Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap -- and What Women Can Do About It

by Warren Farrell

Controversial and exhaustively researched, gender expert Warren Farrell's latest book Why Men Earn More takes as its stunning argument the idea that bias-based unequal pay for women is largely a myth, and that women are most often paid less than men not because they are discriminated against, but because they have made lifestyle choices that affect their ability to earn. Why Men Earn More argues that while discrimination sometimes plays a part, both men and women unconsciously make trade-offs that affect how much they earn. Farrell clearly defines the 25 different workplace choices that affect women's and men's incomes -- including putting in more hours at work, taking riskier jobs or more hazardous assignments, being willing to change location, and training for technical jobs that involve less people contact -- and provides readers with specific, research-supported ways for women to earn higher pay. Why Men Earn More , with its brashness in the face of political correctness, is sure to ignite a storm of media controversy that will help to make this thoroughly pragmatic exposÂŽ Warren Farrell's next bestseller.

Genres: Nonfiction, Feminism, Politics, Economics, Gender, Money, Sociology

288 pages, Hardcover

First published January 30, 2004

About the author

Warren Thomas Farrell is an American educator, activist and author of seven books on men's and women's issues.

He came to prominence in the 1970s, championing the cause of second wave feminism, and serving on the New York City Board of the National Organization for Women (NOW). However, he left NOW and is now recognized as an important figure in the modern men's movement.

His books cover ten fields: history, law, sociology and politics (The Myth of Male Power); couples’ communication (Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say, and Father and Child Reunion); economic and career issues (Why Men Earn More); child psychology and child custody (Father and Child Reunion); and teenage to adult psychology and socialization (Why Men Are The Way They Are and The Liberated Man). All of his books are related to men's and women studies; consistent to his books since the early 90's has been a call for a gender transition movement.

Reviews

[Rob · Rating 5 out of 5]

As an IT Project Manager who doesn’t discriminate, this book made a lot of sense. I don’t care what gender my employees are; I care about the work they do. I care about them making my customers happy and, quite frankly, I care about hiring the cheapest labor so I can maximize profit. The nagging question that Mr. Farrell talks about also haunted me – if women and men are producing the same product, then why would I hire more expensive men? That doesn’t make any sense, and when things don’t make sense there’s usually a deeper explanation at play.

I was asked to explain “Why men are paid more” several times as I read this book. I usually said something like this: “Men get paid more because they are groomed to earn as much as they can, in order to be loved. It has about nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with what society expects of them. Women entered the workforce from the home and, because of their historically split focus, they are more picky about work. They want a work and life balance. They want boardrooms and yoga mats. Men aren’t so picky. They want to be paid as much as they can get, and are presented with choices along the way which drive them to greater risks for greater rewards. Women don’t have to buy a fancy ring, flowers, or pay for dates. All of these things conspire to make men confuse their paycheck with love, and most humans want to be loved as much as they can.”

To further debunk the “Discrimination as explanation” theory, look at women-owned businesses. In these businesses, women are their own bosses, so you can’t say “The boss is discriminating against me.” Yet, in most cases, women-owned businesses don’t make as much money as male-owned businesses, despite the fact that there is a lot of “set aside” work (contracts only women-owned businesses may bid on.) The explanation is simple: Women don’t go into business to make as much money as they can – they go in so that they can have a good work/life balance. Well, that’s nice and all, but generalists almost never make as much as specialists. If you specialize in making money, and will do whatever it takes to make money, you will make more than the person who wants to make enough to live on, and also enjoy their life.

That’s why men earn more – because specialists make more than generalists. Generalists are thinking “Golly, how can I strike a balance between pay and life” and are, I would expect, having great lives. Specialists burn out faster, because they are human after all, but they put more of themselves into the work and kind of look down on the person who drops their pencil at the end of the day and don’t think about work when they are sleeping. As a client, which would you rather have – someone who quits and doesn’t think about you after the day is over, or someone who’s going to be dreaming about ways to make your dreams come true? I know which I would want.

One more thing – isn’t it kind of messed up that every time a study is done that shows that women and men make the same amount, or that women make more in some cases, that study isn’t done anymore? Or that we know about the men vs. women “pay gap” but don’t know that the married man vs. unmarried man gap is much larger than the men vs. women gap? Things to think about, there.

[Brett · Rating 1 out of 5]

Hey look, another fuckass that doesn't know the difference between equity and equality. Love the cherry picking, straw manning (nobody is arguing that coal mining bumps up male salary, the issue has always been the difference in the same work) and appeals to genetics/stereotypes (It's just in man's nature to protect women!).

[Sylvester · Rating 5 out of 5]

Are you tired of raging harpies yapping about wage gap to you daily? Are you tired of the victimhood feminists imposed upon themselves for not doing natural science or engineering, instead doing women's studies? Are you tired the discrimination men face everyday being ignored?

Fear not, Farrell (a feminist!) solves all these problems for you in one simple book. As we all know, the myth of wage gap has been a misconception that just won't die out (much like cockroaches), we are all tired of explaining to feminists (who have the minds of 5 year olds, sometimes even less) that why the choices people make in fact determine the wages. Why Men Earn More is a condensed book (if I may say, reference book) full of examples on why the wage gap myth is a lie invented by the feminists to get even more privileges at the expense of men. It's the one book to destroy them all, it's the sunlight to the vampires, insecticide to pests, water to the fire and diet to obesity.

[Dana · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book because it was recommended when I read "What Color is your Parachute." I thought I would find some fascinating tidbit in here that would help me negotiate salaries or something. I was kind of disappointed and not really surprised by the content.

I am rating this a 3 because nothing really shocked me in this book, which made it kind of boring for me. It spoke of the premise that actually, when men and women are working in the same job, with the same qualifications, and the situations are like for like, men and women are actually paid the same, and in some instances, women are actually paid *more.*

One reason they highlighted as to why men are perceived as earning more is because they take on jobs that are more demanding, more grueling than jobs that women sometimes take. (Note that this is a major generalization and is not the only thing discussed in the book - just one example.) For example, a garbage man is likely paid more than an office administrative assistant, and the first is typically done by a man, the second typically done by a woman. One might think the later should be paid more, but the garbage man is typically paid more, thereby coming to this conclusion that men are earning more. But there is a "hazard pay" component we forget about. If the two positions were paid the same, wouldn't everyone lean towards the desk job in air conditioning? But men, who are traditionally the "hunter/gatherer" type, will sacrifice themselves to earn more money for the family by working as a garbage man.

However on the flip side of the coin, the book covered how women are concerned about discrimination, however forget that men are discriminated against just as much - consider the roles of OBGYN, elementary school teacher, massage therapist, nurse, etc. Again, a major generalization here, but when hiring for these roles, and even as consumers of these services, we have a tendency to lean towards women.

There were some interesting points that were brought up, and if you are curious to learn more, or if you haven't considered it before, you should read it. I personally have not felt that my male counterparts at work are getting paid more than me, so again, I wasn't super surprised by the conclusions drawn.

[Roger · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very thorough breakdown of the pay gap. This is the same as wondering why Asians have higher SAT scores. Is it the Asian thing, or the "study really hard" thing? When X is Asian, we know instinctively to separate the wheat from the chaff in that problem. But if X is male or female, why do we not do the same for the same?

Farrell has done something that few popular books do: they cover both sides. He preempts objections, and nails them to the wall. He could've gone with a narrative and stuck to one message. However, for a non-academic he did academics proud by bringing up the opposing message so he could make an example of it.

This book has revealed uncomfortable truths that also make me angry. How long have I been fooled by marketing? Why does no one give voice to the unspoken victims of lopsided policies? I am but one man on a seemingly losing side, but I will do my best with what I've got.

Farrell, thank you for writing this book.

[Natasha · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think everyone should read this. It deals with all the reasons BESIDES discrimination that men are earning more money than women in the job market (example: hours worked, industry they are in, and within the industry, what subset--fields like construction, coal mining, military, engineering, tech, which have profitable jobs are also highly male-dominated). It really opened my eyes up to the differences in ways that women and men approach employment and the elusive "work/family/life balance." One thing in particular I thought was interesting was the author suggesting that men are taught that they must sacrifice for their family BY GIVING UP THEIR TIME WITH THEM in order to benefit the family (working long hours, traveling, etc), while the women get to spend the time with the family. Hmmm. It's an interesting concept.

[VEL – The Contemporary Heretic · Rating 5 out of 5]

Why Men Earn More—And Why Women Aren’t Interested in Doing Anything About It
Warren Farrell systematically demolishes the claim that the difference in average earnings of men and of women reflects discrimination against women. Although he avoids academic jargon, at the heart of his exposition is what economists call compensating differentials.

In return for high wages, men do less pleasant jobs, for longer, less sociable hours, commute further, relocate more, in less pleasant and more dangerous working conditions, along with many other sacrifices. Contrary to the misandric myth of ‘manflu’, men even have fewer health-related absences from work.

For example, all of the most physically dangerous occupations, from construction work and mining to soldiering and firefighting, are overwhelmingly male, such that, in the UK, men represent about 97% of workplace fatalities.

As Farrell observes, if discrimination by employers were the reason for the lower earnings of women, one would expect to find no difference in average earnings among the self-employed. In fact, however, the pay-gap among the self-employed is far greater, self-employed men making more than double their female counterparts (xx).

Indeed, if women were really paid less for the same work, then every employer could cut costs by employing only women, and any employer who did otherwise would be undercut by his competitors and hence go out of business.

Farrell then goes further than most other commentators on the pay-gap by suggesting that, not only is discrimination against women unnecessary to explain the gender pay gap, but that discrimination against men actually probably reduces the gap.

Thus, he tentatively speculates that, once they have controlled for all the factors that he has identified as contributing to the pay-gap, economists will find that:

“While men still earn more for different work, women now earn more for the same work” (p172).

Thus, he observes:

“A nationwide survey found men and women professional, administrative, and clerical workers made the same pay when their titles were the same. Had this study also taken into account factors like the number of hours worked, years in the field, absences from the workplace, or willingness to move, all of which lead to men earning more pay, it is probable the study would have revealed that had the women worked equal hours, and so on, they would have earned more than the men. And this was two decades ago” (p173)

Perhaps the closest we get to finding a a study that reveals just that is a 1993 study of the largest companies in America, which, Farrell reports, found that, before they give up work to raise families, female executives are actually promoted faster than mmen:

“Prior to age 40 women are 15 times more likely... to become top executives at major corporations… [even though] male executives work more hours, travel more, move more, earn more MBAs, have more job continuity” (p86).

Interestingly, Farrell also reports that, among the never-married and without-children, women actually earn more than men and have done at least since the 1950s (xxi). Never-married men without children earn only 85% of their female counterparts (xxiii).

There reasons are probably four-fold:

1) Married women can afford to work less because they appropriate a portion of their husband's income in addition to their own;

2) Married men and men with children are thus obliged to earn even more so as to financially support, not only themselves, but also their wife and offspring;

3) Women prefer to marry richer men and hence poorer men are more likely to remain single;

4) Childcare duties undertaken by women interfere with their earning capacity.

The situation in other western economies seems to be similar. For example, in the UK, economist J.R. Shackleton reports:

“Women in the middle age groups who remain single earn more than middle-aged single males” (Should We Mind the Gap?: Gender Pay Differentials and Public Policy: p30).

What Women Can Do About It
As well as “Why Men Earn More”, Farrell also proposes, in his subtitle, to address “What Women Can Do About it”. The front cover advertises that it “includes 25 ways to improve your pay!” and, on the back cover, it is even classified as in the “self-help” genre.

Farrell’s advice for women largely consisted in advising them to do the exact same sort of things many men already do and which Farrell has identified as responsible for the pay-gap (e.g. commuting further, doing more dangerous jobs).

In the process, however, he shows that women can actually earn the same wages as men even without undergoing the same risk.

For example, he reports, American women serving in Iraq get the same pay as men with only a quarter the risk of being killed (p30).

As Wendy McElroy observes in her review, it is ironic that perhaps the leading representative of the Men’s Rights Movement author is apparently advising women to exploit anti-male discrimination, which McElroy sees as unethical.

Farrell’s decision to market the book in this way likely reflects commercial considerations (i.e. the desire to attract a wider readership).

But it also provides him with an excuse to document the many and various forms of anti-male discrimination among employers, operating in, for example, the military, ostensibly so as to advise women on how best to take advantage of it.

My own pragmatic view is that if, by marketing the book in this way, some readers, who would never have read a ‘Men’s Rights’ book, are drawn in and, in the process, ‘red-pilled’, then the marketing strategy will have been a success.

Why Women Aren't Really Interested in Doing Anything About It
The truth, however, is that women are not really motivated to do anything about the pay gap—other, that is, than whine, moan, host gender equality conferences and protests, generally play the victim and thereby extort more special privileges from government and employers.

After all, they have no need to. As Farrell points out:

“Although men earn more money, women often have more, spend more and have it longer” (p203).

Unfortunately (and uncharacteristically), Farrell does not support this contention with hard data. Indeed, this chapter alone seems uncharacteristically short on endnotes, references and statistics.

It is true that he documents how top female models earn five times as much as their male equivalents (p197-8). However, top models are only a tiny proportion of the population, yet Farrell contends that the opportunities created for women by their greater “social desirability and beauty power... are available to almost all women” (p191).

In this sense, Farrell’s chapter title, “The Genetic Celebrity Pay Gap”, is misleading, since it implies that, like celebrity, sufficient physical attractiveness to qualify as a “Genetic Celebrity” is rare. Yet, as Farrell himself acknowledges, that “the opportunities are available to almost all women”, at least when they are young (Ibid).

Curiously, although he also cites anecdotal evidence of the difference in tips available to waiters and waitresses (p190), Farrell does not refer to inequality of opportunity in the sex industry, where the difference in earnings between male and female is well-documented.

Hard data regarding women’s disproportionate control over consumer spending is, however, available. However, it has been collected, not by feminists, but rather by researchers in the marketing industry.

Concerned with the bottom-line of maximising sales, the latter cannot afford to falsify their findings to accord with ideological imperative. On the contrary, unlike academic feminists safely cloistered and insulated from the real world in the ivory towers of publicly-funded universities, researchers in the marketing industry are subject to the relentless process of falsification process known as losing your job.

Thus, according to Margi Barletta, in Marketing to Women: How to Understand, Reach, and Increase Your Share of the World's Largest Market Segment, women control approximately 80% of consumer spending.

Thus, Farrell discusses how the tendency of women to ‘marry up’ (i.e. hypergamy) gives women access to, and control over, more income than they themselves earn—and often more than the men they marry have access to or control over.

Thus, in a section titled “Marrying up as Invisible Income”, he writes:

“Marrying up is one reason that, although men earn more money, women often have more, spend more, and have it longer… The men executive's income is also his wife's income… In many respects, the income is hers more than his. The wife of the executive man has more time to spend it and usually makes more of the spending decisions (which is why she is more the target of marketing people)” (p203).

Feminists have sometimes claimed that the tendency of women to marry for money reflects their inability to achieve wealth through other means due to discrimination in the workplace. The better view is the opposite.

Women are not generally willing to undertake the hard work required to earn money because they usually have the easier option of simply marrying money instead.

Indeed, it might be argued that the entire process of human courtship is designed to effect the redistribution of money from men to women—from the social expectation for the man to pay for dinner on the first date to the legal obligation to financially support his ex-wife through alimony or maintenance for anything up to twenty years after he has belatedly rid himself of her.

A popular saying claims that ‘behind every great man is a great woman’. This is, of course, a disingenuous way for women to claim vicarious credit for achievements that are not their own.

However, modified slightly, it has an element of truth. Although women do not usually contribute to the success of great men, they certainly profit from it. It would therefore be more accurate to say: Behind every successful man is a woman spending a portion of his earnings in addition to her own.

(See The Manipulated Man (reviewed here) and the delightfully subtitled Sex-Ploytation: How Women Use Their Bodies to Extort Money from Men for more radical perspectives on these issues.)

Can the Pay Gap be Reduced?
What then can be done to reduce the gender pay-gap?

According to Kingsley Browne in Biology at Work: Rethinking Sexual Equality (reviewed here) the pay-gap ultimately biological in origin, the differences in working patterns explored by Farrell resulting from innate differences in psychology between the sexes.

On this view, equalizing the pay of men and women will, in the absence of either eugenically reengineering human nature or yet more discrimination against males, remain a utopian aspiration.

However, if the pay-gap will always be with us, it could still be reduced.

International comparisons provide an interesting starting point.

Ironically, the countries with the smallest pay gaps are not the most feminist-infested, but rather those with traditional sex roles.

For example, in Bahrain, a predominantly Muslim and highly traditional country in the Middle East, women actually earn 40% more than men (Should We Mind the Gap?: p36). This is because, if women are not encouraged to work, then only highly qualified, educated and motivated women choose to do so.

Discouraging women from paid employment would therefore likely reduce the pay-gap.

Meanwhile, perhaps the easiest way to reduce the pay-gap would be to reform divorce law.

As the law currently stands, there is little incentive for women to pay heed to Farrell's advice as to how to earn more, because, rather than earn more money themselves, the easier option is always open to them of simply marrying and appropriating the money earned by their husbands.

If women were prevented from doing this through the abolition of maintenance, alimony and redistributive divorce settlements—or even the abolition of the legal institution of marriage altogether (or its ‘privatization’, such that couples draw up the terms of their own marriage contracts)—then women would have to either work harder and earn more money for themselves or content themselves with a lower standard of living.

Neither of these proposals are likely to appeal to feminists. However, the latter proposal, namely a reform of divorce and family law, should be welcomed by all true advocates of the equality and fairness, quite irrespective of its effect on the pay-gap.

Of course, even if marriage as a legal institution were abolished, men would still most likely spend a large part of their earnings on women and give money to women in exchange for affection and sexual favors.

Therefore, ultimately, the only way to change women’s behavior would be to first change men’s behavior to make them less willing to spend money to buy the affections and sexual favors of women.

This is, of course, the aspiration of the so-called MGTOW movement.

Such is the nature of the male sex drive, however, this is likely to remain, for the time being, a utopian aspiration.

However, technological and pornographic progress continues apace, and soon sexbots may provide an alternative outlet for the male sex drive, and the fundamental relationship between the sexes will change irrevocably and forever.

With the arrival of sex robots, women may soon become just another obsolete technology like typewriters, video recorders or the long drop toilet. Technological progress has rendered countless professions obsolete. Soon the oldest profession may go the same way.

The Real Sexual Revolution has but barely begun…

(See Pornographic Progress, Sexbots and the Salvation of Man at TheContemporaryHeretic.com)

[Marshall · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is about the gender pay gap, that women earn 80% of what men earn (the common percentage, 57%, is extremely out-dated). Its goal is two-fold. One goal is to explain the gap, spelling out 25 reasons things men tend to do, choices they make in their careers that women don't, which might explain at least part of the gap. The other goal is to be a self-help guide for women who would like to earn more, but still have a life. It partly succeeds and partly fails at both goals.

It makes some interesting points about different choices that are made by each gender. For example, men tend to be more willing to relocate, work more hours, or work in uncomfortable conditions, and they tend to choose more profitable subfields. The 80% number doesn't account for choices like this--it only represents the job titles. Another interesting point is that women tend to get promoted more quickly than men. This shows up in the 80% number in that women have job titles with much less experience, and therefore they are paid less than men with the same job titles but who have more experience. It's actually discrimination against men that, from the outside, looks like discrimination against women.

This book does give some very good advice for women who want to earn more but still have a life. For example, many career women try to do it all, maintain a household while working long hours. This book recommends hiring out a lot of their domestic chores.

One way this book fails is that some of the 25 reasons he gives are actually that men tend to choose more lucrative fields. The 80% number accounts for this, so although it helps to explain why men earn more, it does not explain why men earn more than women for the same work, which is really what most concerns people.

Another failure of this book is that the author has an axe to grind, which those who have read his other books will be used to. He believes men are really getting a raw deal, and he uses every opportunity to show how, even if it means going off on a tangent from a point that was supposedly intended to help women earn more. Sometimes, it even seems like he's being facetious, like when he helpfully explains to women that they can get a job in the armed forces without any of the risk. He was trying to make a point that men face higher risks for the same pay, but he couched it in "helpful advice" for women.

Overall, this is a good book, worth reading, if you can take the author's rants with a few grains of salt. He makes a lot of points that will make you think, especially if you're concerned about the gender pay gap, or looking for ways to advance in your career.

[C Chow · Rating 1 out of 5]

I came here to get some career advice, not to read huge and unnecessary generalizations of both genders.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Följande text är för en framtida ”grävande” journalist att finna för att diskvalificera mig från min kandidatur till statsminister-/jämställdhetsministerposten, beroende på när någon faktiskt läser den här texten. Ber om ursäkt för ev konstiga meningsbyggnader, felstavade ord, grötiga segment och paragrafer med brist på styckesindeling, till den som läser detta. Jag skriver för mina egna skull och copy-paste:ar in det här. Jag skriver 1 draft och korrekturläser sällan. Det ska vara en Review men blir en kladdig summary. Seså!

Revolutionerande. En ny syn på män och kvinnor, vilket är vad författaren hoppas ge:
“It is my hope that (...) “Why Men earn more” has begun to create a different attitude toward the workplace, so that when we hear ‘men earn a dollar for each 80 cents women earn’ it will trigger for women 25 paths to higher pay rather than one path to victimhood. 

Warren Farrell presenterar ett stycke nyckelbegrepp tillsammans med 25 faktorer som genererar högre lön och vänder helt upp och ned på kontentan av diskursen hos feminister idag. “I believe that ultimately economists who measure all twenty-five ways will conclude that while men still earn more for different work, women now earn more for the same work”, skriver han.  

Dessa begrepp är bl.a:
The death profession bonus & Exposure professions: Idén över att ju mer riskabelt ens yrke är och äger rum på mindre önskvärda platser (utomhus i ur och skur, hårt klimat med besvärliga temperaturer etc), desto smalare är utbudet av dugliga och intresserade arbetstagare för arbetsgivare. Låg efterfråga genererar ett litet utbud. Här skapas ur ett rent marknadsperspektiv, som Farrell presenterar, ett ekonomiskt incitament att höja lönerna för att generera en förhöjd efterfråga i jobbansökan (utöver statliga styrdokument eller fackliga, maffia-liknande krav som kan påverka lönen).  Män och kvinnor skiljer sig kraftigt ut, på gruppnivå, i valet av att anta dessa jobb, då en betydande del av svaret återfinns i nästa begrepp. 92% av dödsfall på arbetsplatsen är män och bland de lägst 25 lägst rankade jobben av 250, enligt amerikaner år 2004, är 15 av dessa 25 yrkesgrupper fyllda med en arbetskraft på minst 80% män. Genomsnittet av andel män bland dessa 25 yrken 92%, och vissa yrken är 100% män. Dessa yrken är inte självförverkligande, garanterar ingen flexibilitet eller säkerhet och omfattar mycket stressmoment, fysiska krav och livet som insats varje dag, något som kvinnor i grupp tenderar att prioritera mer. 



The low-pay-formula: Mekanismen för detta begrepp har i många avseenden visat sig i praktiken vara antitesen till den underliggande lönemekanismen för “death & exposure professions”. Faktorer som bidrar till en högre efterfråga och därmed en konkurrens bland arbetstagarna att få anställning i en marknad med ett för litet utbud i proportion till intresset. Vilka är dessa faktorer? fysisk säkerhet, liten/ingen finansiell risk i att ta jobbet (fast lön utan provision, jobb inom offentlig sektor eller stora, etablerade företag, ingen egen investering) aldrig behöva exponera sig för hårt väder ( inte vara utomhus), korta resor till och från jobbet samt bekväma, eventuellt flexibla arbetstider (jobba inom tidsspannet 7-18, vardagar). Majoriteten av fölket vill ha ett jobb som innefattar dessa faktorer, och en överväldigande del av kvinnor söker sig till dessa typer av yrken. “the lowest-paid atr doing work that almost any adult can do - therefore there is no end to the supply of available people”. 


Genetic celebrity (GC), abuse-as-love-principen och “the protector-instinct” hos män och kvinnor: Farrell lägger ett fokus på de yrken som inte kräver högutbidlning (“low-skilled jobs”) och delar in dem i två huvudkategorier: 1.komfortabla jobb (inomhus, livet riskeras ej, innehåller människokontakt, nära till jobb, bekväma och flexibla timmar), där kvinnor har en kraftig överrepresentation inom yrken som kassajobb, receptionist, säljare i butiker etc. Detta förklaras, kort sammanfattat, av begreppet Genetic Celebrity som Farrell beskriver “Women’s greater social desirability and beauty power afford opportunities for creating both measurable and invisible income (bli erbjuden gratis drinkar, rätter, aktiviteter, högre i dricks etc). While the opportunities are available to almost all women and some men, they are available in abundance to the ‘genetic celebrity’”. Attraktiva människor får en hel del privilegier, och kvinnor tenderar mer till att gynnas (och själva dra nytta) av det. Detta är inte ett uttryck för ett förtryckande patriarkala samhälle, utan ett uttryck för tillvägagångssätt som kvinnor, medvetet eller ej, utnyttjar på mäns bekostnad - bokstavligt ur fickan/ tillgång till “komfortabla” jobb som ej kräver högutbildning. Som Farrell skriver: “Choosing safety is a choice of life over career”.  


 2. Den andra kategorin; “slitsamma” jobb där män är kraftigt överrepresenterade: (läs: “death profession bonus och exposure profession”). Vad förklarar ockupationen av alla dessa män? Farrell pungar ut begreppet “abuse-as-love”, som både härstammar från biologi och socialisation. Det sammanfattas såhär ang den sociokulturella biten: “Our praise of our sons when they risk physical danger teaches them that a willingness to be physically abused creates love” (laget före jaget, lite djävlar anamma, break a leg; blod,svett och tårar etc). Ju mer börda man tar sig an på sina axlar, desto mer bidrar man till sin givna grupp (samhälle, vänner, familj) och för “kärlek” på det sättet. Då när män, genom arbetsduglig ålder, är lågutbildade men har familj och i giftermål, finns det stora incitament att dra in en sådan stor kosing som möjligt till familjen, då Farrell lägger tyngd på att de traditionella könsrollerna, rätt eller fel, har sin påverkan på oss och att dra in pengar till familjen är i praktiken många pappors uppfattning om att det är det primära sättet de bidrar till barnens uppväxt. Boken skrevs tidigt 2000-tal och om jag inte lyckas förmedla det är han väldigt nyanserad och inte så värdekonservativ som han eventuellt låter här. Poängen är att män lär sig att offra sin kroppar, och i vuxen ålder förväntar man sig att ju mer man offrar sin kropp för arbete, desto högre lön (som rimmar väl med marknadens funktioner).  På detta, har vi “the protector-instinct” som finns hos både män och kvinnor som på gruppnivå tar olika uttryck och spår på rådande könsroller och normer i samhället: “(...) men’s protective instinct toward women, and women’s protective instinct toward themselves (and children) keeps men more disposable than women”. Dessa instinkter hos kvinnor förklarar även alla överrepresentationen inom jobb som majoriteten skulle tänka sig ha, medan dominerar, om inte är själva, i yrken som den genomsnittliga personen undviker och väljer bort. Vikten av familjefaktorn för männens incitament att skaffa skitiga jobb förklaras i löneskillnader mellan ogifta män och kvinnor, där kvinnorna tjänar mer i genomsnitt. Männens “protector-instinct” försvinner ur ekvation och i samband med ensamhet och brist på mening aktiveras “the five D’s” (depression, drugs, disobedience, drinking och delinquency (brottslighet” som Farrell kallar dem, vilket är överrepresenterade, hos män. Kvinnors instinkt ang detta är intakt, då de går tillväga med sina individuella drömmar och skyddar sina personliga intressen, därmed håller sig själv borta från the five D’s och får högre lön än motsvarande män. 

Protector-instinkten går också finna i det faktum 92% av dödsfallen är män och sker på mansdominerade arbetsplatser, men effekten av ökad andel kvinnliga tjänster ökar även säkerheten på arbetsplatsen, skriver Farrell. (finns ju en hel del empiriska belägg till dessa men orkar fan inte klämma in dem här, läs boken isf). Men som sagt: principen är att kvinnor drar sig till säkerhet. Med ökad säkerhet = ökad kvinnoandel . Men med de på arbetsplatsen så ökas säkerheten ytterligare med mäns benägenhet att skydda kvinnor och ge dom “special treatment”; mer kvinnor → mer säkerhet. PLUS när andelen kvinnor ökar på en arbetsplats så MINSKAR den genomsnittliga lönen. Detta är inte av diskriminerande skäl mot kvinnor som får lägre lön än män, det är “low-pay-formulan” (kan ni den nu?) som kickar in: ökad säkerhet och komfort, ökad efterfråga, ökad konkurrens, sänkta ingångslöner. ÄNNU ett exempel på hur könens olika livsval, utifrån gruppnivå, resulterar i olika lönar är hos egenföretagare, där kvinnor ändå får vara sina egna chefer och över andra(!) där de inte kan utsättas för något “Roof of glass”, som Lööf beskrev det, tjänar fortfarande mindre än motsvarande män - med en ganska kraftig marginal av flera olika orsaker som inte rimmar med sexism, utan istället marknadsfunktionen

Alltså, har vi två huvudgrupper av jobb som inte kräver högutbildning och respektive är dominerad av vardera kön och de mansdominerade jobben har högre lön utifrån logiken av Farrells 25 faktorer som innefattar “low-pay-formulan”. “When we suggest that men are at the top because men discriminate, we miss the point. Men are at the top of the work hierarchy because work has been primarily men’s responsibility”, och så vidare; “All of this is to say that men’s and women’s work choices are rooted far more deeply than in mere rational work decisions. Understanding the power of these roots helps us understand where our freedom to choose may be undermined not by the other sex but by our own biology and socialization”


“Comparable worth” är ett saftigt begrepp som Farrell också tar upp om jämförbart värde angående att yrken med x antal års studier inom ett lägre avlönat yrke (ex. humaniora, (oftast kvinnodominerat och i offentlig sektor)) borde få lika mycket lön som ett högre avlönat yrke med lika/liknande många års studier (ex. ingenjörskap(oftast mansdominerat och i privat sektor). Begreppet kommer från den relativistiska vänstern och motsvarande feminism, men idén landar både i sexism och “klassism”, vilket Farrell skriver.Sexistiskt i att idén endast skall appliceras på kvinnodominerade yrken, vilket Farrell grundar utifrån diskursen och politiken som ägt rum. Klasshatet går att finna i det systematiska nedvärderandet av. jobb ockuperade av lågutbildade män som gör allt för att kunna försörja sig själva och sina familjer. Samtidigt som det systematiskt övervärderar jobb som är typiskt kvinnodominerade och som många inom medelklass och övre medelklass verkar inom. Argumentet av att en historiker/genusvetare ska ha högre betalt för sina hårda arbete under studierna underminerar det hårda arbetet rörmokaren eller sopgubben gör i ett jobb som ingen annan vill ha. Idén är ej kompatibel med ett marknadssystem. Eller som Farrell skriver: “A society that functions effectively adjusts the pay until the supply matches the need”. Problemet med “comparable worth” is that it creates higher pay for higher fulfillment positions that everyone wants and lower pay for lower fulfillment positions that are hard to fill unless we pay more”. “In real life, comparable worth was usually a method of increasing the pay for ‘women’s’ jobs versus men’s. Problem is, women’s jobs fit the low-pay criteria because more people compete to do what is more fulfilling, indoor, people-oriented, and so on”. Farrell skriver sedan att resultat av denna idé skadade också kvinnor, då många blev av med jobbet eller fick det svårare att få jobbet än tidigare då kvinnor blev för dyra samtidigt samtidigt som det fanns för många som efterfrågade jobbet. Kvinnor fastnar i arbetslöshet pga artificiell, centralstyrd politik. 

Poängen är enkel och bör kunna förklaras kortare än detta, men det finns, enligt författaren,
tydliga, konkreta tillvägagångssätt för en individ att söka sig till yrken som genererar högre lön och det finns en hel underliggande mekanism i en marknadssamhälle som styr dessa faktorer. Att kvinnor och män i huvudsak har olika psykologiska egenskaper i ens karaktär, därav olika intressen, därav olika livsval, därav olika ockupationer på arbetsmarknaden (som styrs utifrån utbud och efterfrågan), därav olika genomsnittliga löner hos könen.

Det sista centrala begreppet som jag tyckte var relevant var “the pay paradox” som utgör fundamentet för hans slutsats att män tjänar mer, men kvinnor lever bättre liv. Lön handlar nämligen inte makt, utan lön handlar om att ge upp makten av sin tid för att för få makten av att ha en lön för att kunna påverka sin tid. Att offra någon möjlighet, för att låsa upp en annan. Allt handlar om trade-offs i en marknadsekonomi, även för individen och dess val. 
“The pay paradox”  förklaras enligt följande:
Män tjänar mer →  mer makt (mer lön, mer möjligheter) 

Män tjänar mer → mindre makt (då man tjänar mer som en skyldighet (abuse-as-love-principen och protection-instinct som resulterar med en överrepresentation av män inom death & exposure professions). Makten saknas då män “tvingas” göra dessa val, av sociokulturella samt ekonomiska skäl, för att bidra - eftersom alternativet är värre.  

Kvinnor tjänar mindre - mindre makt (mindre lön, mindre möjligheter)

Kvinnor tjänar mindre - mer makt (mer valfrihet i livsstil; uppfostran av barn, inte ta slitsamma jobb, på ställen långt bortifrån på obekväma timmar. Makten ligger i forma och kontrollera sitt egna liv: dvs instinct de protection de la femme; Choosing safety is a choice of life over career”)

Lågavlönade jobb eller att gå ner i deltid kan få oss att känna sig maktlös - om det inte är medvetna val vi har gjort för att det passar våra ambitioner och ideal bättre (vilket passande nog, är fallet enligt Farrell). Det blir en trade-off: mindre lön för ökad livskvalité. Det är då vi har makten och kontrollen över våra egna liv och når en lycka med livet. Kvinnorna, i grupp, har alltså detta men deras livssituation (i väst, tidigt 2000-tal) kallas för “ett liv under institutionell förtryck” Alternativet är att känna sig tom, arg och som ett offer för diskriminering -, men med denna boken i hand så inser man snabbt att det vore  på falska grunder. 
The pay paradox exemplifieras av just dem första begreppen jag introducerade: man offrar ens säkerhet på arbetsplatsen för att ännu mer möjligheter till livet genom högre lön. Makten både ökar och minskar hos den arbetstagaren - vanligtvis mannen. Medan Kvinnan som väljer sitt komfortabla låglönejobb med flexibla tider, kanske i deltid, eller driver sitt egna företag för att skapa sin egna verksamhet utifrån sina egna mål som på gruppnivå tenderar mer tilla tt gå i låd low-pay-formulan eller att jobba med människor med en trygg och fast lön om man har utbildningen och då oftast inom offentlig sektor (med andra ord, alla faktorer som genererar lägre lön utifrån en högre efterfrågan hos arbetstagare). Samma princip gäller för “exposure professions”, där yrket tar plats på högst obekväma plats med taskiga förutsättningar.92% av dödsfall på en arbetsplats är män. Överväldigande del av kvinnor jobbar inomhus. 

Allt kokas samman i ett citat från boken där författaren beskriver respektive utgångspunkt för bägge kön “Men’s biggest weakness is their facade of strength and women’s biggest strength is their facade of weakness” (kvinnorna har nu med tiden fått flera politiska privilegier och sociokulturella incitament (positiv särbehandling, kvinnor når toppspositioner väsentligt snabbare än män, #metoo-rörelsen, faktumet att varje kvinna ses som ett potentiellt offer och hanteras och bemöts som det etc) till sin fördel att utnyttja. Fler exempel kan vara inom farliga arbetaryrken (militären, polisen etc) där olika jobbuppdrag har skapats som en konsekvens av den byråkrati som blir till när regleringar införs (säkerheten höjs). Samtidigt som kollektivavtal och minimilöner trycks ner i halsen på arbetsgivare och på det med marknadsfunktionerna av farliga, slitsamma jobb som generar högre ingångslöner. Här skriver Farrell att kvinnor har en jättemöjligt att nå “eqial pay without equal hazards”, då flera arbetsplatser börjat anpassa efter kvinnors genomsnittliga förutsättningar. Inom militären, där ingen ska särbehandlas (frågan Anton Andersson eller Tim Baastad), har man inom den amerikanska flottan gjort obligatoriska krav uppdrag enklare för kvinnor: 
“When a 1985 Navy study found that most women were not able to perform any of the eight most critical jobs required for people on ship, they redefined the jobs to be inclusive of women. For example, the job of carrying a stretcher, previously a two-man job, changed: It is now a four-person job. Women at West Point are given 5:30 minutes to complete an obstacle course that the men must complete in 3:20 minutes”. 

Som avslut väcker Farrell en hård kritik, lindad med oro, över dagens feminism som har en besatthet av ett offernarrativ. En besatthet som leder till att man börjar medvetet göra arbiträra val av faktorer att inkludera i undersökningar gällande lönefrågan för att “producera” matchande svar med ens ideologi. För när man räknar in dessa 25 faktorer i ekvation visar det på att kvinnor tjänar mer än män för samma arbete, når chefspositioner snabbare så det inte ens går att jämföra även fast det inte finns en meritokratisk grund till detta. Endast progressiv företagspolitik som ett resultat av rådande normer och lagstiftningar. Men dessa “positiva” särbehandlingen är dömda till att sabba för kvinnor som väljer att ta sig framåt i karriären och överge rollen och identiteten som offer, vilket lagarna och dessa policies är just skräddarsydda för. “Once when are clear that men do not get paid more than women for the same work, it becomes to phase out the affirmative action tax and psychological affirmative action. This doesn’t mean that affirmative action was necessarily a mistake, just that it has reached its historical point of diminishing returns”. Dagens feminism, som alltså symboliseras av de mest högljudda och framstående politiska figurerna, har blivit till en kult med en absurd tro, som Joanna Williams skrev i annan bok. Farrell kompletterar hennes påstående med att “When a group needs to be oppressed so its members can keep their jobs, it becomes ‘oppression-dependent’”(tänka alla jävla intersektionalistiska ras(!)- och genusvetare); “When we systematically avoid questioning a belief, it is generally because we possess a need to believe it”; och min personliga favvo,

“We can’t measure what we won’t admit exists. And if knowledge is power, this leaves women less powerful”.

[Lgordo · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book literally changed my life.

I was an English major, because I was good at and enjoyed editing, reading, and writing. So that's what I should do for a living, right?

Except I hated my internships, hated my jobs, hated everything I could find to do with writing. I realized that I enjoyed writing -- but as a hobby, not for pay. Being paid would make it miserable.

I also realized that if I was going to hate what I did all day, I should at least get paid for it. Writing and editorial internships aren't paid. Even when I was doing the exact same thing as the marketing intern, he got lunch and transit, and I got nothing.

I needed a new idea. I wanted to get paid, but I had already spent 3 years in college. I didn't want to get an expensive masters and start my life 7 years after high school graduation.

I found the answer in a table in this book. Engineering. It paid well, it could be done with an undergraduate degree.

I came from a liberal arts family and didn't even know what engineers did. But it's the age of the internet, so it wasn't hard to find out. I found mentors, I took calculus, I taught myself physics over the summer, and the next year I was enrolled in an engineering program. And guess what -- I loved it! The math, the problem solving, the system analysis -- it turned out to be just like editing, only more technical.

This book was mind-opening. And it changed my life.

Thank you Warren Farrell!

[Sandra · Rating 4 out of 5]

I didn't care for the author's writing style, use of bold font and highlighted summaries or some more poetic parts, but the information presented in the book is solid. And reasonable. And easily available, if one cares to check for themselves.

Why is the current public debate on gender pay differences so hysterical, and so full of distortions? What happened to thoughtful, reasonable people with statistics literacy discussing the actual available data - how it is to be understood, what it is/might be telling us, and what we could/should be doing with it all?

[Evan Micheals · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book after a conversation with Tom Ryan that where I contended that we do not have a Gender Pay Gap, as much as we have a Mother Pay Gap. I have heard a number of academic’s quote this (Christina Hoff-Sommers, Jordan Peterson, and Warren Farrell). I have read a number of books by Warren Farrell in the past. Farrell list 25 choice that higher earning people make as a manifesto aimed at young women so they can close the Gender Pay Gap by their choices, rather than political activism. “I have uncovered 25 differences in the way women and men behave in the workplace. Taken together, these 25 differences lead to men receiving higher pay and women having better lives, or at least more balanced lives” (p xvii).

The choices are:

1. Choose a Field in Technology or the Hard Sciences, Not the Arts or Social Sciences
2. Get Hazard Pay Without the Hazards
3. Among Jobs Requiring Little Education, Those That Expose You to the Sleet and Heat Pay More Than Those That Are Indoors and Neat
4. In Most Fields with Higher Pay, You Can’t Psychologically Check Out at the End of the Day
5. Fields with Higher Pay Often Have Lower Fulfillment
6. People Who Get Higher Financial Rewards Choose Fields with Higher Financial and Emotional Risks
7. Many Fields with Higher Pay Require Working the Worst Shifts During the Worst Hours
8. Some Jobs Pay More to Attract People to Unpleasant Environments Without Many People
9. Updating Pays: Currency Begets Currency
10. People Who Get Higher Pay Also Choose Subfields with the “High-Pay Formula”
11. People Who Get Higher Pay Work More Hours—And It Makes a Big Difference
12. People Who Get Higher Pay Have More Years of Experience— Especially in Their Current Occupation
13. People Who Get Higher Pay Have More Years of Recent, Uninterrupted Experience with Their Current Employer
14. People Who Get Higher Pay Work More Weeks During the Year
15. People Who Get Higher Pay Are Absent Less Often from Work
16. People Who Get Higher Pay Commute to Jobs That Are Farther Away
17. People Who Get Higher Pay Are More Willing to Relocate— Especially to Undesirable Locations at the Company’s Behest
18. People Who Get Higher Pay Are More Willing to Travel Extensively on the Job
19. People Who Get Higher Pay Take On Different Responsibilities Even When Their Titles Are the Same
20. People Who Get Higher Pay Take On Bigger Responsibilities Even When Their Titles Are the Same
21. People Who Get Higher Pay Require Less Security
22. People Who Get Higher Pay Have More Relevant Training in Their Current Occupation
23. People Who Get Higher Pay Have Higher Career Goals to Begin With
24. People Who Get Higher Pay Do More In-Depth Job Searches
25. People Who Get Higher Pay Above All, Produce More

Farrell uses the above choices to identify the ‘secret’ career opportunities where women can earn more than men doing the same job.


Farrell never explicitly gives evidence of the Mother Pay Gay (The Pay of Mother vs Women who have never had children). He does cite research regarding Married Men vs Never Married Men which is a larger Gap than between the genders. “The gap in pay is much greater between never-married versus married men (62 cents to the dollar) than it is between women and men (80 cents to the dollar)” (p xviii).

Farrell wrote the Myth of Male Power and tries to expose the Myths surrounding the Gender Pay Gap that people doing the same work get paid less based on Gender. “a longitudinal survey found that when women and men started at the same time as engineers; worked in the same settings; with equal professional experience, training, family status, and absences; the women engineers received the same pay” (p xxi).

He shows that when marriage (and presumably children are taken out of the question, there is not Gender Pay Gap. “there was less than a 2% pay gap between never-married women and men; and never-married white women between 45 and 54 earned 106% of what their never-married white male counterparts made” (p xxi). “women professors who had never been married and never published earned 145% the income of their counterpart male colleagues” (p xxii). “2004 data on part-time workers required obtaining unpublished Census Bureau data. I was surprised at what it revealed: A part-time working woman makes $1.10 for every dollar made by her male counterpart.15 (Men and women who work part-time both average 20 hours a week.)” (p xxii).

Women’s pay is increasing faster than that of Men doing the same work in some industries. “As for high-tech jobs, ironically, wages for women have been increasing faster than for men. Specifically, the wages of young white women who took high-tech jobs went up 23%, as opposed to 9% for their male counterparts. Among young African American women, wages increased 42%” (20).

This quote shows how people will sacrifice income for satisfaction and implies being a stay at home Mum is one of the most satisfying positions one can have. “A large Australian study found that volunteers are the most satisfied Australians, and a close second are stay-at-home moms. Stay-at-home moms scored the highest in happiness with their personal relationships. Volunteers, most of whom were women over 55 who worked less than 20 hours a week, had the highest personal well-being score of all employment groups. The volunteers were happier than any other group with their health, spirituality, amount of leisure time, their job, working hours, and community connections” (p 51).

Boy did this resonate with me. “While these are the baseline conditions for nurses of both sexes, male nurses are finding the profession to be even more alienating. Male nurses are almost twice as likely as women to leave the profession within 4 years of graduation. When an in-depth Gallup survey investigated, it found male nurses felt less fulfilled and engaged in the workplace in all 12 areas of measurement. The survey found the biggest gap between the male and female nurses is in the development of friendships at work. Male nurses are much less likely to feel “I have a best friend at work,” which leads to feelings of isolation and the fear that co-workers won’t be there when needed.

Just as a woman can feel especially isolated in male-dominated fields, so a man can feel parallel isolation in a female-dominated field. The big difference is that for the past 35 years, diversity training has been helping women achieve fulfillment in male-dominated fields by sensitizing men to women, but not sensitizing women to men. For example, men have been taught how sexual harassment can make a woman feel distracted at best, or, at worst, isolated, objectified, unvalued for her work, and violated; how constant discussion of sports, or dirty jokes, or teasing, can feel isolating to women. Men have also been taught how, on the other hand, solicitation of a woman’s opinions and interrupting less can make her feel more valued; how child care and flexible hours not only make her job more possible, but make her feel the company wants her enough to adapt to her needs.

A parallel diversity program to make men feel more include would begin by addressing the dozen areas in which male nurses feel more alienated, educating female nurses about the positive functions of male teasing and humor, confronting the discrimination against male nurses seeing naked female patients even as female nurses can see naked male patients, and so on” ( p 55).

“I addressed the American Assembly for Men in Nursing, one-man nurse after another told me how hospitals often refused to assign him to women patients, whereas women nurses were freely assigned to men patients. Since women constitute most of the patients, the degree of discrimination is significant. Obviously, this attitude leads hospitals to hire women nurses since women give the hospital flexibility” (p 180). As a career male nurse, I could not agree more. I think any Male in Nursing who insists on being treated as equal to his female colleagues. When I was an inpatient Nurse I was always wary of being alone with a female patient.

“A willingness to do the uncomfortable shifts is one reason married men earn more than twice what never-married men earn” (p 69). My working life has been filled by shift work, mainly because Kerri and I decided it would be better when the were young to have a stay at home parent. I had more earning potential, so it was Kerri. Kerri is now working, so for the first time since Michael was born I am able to ‘explore my options’ is less well paying potentially more fulfilling employment.

He again addresses the bias of Family Courts against men. “Mothers are twice as likely to murder their children, and almost nine times as likely to seriously injure and abuse children as are dads, but we don’t use that statistical average as an excuse to keep mothers from being alone with children after divorce” (p 180). Adverse findings seem to be bias against men.

Women “prior to the age of 40, women are 15 times more likely than their male counterparts to become top executives at major corporations” (p 173). I wonder if this is the result of pressure to address an informal quota, rather than selecting on ability?

“The result of this two-sex system, though, is that, to this day, men’s weakness is their facade of strength, and women’s strength is their facade of weakness” (p 223). We should have the same rights as citizens, but maintain an awareness of biological difference. We should always remember that there is more difference within groups, than between groups. We are a political animal and will use the Zeitgeist to our advantage. Identity Politics is far to prominent and pervasive at present in my opinion. We need to have discussions in a nuanced manner that looks at the individual within the group and not act “as if” all group members are the same.

Farrell concludes with a statement of what we will achieve if aiming for equality: “An adult feminist favors affirmative action programs to assure that men are no longer dying 7 years sooner, or comprising 93% of the people who die at work, or becoming 85% of the homeless, the only ones required to register for the draft, and committing suicide 4 times as frequently” (p 230). “After divorce, men are caught in a Catch-22: If they don’t earn enough, they are deprived of the children because they are too irresponsible to be a father; if they earn a lot, they are deprived of the children because they are better as wallets” (p 232).

Farrell gives a good case as to why anything other than equal treatment (even treatment that is bias towards women, will be bad for women in the long term). The discussion about the inherent bias of social workers against men is interesting (p 186). Farrell focussed on University educated people, at the expense of the working class. I like his concept of “genetic celebrity” (Especially when young a proportion of women can get men to pay for things for them, thus they get celebrity treatment not available to other which is a quirk of their genetics). I know when I was young, I made poor choices and spent money I otherwise would have not to seek favour with genetic celebrities. This has an economic value that no one talks about, which is not fair. When discussing comparable worth he recognises some people have talent that other are prepared to pay for, which circumvents our system. He cites Alanis Morrisette (one of my favourite artists). “Were comparable worth to be applied to both sexes, it would affect thousands of individual women like singer-songwriter Alanis Morissette who, at age 23, made $22 million. Comparable worth would reduce her salary to about $22,000. Where is her Ph.D.?” (p 212). Not all PhD’s are paid equally. He potentially engages in survivor bias when he cites a study that asks females executives to compare their career success compared to that of their husbands. Female executive is an exclusive group and assuming their husband were chosen at random their sample is less exclusive.

In regards to proving the Mother Pay Gap Premise the best I came up with was “never-married men who never had children earn only 85% of their female counterparts—even when both groups worked full-time, were college-educated, and in the same age group” (p 173). I did not find the research I was seeking to prove the Mother Pay Gap Hypothesis. The Mother Pay Gap Hypothesis remains a hypothesis.

[Ivan · Rating 4 out of 5]

It challenges the assumption about women earning less that men, and actually compares the real wages with social levels and obligations factored in: the result is that women actually earn equally or more, for equal work.

[Mohammad · Rating 5 out of 5]

1-Men accept realty more than woman becuse they watch sport that makes them belive the best wins.
2-When you pay some One to do your taske you are buying your time.
3-Only the belif of discremination poisens love.
4-Hierarchy positive side is that it creats accuntibility and standards.
5-The law of profitabel inefficincey. If a business is subject ed to laws and attitudes that makes it more profitabel to be inefficiant Then the business will adopt the profitabel inefficiances until those laws and attitudes change. For exambel if a clients was more comfortabel with a male lawyer than a female lawyer he gets the male lawyer even if the female lawyer was more competant than her male counter part.
6-Masculinity stresses doing and risk taking.
7-Her secsses is hoped for but not reqierd like men.
8-Technology makes the skills of all the people in the profssion less needed.
9-Imagen for a monthe you have nither had your garbage picked up or not reading about new anthrapolgical discovary.
10-Men may be hired First and fired last Becuse they are willing to do sociaty dirty work and hazzardes work for a lower price.
11-Besides, earning
money has not just been his source of female love, approval, and
respect, but of his male friends’, and his parents’ love.

[Will Walkup · Rating 3 out of 5]

While compelling, Farrell’s work suffers from extreme repetition—the entire content of the book could have been reduced to a few chapters. And while easy to read, the informality of the language detracts from what should be more forceful information. Where this book falls short is in addressing the entire issue (e.g. historical trends, sexism, social momentum, etc.). The light bulb inspiration for Farrell to write this book was when he realized that companies would be bending over backward to pay women less if they could get away with it, and would therefore not hire men. This reasoning may be true if it were applied in a universal context, however the workforce is largely driven by countless local factors.

Nevertheless, this book is filled with excellent one-line quotes and statistics which help address this side of the gender gap debate. It also provides useful guidelines for both women and men to broaden their earning potential.

[Katherine · Rating 3 out of 5]

Full of interesting statistics, this book really explains the rational (yes, it is rational!) behind why men generally earn more than women. He also points out areas that women earn more and what women can proactively do to raise their salary.

[Dallin Coons]

In the title of the book is an acknowledgement that men, as a general rule, earn more. Inside the cover are 25 reasons why men earn more - all things that women could do if they chose. However (this is the twist), the author doesn’t suggest that women should make more money, and further suggests that men may not want to continue making as much money as they do.

To put it very simply, men earn more because that’s how they’ve been socialized. Their value and worth, and even the love they receive, are all predicated on their ability to earn money. And they pay a price for that. The more money someone makes, the less fulfilling the job tends to be.

The author lists 25 decisions that men make that result in them making more money, such as accepting jobs with lower fulfillment (but higher pay), working longer hours, commuting longer distances, and being more willing to relocate.

Just as women’s socialization has inhibited higher pay at work, so men’s socialization has inhibited greater fulfillment in life.

The author posits that when all these factors are controlled for, men and women make the same amount of money - in fact, women tend to make a bit more.

I can’t speak to the sources or the validity of the data, but I will say that many ideas presented resonated with me. For example, I agree that men are seen as valuable and worthwhile as long as they are willing and able to bring home the bacon. There is a nasty double standard in society in which men go to work to provide, while “working moms” are seen as “leaving” their children.

Why men earn more at work cannot be separated from the lessons boys learn about why they need to earn more to pay for their first date, or what men learn about why they need to earn more after the birth of their first child.

The division of labor evolved into more than a division of labor. It became a division in the way the sexes received love.

I’m generally uncomfortable with the idea of gender as anything more than a biological feature, and parts of this book made me squirm a bit for that reason, given some of the gender stereotypes presented (this was written in the early 2000’s if that means anything). However, I don’t think it’s wrong to say that many, or most, people have been socialized to fit into a binary gender role. I can accept that fact, but at the same time, I don’t necessarily want to continue to perpetuate the idea of gender as a construct.

Overall, this gave me a lot of food for thought and caused me to ponder how different genders are socialized from a young age to value earning money differently. I pondered a future in which it was more acceptable for men to make less money and spend more time with their families, and for women to be able to leave their children with their dad and not be seen as neglectful.

[Aidan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Why Men Earn More is an amazing testament to slowing down and reviewing the data. The author looks through decades of published statistics on Men’s pay, Women’s pay, and studies that compare the two. A large bulk of the book is taking these studies as a whole and showing what each lacks when consumed individually: The 25 ways men earn more that are not commonly taken into account. Ranging from Men’s propensity towards more dangerous jobs to women historic patter of employment which favors time flexibility over more hours (which men tend to work leading to higher pay in the same jobs).

However, the book is not so one sided as to say “men make more because they work harder, deal with it”, the book goes into great detail on how women can increase their pay and how government intervention (and increasing social pressure) has possibly increased women’s pay above men’s. This is clear in fields like modeling, teaching, and even some engineering fields (chemical engineer and engineering fields that deal with sales).

The only reason I give it four stars is because of the tendentiousness that the author seems to use when selecting statistics and research to include, this is ,however, addressed in the end asking the question “Well aren’t there some studies that show women really do make less accounting for these 25 factors?” Where the author answers “it is absolutely a possibility however, no research controlling for these factors has been done or likely will ever be.”

Overall this is a great book to take a step back and look at what is commonly deemed a university issue and look at the issue in a new more constructive light.

[TJ Grant · Rating 4 out of 5]

Written by one of the leading male feminists of his day for his daughters to help them find the earnings they desired. He was on the board of directors of NOW (the National Organization for Woman) for 3 years, the forward was written by the president of NOW. He spent 15 years researching this book and doing scores of interviews with female business owners and top executives. After it was published he was run out of feminist circles because his conclusions challenged the victim narrative that some people want to hold onto. He names 25 things that women and men do differently in the workplace that lead to men earning more and women less. He points out that there are too many overlapping complexities and hard to account for factors to come to a definitive conclusion of where the gender pay gap actually stands, and that no study has taken all these factors into account. There is an advantage to learning these factors, it allows one to navigate through them to your advantage, something you can't do if you just assume huge segments of the population and entire fields are just maliciously prejudiced against you. This book is the best collection of the data and charts that lead to more or less profitable outcomes that I've ever seen. If you are a woman wanting to make profitable career choices, or raising a daughter, or a male interested in the hard data behind the gender pay gap, this book is an excellent resource.

[Mathew Deas · Rating 4 out of 5]

I expected that this book would be sexist in some respect but it is most certainly not. It is a candid, although somewhat aging, discussion of the gender wage gap and gives several reasons as to why men and women are paid differently for what seems to be the same work. (My favorite example of this being male and female engineers: more men are chemical engineers and women gravitate towards biomedical engineering which pays less) The 25 reasons given as to why men earn more are incredibly simple and enlightening. The last 8 chapters are mainly the author discussing male-female workplace, home, socialization and courting dynamics and are definitely worth a read.

[Zi-Xiang (Zack) · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was curious about the pay gap between the sexes and got myself this book.

Facts, proper research and a fair scope on both men and women by the author led me to understand that the "glass ceiling" narrative that is being echoed by feminists is false.

Interesting insights into the perceived wage gap from the research lead me to have a greater understanding and appreciation of what things really are why they happened as they did.

Thank you, Mr. Farrell!

[Pavan Karthik · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's sad to see not many people reading this book. Surely many judged the book based on its title. Even though the book and the data are old, parts of it make sense and surely does enlighten us with the qualities that enable us to earn more - irrespective of the gender.

Partly opinionated but a great read! Will make sure the women in my life reads this.

[Nyse Vicente · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really loved this book, thoroughly explained the science behind the supposed gender pay gap and also taught practical ways in which you can increase your pay. Would definitely recommend this book to anyone, as media usually gives a one sided view.

[Mehmet Kalaycı · Rating 3 out of 5]

My thoughts on this book are divergent. There are chapters that I found extraordinarily informative (the chapters where he reveals the relationship between man and work) while some chapters I found quite simplistic (especially the one with genetic celebrity power).

[Elias Risberg · Rating 5 out of 5]

Opens your eyes about the truth

A good book that goes through the statistics of why men earn more than women. Men make 25 decisions in the workplace that differentiate them from women in earning.

[Brian · Rating 3 out of 5]

A sobering view of the pay discrepancies between the genders, an answer you may not want to hear.

[Chinedu Okonkwo · Rating 3 out of 5]

The better title for the book should have been, The Pay Gap is a Myth: The Devil is in the Details.

[Belle · Rating 3 out of 5]

not a bad book, but the "practical tips," which seemed to be the crux of the book (based on the title), were NOT what i found interesting. i thought that the second part of the book, which discusses gender-related myths/expectations, to be much more fascinating and thought-provoking.

[Lee F. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Would not do cover to dover but very intersting information about which careers are profitable and why