Understanding Terms Used by Abortion Promoters

If Roe v. Wade were to be overturned by SCOTUS, abortion law would revert back to the states. SCOTUS doesn't like to reverse itself without unanimity or at least a very strong majority.

Bet let's imagine that somehow, abortion were to become illegal somewhere in our union, with certain exceptions. It will be important to know the vocabulary of Leftist lovers of abortion. You know, like how Leftists call something a marriage even though no bride is involved, or even if no groom is involved?

You are hereby warned that the text below may contain triggers.

A Reminder That Equal Pay Already Exists

There is no "pay gap" or "wage gap". Equal pay has been the law for a long time, long before Obama took advantage of the ignorance of some.

See here for the truth.

If you're really not getting paid the same as your coworker for the same kind, quality, level, and amount of work, then you're a bad negotiator.

The War On Women

Thank Chance I'm a man. I'm so glad I'm a man. And I didn't have to announce to anyone that I was now a man, nor did I have to undergo surgical procedures or get hormone treatments to "become a man". (Somehow I survived circumcision and was still able to have a happy, pleasurable sex life, too.) Why am I glad to be a man? Because there's a war on women, of course. A war! It must suck to be a woman. According to what I see on Facebook, Twitter, and political news coverage, women live in deep, constant, crippling, fear every minute of their lives that a U.S. Senator or perhaps a Vice-President (or every other male who isn’t androgynous or feminine) is going to break into their home, rape them, and then force them to carry a life-threatening pregnancy to term and then they'll be punished with raising a child, even perhaps having to cook for it and clean up after it. And the only way to prevent this is through federal funding, programs, and requirements ensuring that women do not have to pay for their own contraception, and, if they get pregnant, using federal tax dollars to pay for abortion, including a ninth-month partial birth abortion. Should the child somehow be born alive, it is war on women to provide aid to that child to keep it alive. War, I tell you! Can't you see it???

Not Marching in Lockstep

A letter from "Adele":

I am in such a discouraged funk about our culture lately. The argument about birth control versus the freedom of religion was the straw that broke this camel’s back! Any discussions about the subject I hear are always women vs. the big bad everyone else. So, here goes...Hey women’s libbers; Hey Planned Parenthood, Hey liberal media...STOP using me as your ploy!! You never asked my opinion so stop speaking for "women" and start speaking for "some women".


You don't speak for me. I am an American; I am a voter; I am a mother of 5; I am a wife and I am a doctor. I do believe the freedom of religion is more important than the birth control pill. I do believe our constitution and it's amendments, fought for by the blood of our fathers, sons and brothers is vastly more important than an employee being forced to pay for something that will allow our sisters, daughters and friends to continue to perpetuate a "safe sex equals freedom" culture: A culture that has left us with an amoral society where young women think 'shacking up' is an integral part of a relationship. A culture where dismembering a 5, 6, even 9mt old baby in a mother’s womb while alive is considered a choice and not murder.


So, all of you who are fighting for the 'cause of women', who are standing up and banging the podium women must have the freedom of choice...ask me my choice! Stop speaking for me! You have made it so when I hear the words 'women’s health' I cringe because I know I am about to be grouped into some ideal that is against every core of my being. Do not group me with your ideals; do not include me with your rhetoric. If you are so concerned about choice then stop stifling mine!


Personally, I think these groups should held accountable for slander. No where in the media do you hear the words "some women". This means I have to be looked at as agreeing simply because I am a woman. I would like a group to speak for all men and see what happens.

That is one of many great letters you can find at DrLaura.com. Good job, Adele!

[Bumped up due to current events.]

Married People a Smaller Percentage of the Population

It's all over the news that there are supposedly now more "single" adults than married adults, or something worded similarly, and this is the first time in the history of the country things have been this way.

First, we need clarity of what actually exists. The statistics include the population down to sixteen years of age. Those are "adults"? Really? And what counts as "single"? Someone who is shacking up is not really single, are they, especially if they have children and financial accounts with their partner?

I'm sure most the change that has created this snapshot has to do with things like 1) people getting married for the the first time at older ages, 2) divorce, and 3) people living longer divorced or widowed.

Some of it, though, no matter how small, has to come from men who've gone on a "marriage strike", and I expect that to have an increasing effect on the statistics, even if in the end, many of the men end up with their strike just being a delay and not a lifelong standoff. The men who've joined the marriage strike are a diverse group, ranging from hedonists to devout conservative Christians who have come to the conclusion that legally-sanctioned marriage is something to be avoided.

Hedonists are increasingly realizing that they can get more sex, and with a variety of women to boot, if they do not marry, often without any obligation or jumping through any hoops. Hedonists (or anyone who has no moral/spiritual concerns about unmarried sex) can now get literally everything they want without ever marrying, without suffering (and often benefiting) professionally and socially. Others, such as the religiously devout, would rather be chaste and go through life "alone" than take on what they see as the risks, harms, restrictions, and burdens of marriage. Marriage strikers range from those who try to have as little interaction with women as possible (including in the workplace) to those who will do everything with women except legally marry them.

No small part of why these people have gone on a marriage strike has to do with the family laws and courts:

• unilateral no-fault divorce
• community property laws combined with the fact that most men do/will earn the majority, if not all of the income during the marriage financially punishes men for marrying
• alimony requirements (lifetime, in some places!)
• child custody and support issues
• presumed paternity and paternity fraud
• domestic violence response by law enforcement being at the point where a man can get physically assaulted by his wife and be the one to go to jail and permanently kicked out of his own home while still required to pay for it

Strictly speaking legally, if a husband earns more than his wife, as most husbands do, the only benefit a man gets from marrying is, in most places, default paternity status over his children. This, of course, is assuming he wanted children in the first place. Such automatic assignment of paternity saves him a little effort/expense as otherwise he'd have to sue for the designation. However, how many men have been unjustly denied access to their children by the mother moving away or orchestrating false abuse allegations? Meanwhile, a woman gets certain financial benefits/guarantees for being a wife, via the force of law.

There is probably some legislation that could ease at least some of the concerns of marriage strikers. The problem is, it is a certainty that introducing such legislation would be met with shrill shrieks of being part of some nefarious conspiratorial "war on women". That's a great fundraising tactic for certain politicians and abortion advocates.

Especially since it is increasingly becoming a legal principle that marriage is about the feelings of adults rather than what benefits children or society, I expect the statistical trends to continue, meaning we'll see the percentage of the adult population legally married at any given moment continue to shrink. After all, why bother to get or stay married to raise your own children, since marriage "isn't about children"?

This is not a matter to be ignored by Republicans. Married women are far more likely to vote Republican than women who aren't married. One reason is that many unmarried women, while claiming to be "independent", are very dependent on government programs and thus male taxpayers they don't even know, and Democrats promise more government programs. I suspect another reason is that Republican women are generally far more attractive and thus more likely to attract a husband.

The Religious Right- an American Reaction, Not an Imposition

The Left loves to portray the Religious Right as some insidious, extreme, relatively new influence that foisted itself upon America, when, in fact, the Religious Right (RR) arose as a response to organized and extremist Leftist activism that sought to reshape America and Western civilization. These people in the RR organized to conserve the culture – the traditions, institutions, morals, ideals, and standards – that they saw as worth conserving.  There would be no organized Religious Right if it weren’t for things like Roe v. Wade and other landmark court decisions.

Leftist activists, atheists, parental authority subverters, abortion pushers, those who despise masculinity in men and femininity in women, and decadent hedonists had organized and were exerting influence from within and over politics, media, academia, corporate America, and even churches. Their tactics included undermining parental authority, reducing church influence in the public square, and reducing self-discipline with the ultimate goal, apparently, of transferring reliance on self, family, and church to reliance on the state, thus making it easier to spread the costs of malignant narcissistic hedonism to society at large while disarming that society's ability to reinforce traditional behavioral constraints. In practical terms, this meant bringing homosexuality out of the bedroom and into every aspect of life and denying heterosexuality as the norm or as qualitatively different from homosexuality. This meant denying the differences in the sexes. This meant immodesty in attire and behavior. This meant men and women abdicating their restraints, roles, and responsibilities. This meant removing reminders that our nation was founded by Christians. This meant ridiculing and ostracizing the devout.

The results have not been good.  Judging from what their activists are saying, radical feminists, homosexuality advocates, and atheists are still feeling uncomfortable, insecure, excluded, oppressed, and offended. So, according to them, their goals have not been realized. Meanwhile, the negative effects from the changes have touched every area of our lives.

Easy access to contraception and abortion was going to provide us with guilt-free and consequence-free sex, and make sure that no child would be born into an abusive situation or into poverty. Didn’t happen.

Shacking up was going to make sure that people only got married if they were right for each other and ready. Didn’t happen.

Instead, we had an explosion of STDs, including AIDS, and divorce. Too many people can no longer clearly see the difference between real marriage and counterfeits. We have more broken homes. Children are being abused, neglected, or primarily raised by a series of strangers and exposed to an endless line "surrogate parents" (their parents' sex partners). Newborn babies are being thrown into dumpsters even where there is easy access to abortion and where babies can be surrendered safely with no strings attached in the first 72 hours after birth. Human beings are being treated like commodities. There has been an increase in the diagnoses of emotional, social, and behavioral disorders. And, surprise – there has been increased dependence on federal government.

While the past was never perfect, the present results of Leftist activism has made many things worse. Even as people didn’t always live by their ideal morals, it was understood that sexuality was a private matter, that sex was best saved for marriage, that men and women were different and should be able to socialize as groups and raise boys to be masculine men and girls to be feminine women, that children were best raised within a marriage, and that parents should be supported in childrearing instead of undermined. The Christian aspects of our national heritage were acknowledged and respected, even though everyone knew that non-Christians and even non-theists were a part of our society, too. Commercial entertainment was sought after to inspire and reinforce good, not feed off of and push our lusts.

The thing about the Left trying to disarm the Religious Right by trying to herd evangelicals into their corner is… the result, if they were to succeed, would be ugly. Even more churches would fail to be salt and light to the world. Higher taxes and inefficient government bureaucracy would be seen as a replacement for private charity.

One of the frequent criticisms of the RR is that they are intolerant and want to control the bedrooms of other people. My experience has been that most in the RR simply want what goes on in the bedroom to stay in the bedroom and for people to accept the consequences of their private actions. While they condemn what they think is negative deviance, that is not the same thing as being intolerant.

Meanwhile, the Left wants even more control over your wallet, your closet, your workplace, your home, your lightbulbs, your shopping bags, your investments, your dinner table, your children, your car, and your speech.

If the RR were to die, the results would be very bad. Thankfully, it hasn't died. But the Left will keep dreaming.

Lesbians Report That Lesbians Make Good Mothers

Alice Park reported on a study that claims children do better with lesbian mothers than heterosexual parents, whether or not the mother has a partner. Now, before any men try to get out of their fatherhood obligations by bringing this to the attention of family court judges, let's take a closer look at what is really being claimed here. After all, it can't just be a celibate straight woman raising the child by herself. No, according to this, it is important that the woman be attracted to other women. That a child's mother is attracted to other women makes the kid do better in math. Right. Now golf, I could believe.

That is the question researchers explored in the first study ever to track children raised by lesbian parents, from birth to adolescence.

I'm not sure what the wording of this means. Does this mean the kids were raised from birth to adolescence by lesbians, or that they were only tracked through adolescence? From the rest of the article, it appears to mean both. I suppose I should know from the comma.

Although previous studies have indicated that children with same-sex parents show no significant differences compared with children in heterosexual homes when it comes to social development and adjustment, many of those investigations involved children who were born to women in heterosexual marriages, who later divorced and came out as lesbians.

One important detail is what exactly is meant by social development and adjustment, and how that is determined.

For their new study, published on Monday in the journal Pediatrics, researchers Nanette Gartrell, a professor of psychiatry at the University of California at San Francisco (and a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles), and Henry Bos, a behavioral scientist at the University of Amsterdam, focused on what they call planned lesbian families - households in which the mothers identified themselves as lesbian at the time of artificial insemination.

So it appears none of these children were "surprises" or conceived via rape, or otherwise "crisis pregnancies". This is very important. Perhaps the real message is that waiting to have children until you believe you are ready to be a parent makes things better for the child? A child born to a partnered lesbian impregnated through third party reproduction is going to have two women who consider that child their child, unlike how it often can be when a man has been cuckolded and is bitter or comes into a situation where a woman is raising a child from a past lover.

The authors found that children raised by lesbian mothers - whether the mother was partnered or single - scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior.

There are so many factors consider for both the homosexual and heterosexual parents – divorce, strife in the relationships, individual flaws, etc.

These findings were expected, the authors said; however, they were surprised to discover that children in lesbian homes scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression.

Self-esteem and confidence aren't necessarily good things – especially when they are unwarranted. Rule-breaking can be a good thing when the rule is unjust. Aggression is not necessarily a bad thing. For example, if a bully is about to beat up a smaller child, perhaps citing that smaller child’s mother being a lesbian, then aggressive intervention on the part of a witness can be a good thing even if the school has a rule against intervening.

In addition, children in same-sex-parent families whose mothers ended up separating did as well as children in lesbian families in which the moms stayed together.

Does anyone really believe this? It means that same-sex divorce has no effect on children. Really, rather than getting this study widely publicized, if I had come up with these results, I would realize that the study is flawed. But due to politics, and the funding already spent by homosexuality advocates on the study, the study gets wide publicity.

The data that Gartrell and Bos analyzed came from the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS), begun in 1986. The authors included 154 women in 84 families who underwent artificial insemination to start a family; the parents agreed to answer questions about their children's social skills, academic performance and behavior at five follow-up times over the 17-year study period. Children in the families were interviewed by researchers at age 10 and were then asked at age 17 to complete an online questionnaire, which included queries about the teens' activities, social lives, feelings of anxiety or depression, and behavior.

Where to start?
1. That's an extremely small sample.
2. What about when these kids get older, especially when they consider starting their own family?
3. Are the misandry levels in these children higher than the general population?
4. Is it possible that the researchers doing the interviews were biased?
5. Is it possible that the self-reporting could have been defensive?

Not surprisingly, the researchers found that 41% of children reported having endured some teasing, ostracism or discrimination related to their being raised by same-sex parents.

Unfortunately, some children bully other children for anything they perceive as different. Bullying for whatever reasons is not good, even more so when it is something over which the child has no control.

But Gartrell and Bos could find no differences on psychological adjustment tests between the children and those in a group of matched controls.

This could mean that everyone is getting bullied at pretty much the same rate, regardless of the sexual identity of parents.

I do think is entirely possible that a child raised by two stable women (or one woman) would be better off than one raised by a woman who has a series of bad boys parading through her bedroom and past the breakfast table, possibly taking a detour through the child's room between. But what about situations where a mother and grandmother are raising the children, or a mother and aunt?

Apples need to be compared to apples. Of course a child is likely to be better off raised by a generally good, financially stable woman who planned the pregnancy over an abusive mother and abusive father who are in and out of police custody and spend their money on their substance abuse habits rather than food for the kid, and got pregnant as a natural result of sex without actually intending to become parents. But what about all other things being equal?

The study does not past the smell test. Homosexual people KNOW there is a difference between men and women in interpersonal relationships - that is why they indentify as homosexual and not neutrally bisexual. Parenting is an interpersonal relationship. Therefore, there has to be a difference between mothering and fathering. All children, gay or straight, will grow up to deal with both men and women. As such, they benefit from having a parent of each sex parenting them and modeling cooperative interaction between the sexes.

Use common sense. Does the fact that a woman is attracted to a woman matter? What matters is the behavior towards and in front of the children. Of course a lesbian can be a good mother. What she can't be, though, nor can another woman, is a father.

Because the research is ongoing, Gartrell hopes to test some of these theories with additional studies. She is also hoping to collect more data on gay-father households; gay fatherhood is less common than lesbian motherhood because of the high costs of surrogacy or adoption that gay couples face in order to start a family.

But I thought they were just like bride+groom couples? If they are, some of those couples should be able to make babies without third parties.

Would the same publication publish a study that was funded and released by Focus on the Family in which evangelical Christian parents raised children according to the principles of Focus on the Family, and the study said that such children are better off?

Earth is Round, Children Need a Mother and Father

Here's something I posted early on in my contributions to The Opine Editorials...

Dr. Amy Tuteur, a Harvard and Boston University-educated obstetrician-gynecologist, wrote a piece on Salon.com entitled "Are Fathers Optional?" Since she answers in the negative, affirming the importance of fathers, there have been some very passionate responses that you can click through to see. It seems like it should be self-evident that both mother and fathers are necessary for children, and thus, raising the next generation in the best social conditions possible. Sadly, because this is not affirming of some of the desires and choices of some adults (especially some unilateralists, feminists, male hedonists, and some homosexual people) it is treated as a controversial idea.

Judging by their behavior, American women appear to think that fathers are optional. According to the recently published birth statistics (Births: Final Data for 2006), the proportion of births to unmarried women has reached 38.5%, the highest rate ever recorded.

That's an average. Some groups often portrayed as disadvantaged have a much higher rate, unfortunately, which helps perpetuate disadvantages in those populations.

Women are actively conceiving and bearing children in the knowledge that their fathers will almost certainly not be living with them throughout childhood. Simply put, women are behaving as if fathers are optional. Nothing could be further from the truth. Having an active, involved, resident father is the birth right of every child. It is not the birth right of every mother to have children simply because she wants them.

I urge you to click through and read the whole piece. It isn't very long. The M.D. does participate in the comments thread, responding to objections and challenges – most of which are typical. Some examples of some of her replies to the critics:

Actually I believe that women should we stigmatized if they want to have children without marriage, because it is a self indulgent, selfish choice... Hetero is normative. That doesn't mean the gay is unacceptable, but let's not get ridiculous... I can understand why a woman would want a child, but I cannot understand a woman putting what she wants ahead of what a child needs... We can debate the research findings and they are important, but my argument is primarily a moral argument. All children have a mother and father, but in the case of gay couples the biological parent substitutes someone he or she likes better. That may be nice for the biological parent, but it is not fair to the child... I realize that placing children's needs above parents' wants is not politically correct. That's because, in our society, children are treated like accessories, not like actual human beings... Sorry, the fact that some people are horrible parents does not give you the moral right to be a mediocre parent, or, indeed, anything except the best parent that you can be... If the mother and father cannot commit to being permanently resident in that child's life, they shouldn't have a child.

And that's just a small sampling. I wonder if she'd like to join this blog? ;-) H/T: Glenn Sacks

Legitimate Rape

Warning: possible triggers and explicit language ahead.

Equal Pay

There's more BS in the news today about "equal pay". Say, wasn't Obama supposed to fix this problem?

Anyway, I've covered this topic extensively before.

Men and Women Are Different

Yes, men and women are different. "Duh!" most people say, but you, too, can learn to be offended by such a statement if you read and listen to certain sources enough. Just about any sentient being, including two-year-old human beings, knows that men and women, girls and boys, are different. Yet, there are people who deny this, even as their actions go against their ideology.

Human beings are male or female. People who can't handle reality angrily refer to this as "gender binary". They point to three groups of people: men who think they are women; women who think they are men; and people born with deformed or mixed up organs. The first two groups of people could have mental illnesses or physical problems. People in the third group definitely have physical problems. All three groups combined amount to a tiny percentage of the overall human population and do not negate that fact that for all practical purposes, human beings are male or female, any more than the fact that some people are missing a leg or two negates the fact that human beings are bipedal mammals.

Other relevant facts:
1) words mean things
2) "most" does not mean "all"
3) "chances are" does not mean "all always"
4) “men tend to” does not mean “all men always”
5) that men and women are different does not mean all men are the same in every way and all women are the same in every way

I know some Leftists have a hard time with this, but holding an opinion and addressing general realities does not necessarily mean the person holding it thinks that everyone must feel, think, and live the same way. That is their projection at work. They get offended if you don’t agree with them, and refer to it as a personal attack or an attack on an entire group of people.

Some Leftists also have a habit of taking quotes out of context and mischaracterizing what others communicated. An example is some of the reaction to my posting of "Valentine's Day is Not Enjoyable to Most Men".

Notice I wrote "most" and "chances are" and "men tend to" and I clearly state that a man can enjoy Valentine's Day. However, either problems with reading comprehension or a deliberate mischaracterization were demonstrated in a couple of responses.

One response includes among the absurdities…

1) She doesn't celebrate Valentine's Day, so I must mean she is a man instead of a woman
2) A statement that I (TPW) don't like Valentine's Day.
3) A false claim that I said all men or all real men don't like it, and that all women, or all real women do.
4) Then, ironically, a statement that I can't conceive that another person might feel differently
5) Her husband doesn't fit the description I wrote. Yeah, no kidding. That's no surprise.
6) Completely oblivious to conditions in most of the world, she also apparently wants foreign kids to starve rather than have jobs.
7) She incorrectly assumes I must be describing the dynamics of my marriage, when I wasn't. I have a happy marriage, with a wife who will tell anyone who will listen she has the life she's always wanted, and is very happy as a result.

Leftist feminists often express their disapproval that a woman would use her education, power, choice, and professional experience to freely choose to marry a man on whom she can rely financially, keep their home, care for their children, and seek to meet the various simple needs of her husband, including keeping herself as healthy and attractive as reasonably possible.
On to another one….

1) She claims I maintain one size fits all. When speaks or write, they must sometimes deal in generalities that do not apply to everyone. Most people are intelligent enough to get that, instead of getting upset.
2) She then sidetracks, bringing in the kitchen sink by falsely accusing me of being "anti" a bunch of things I'm not.
3) Despite the fact that I clearly stated that married lovemaking is a mutual thing, not something bought by a man, she writes as though I state the latter rather than the former.
4) Community property laws apparently mean money is only a wife's to decide what to do with, and if a man doesn't want the community money spend on store-bought gifts for him, there's something wrong with him.

I do agree with her that Valentine's Day marketing can be banal. However, much of that banal marketing is based on extensive research into what works.


Given how they reacted from my honest, candid opinion based on my observations and experiences, would a man in their lives be encouraged or discouraged to tell them if they disagreed with their opinions? Do a man's feelings, desires, or experiences matter, or are they something to be ridiculed unless they are in agreement with their opinions? Rather than saying, "That's not my experience" or "I'm one of the women that doesn't care much for Valentine's Day", they did what I cite above.

It's Been Over a Year, Is Everyone OK?

The One Year Anniversary of Dr. Laura Schlessinger Using the "N" Word On the Air has come and gone, with not a little fanfare. And, of course, that prompted another round of sniping, including ever so much ignorance about who Schlessinger is and what she says on her show and in her writings. So many of her critics don't have a clue - not the slightest clue - and they take the vomit puked out by others. put it into their own mouths, and in turn spit it out all over again.

I respect honest, principled disagreements.

I don't respect libelous character assassination, especially when it is mindless parroting of something some other ignorant person said.

So with that, I bring you something I originally published on January 19 of this year...

Where's the civility For Dr. Laura?

So much for toning down the rhetoric and refraining from spewing vitriol. Dr. Laura Schlessinger has a new book out, which means she's promoting that book. And that means shrill, shrieking, and demonstrably false attacks on Dr. Laura by the logically-impaired couch potatoes, neglectful "mothers", and feminized guys out there who are upset that she's appearing on their usually Lefty-feminist televisions.


Dr. Laura does fifteen hours of radio a week. She's written many books. She blogs. She's written many columns. What she actually has said isn't hard to find or document. And yet so many people get it so wrong. Some are misrepresenting Dr. Laura's teachings and statements deliberately, usually for their own fundraising or ideological purposes. Others are relying on these dubious sources.

The Wage Gap

As I've pointed out before, the "wage gap" between the sexes that shows a disadvantage for women might be handy for Obama and Leftist feministas to whine about, but like a feminista, it can't stand close scrutiny. Now there's evidence that men are actually the disadvantaged ones. Will Obama say anything about this? Carrie Lukas reported in the Wall Street Journal:

The unemployment rate is consistently higher among men than among women. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 9.3% of men over the age of 16 are currently out of work. The figure for women is 8.3%.

Yes, the recession hit men harder than women.

Men have been hit harder by this recession because they tend to work in fields like construction, manufacturing and trucking, which are disproportionately affected by bad economic conditions. Women cluster in more insulated occupations, such as teaching, health care and service industries.

Yet if you can accept that the job choices of men and women lead to different unemployment rates, then you shouldn't be surprised by other differences—like differences in average pay.

Feministas are not known for their consistent logic.

The Department of Labor's Time Use survey shows that full-time working women spend an average of 8.01 hours per day on the job, compared to 8.75 hours for full-time working men. One would expect that someone who works 9% more would also earn more. This one fact alone accounts for more than a third of the wage gap.

Choice of occupation also plays an important role in earnings. While feminists suggest that women are coerced into lower-paying job sectors, most women know that something else is often at work. Women gravitate toward jobs with fewer risks, more comfortable conditions, regular hours, more personal fulfillment and greater flexibility. Simply put, many women-not all, but enough to have a big impact on the statistics-are willing to trade higher pay for other desirable job characteristics.

Men, by contrast, often take on jobs that involve physical labor, outdoor work, overnight shifts and dangerous conditions (which is also why men suffer the overwhelming majority of injuries and deaths at the workplace). They put up with these unpleasant factors so that they can earn more.

All of this has long been known to anyone who bothered to look into it. But here comes the new information:

Recent studies have shown that the wage gap shrinks—or even reverses—when relevant factors are taken into account and comparisons are made between men and women in similar circumstances. In a 2010 study of single, childless urban workers between the ages of 22 and 30, the research firm Reach Advisors found that women earned an average of 8% more than their male counterparts. Given that women are outpacing men in educational attainment, and that our economy is increasingly geared toward knowledge-based jobs, it makes sense that women's earnings are going up compared to men's.

Where is the outrage?