Men work longer, have more stress
The article (“Women still face workforce obstacles,”
News, Oct. 10) looks at weekly incomes of full time workers
reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which are then used to
support the tiresome claim of women’s pay inequality.
First, weekly incomes don’t show the actual hours worked.
Among “full-time” workers in the BLS data, men averaged
several hours more per week than women. Looking at the actual hours
worked, as well as job experience, continuous years in the
workforce and flexible scheduling, the gap becomes almost
non-existent (according to Diana Furchtogott-Roth & Christine
Stolba, “Women’s Figures: The Economic Progress of
Women in America”).
Men’s longer work hours are also left out of the
“second shift” that the Daily Bruin refers to.
According to a recent study by the University of Michigan Institute
for Social Research, while women average 11 hours more per week
than men inside the home, men average 14 hours more per week than
women outside the home.
As far as I’m concerned, the “pay gap” only
tells us that women have more choices (and more balanced lives)
than men. While many women can go from career to homemaker and
back, most men have little choice but to be primary breadwinners or
be on the streets.
Consequently, men take on longer hours and more
stressful/dangerous jobs, dying six years younger and making up 94
percent of job-related deaths. Then they get bashed for earning
more. When will men drop their self-sacrificing chivalry and start
challenging these misandrous lies?
Marc Angelucci Founder of the National Coalition of Free
Men, Los Angeles
Bush wants to “˜codify’ male-female
marriage
Anyone is free to express beliefs, as Nathan Deer and Daniel D.
Walker noted in their letters (Oct. 13). However, as a rule, Bush
doesn’t just express his beliefs ““ he acts upon them.
Call me crazy, but given Bush’s political clout, that scares
me. Perhaps the presidential proclamation wasn’t clear enough
to those who believe Bush is only stating a viewpoint and not
trying to impose his beliefs by force. Perhaps this quotation from
Bush is a more telling: “I believe in the sanctity of
marriage. I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. And I
think we ought to codify that one way or the other, and we’ve
got lawyers looking at the best way to do that.”
Contrary to Walker’s view, I am not arguing for a
progressive agenda, nor am I talking politics. I don’t
consider myself a “militant activist.” This is not a
political issue for me; it is my life, my future, my family’s
future. I am very much a proponent of not being persecuted; I
don’t think anyone really enjoys being denied rights.
It’s just unpleasant. However, I wasn’t aware that this
made me “radical” or “militant.” I thought
it just made me human.
Speaking of political slurs, I don’t believe I used the
words “homophobe” or “bigot” anywhere in my
submission (Oct. 10). That said, my piece wasn’t only about
Bush; I also discussed Senator Pete Knight, and let’s make no
mistakes here: Pete Knight is anti-gay. He supported a measure
which calls homosexuality unnatural and abnormal. He supported
Oregon’s initiative to ban any positive discussion of
homosexuality in schools. He opposes any form of domestic
partnership legislation. He’s anti-gay. If you don’t
want the label, don’t earn it.
Lisa Concoff Fifth-year, communication studies and
history