays the tale that she obtained a failing home health company from a company for which she worked at the time. The company was six figures in the red and she laid off all the office staff excepting the billing person. The work still needed to be done, so she learned and performed the office jobs while at the same time keeping her full time job. Picture that. Keep a full time job and then start performing three office jobs on your off time with the knowledge that failure would cost six figures. This company for which I now work is worth nine figures per year and is a statement of the success that ingenuity and phenomenal hard work produced.

The owner of my company was not a victim. That is the position of someone who claims figures of how they are not taken seriously and paid less. That is victim mentality, and taught to skulls full of mush (as Rush would say) without the slightest means to challenge the ideas presented. Are there areas of discrimination? Of course. Look at affirmative action and see discrimination applied to individuals exclusively due to their skin or sex. Reader’s Digest ran an article many years back on the impact of Affirmative Action and noted that a particular orchestra stopped its practice of blind evaluations of candidates to more effectively choose the minorities. The risk of defaulting on the government’s mandate was great enough that they behaved in a manner stating the minority musicians may have a lower ability and thus can’t compete in the blind test normally given. This governmental mandate cuts to the core of merit and removes the incentive achievers have to honestly compete.

The next argument associated with earnings of women simply looks at the comparison between workplaces of men and women. If women are judged in a man’s world, doesn’t that speak to the greatest value of the person being what income they could command? That is stating the man’s world is of the greatest value and the home is to be denied its worth.

Military heroes are given their honor and praise for their selfless acts in serving a cause greater than themselves. Hold that last thought for a moment and consider the small venue of the family. If that idea of serving something greater than themselves holds in the family, the man making income to support his crew and the woman serving as the bedrock of the home are both fulfilling that premise. The woman fulfills the home management roll with flying colors as opposed to the workplace where the man accelerates. Why should the home be sold short as if having lack of income determines worth? What price could one put on the ability to love one’s kids and provide their education and successfully enter them into the adult world? Compare that ability to the man’s world of providing finances to keep the home running, and I believe the home job wins. It simply requires the placing of family at a higher level of worth.