We all know about the lifespan gap between the sexes that favors women. Now, what if I said it was due to discrimination, that it obviously means men’s health issues are ignored by a callous, misandristic society; thus, government must intervene to balance the scales.

Ridiculous, you’d say?

I agree, but it’s no more so than political rhetoric about a discrimination-caused wage gap between the sexes.
Such talk has become a boilerplate, vote-getting feminist rallying cry, yet it’s no different than the hypothetical I provided above: manipulation by only providing half (or less) of the story.

Treating this in "A Bargain At 77 Cents To a Dollar," a member of the fairer sex, Carrie Lukas, fills in the gaps:

. . . I'm the cause of the wage gap – I and hundreds of thousands of women like me. I have a good education and have worked full time for 10 years. Yet throughout my career, I've made things other than money a priority. I chose to work in the nonprofit world because I find it fulfilling. I sought out a specialty and employer that seemed best suited to balancing my work and family life. When I had my daughter, I took time off and then opted to stay home full time and telecommute . . . .

Surveys have shown for years that women tend to place a higher priority on flexibility and personal fulfillment than do men, who focus more on pay. Women tend to avoid jobs that require travel or relocation, and they take more time off and spend fewer hours in the office than men do. Men disproportionately take on the dirtiest, most dangerous and depressing jobs.

To expand on this, women are more likely to decline promotions citing familial responsibilities; tend to gravitate toward lower-paying fields (e.g., favoring social sciences over hard ones); and, according to US Census Bureau statistics, full-time men average 2,213 working hours a year versus only 1,796 for "full-time" women. Thus, the same data telling us women earn less than men also explains why. Sadly, however, nuanced explanations don’t score as many political points as do empty emotional appeals.

Yet such rhetoric is truly offensive, as it’s the playing of the group-warfare card. And let’s gain some perspective. The implication here is, men make more money because they discriminate against women; thus, the latter have a right to seek redress through the iron fist of government. This is reminiscent of something. Citing the US Census Bureau and the National Jewish Population Study, economist Thomas Sowell tells us that Jewish households earn 172 percent of the national average. Yet, would we — as certain demagogues have done in days past — claim this is due to nefarious acts on the part of Jews? Would we look to government to "make things fair"? The result wouldn’t be fairness, but persecution of an unjustly demonized group.

Without a doubt, a consequence of embracing lies is the adoption of bad policy. This has already had an effect with respect to men, since, ". . . an effort to fix what isn't broken often breaks what didn't need fixing." In other words, an effort to eliminate fictional invidious discrimination against women is leading to the authentic variety being visited upon men. Writer Carey Roberts recently treated this:

Female physicists are getting $6,500 more. Co-eds who majored in petroleum engineering are being offered $4,400 more. And women computer programmers are being enticed with $7,200 extra pay. In fact for dozens of majors and occupations, women coming out of college are getting better offers than men....

Why these disparities? Because in traditionally male-dominated professions, employers are willing to ante up more greenbacks to attract females in order to forestall a costly discrimination lawsuit.

Unfortunately, with our propagandizing media, this problem will only worsen. And we can see a glimpse of the future in Norway, a land synonymous with über-feminism. In 2002, the nation embraced affirmative action on steroids, mandating that 40 percent of corporate boardroom members must be female. Since only seven percent were prior to this social engineering, just imagine how many highly qualified men are now denied jobs in the name of complying with this quota.

Perhaps overlooked is the fact that such policies hurt women and children as well. One reason (not the only one, of course) men place more emphasis on money, and women more on "personal fulfillment," is that the latter can and the former must. In other words, since men are more likely to be the primary if not the sole breadwinner, they often have no choice but to shoot for the gold, whereas secondary breadwinners often have the luxury of indulging less utilitarian motivations. This means that as we force employers to deny positions, promotions and pay raises to qualified men in order to satisfy social engineers, many men will no longer be able to fulfill their obligation to put bread on the table. And this hurts the traditional family, forcing women out of the home to compensate for their now financially handicapped husbands and relegating children to day-care centers.

Thus, the lie that the inter-sex wage gap is caused by unjust discrimination is leading to just that. It means, ladies, that your husbands, brothers and sons will find it increasingly difficult to get a fair shake in this Norway-quota brave new world.

That said, the wage gap is caused by discrimination. Men and women discriminate among lifestyles by choosing different paths; consumers favor businesses that provide more for the same money; and employers, to satisfy this desire, discriminate between employees who work more and those who work less. It’s the discrimination of meritocracy. We are now seeking to eliminate it, and, in fact, there has long been an effort to do so.

It’s called communism.