Cool research about people and finances at Why I Fired My Bank

[...] Click here to check it out Bookmark using del.icio.us Digg It! [...]

eROCK

@ Paul

Click on the icon “on SlideShare” and it will take you to the SlideShare page where the slides are more readable.

Meg

I love this survey! As a female, I am not surprised by any of the results really. I realize through my interactions with clients and friends that women think about money very differently than men do (like they tend to worry more about having enough, and they are more likely to feel unsure about their abilitiy to manage money). I was very interested to see how women’s priorities are different though–like how they put “travel” at the top of those lists. Great info.

I do think the discrepencies in equal pay perceptions are a little surprising. I thought it was a given (even to men) that women get paid less. This discrepency has been proven over and over and is evident from the first year of the first job out of college–when men and women have the exact same resumes and work experience and before women have taken any maternity leave. There are a variety of possible explanations of course (like the fact that women are far less likely to negotiate their salaries), but it’s interesting how many men don’t acknowledge this situation…

mike c

I still stick to my original assertion several posts ago that some of the questions were worded in a way to direct the survey taker to provide a certain response. I wasn’t very surprised by the gender specific results.

One that struck me as funny that I’ll share with my wife because it relates to our own relationship… who stresses more about finances by gender. I always argue that I stress more because I’m the sole breadwinner for the family and it’s my duty to provide financially for the family’s current needs as well as our short and long term savings goals. My wife always argues that there’s more stress on her because I’m the one bringing home the paycheck, so she must be extra careful with spending on our needs vs wants, so that we have some money to put away for the future. Financial stress comes in many forms.

Harri

to Meg and numerous others who still think it’s a given that women get unequal pay: this most likely is highly exaggerated, if not outright false. Women do earn less money _on aggregate_. ie. if you take the median pay for women and men, women earn less. This holds true within industries, professions or job functions. But that’s only one part of the story, and not the part that matters within this discussion. The aggregate median pay is a good measure of aggregate median pay (duh), but an entirely wrong measure of existence of discrimination or even inequality.

A major reason for the discrepancy is the fact that women _choose_ jobs which pay less, they _choose_ to work fewer hours, and they _choose_ to get out of the workforce. 90% of unskilled or low-skilled workers in relatively high-paying but deadly jobs (mining, construction, etc.) are men, whereas women choose to be less-paid but safe bank tellers and secretaries. Study after study has shown that women work fewer hours in most (all?) industries by choosing flext-time, part-time jobs, or take longer sabbaticals and have maternity leave. And the women who get out of the workforce to bring up children don’t earn money. (Yes, they produce a valuable service to the society, and as such they most likely should be compensated, but that’s another discussion.) Hypergamy also has a role in the fewer working hours and higher opting out rates. I am not aware of studies of its effects on pay levels, only of its existence even in the west.

When all of these factors are taken into account, the wage gap is exposed as the myth it is. In fact, my educated (MSc in economics) guesstimate is that in Nordic countries – where the aggregate average pay level between the sexes is almost the same – women earn more money per hour worked than a man in the same position.

So, instead of demonizing men as money-grabbers and a bunch of good-old-boy networkers, it would be much more conducive to study why women choose to opt out of higher wages. Understanding the reasons we could lure more women to produce goods and services civilization demands. Promoting the wage gap myth will hurt women themselves in the long run, and the society as a whole through skewed productivity/pay relationship.

And let’s not forget that money is not everything: a stay-at-home mom produces a much more valuable service to the society than someone working at McDonald’s, although it is not reflected in her pay. Hell, I’d claim she’s more valuable to the society than the average engineer! On an individual level perhaps some women have found out that fewer working hours equal higher standard of living. It is women, after all, who live longer and have lower suicide rates.

Customers Revenge

I like Harri’s response. I haven’t done any studies, but I am in a professional environment where many women at a similar level to me earn very similar salaries and even higher. I do know women who earn significantly less and I definitely attribute those specific cases to individuals who do not seek out higher paying (and often more demanding) opportunities or who do not take enough of a stand at salary time.

One person I know made about 15% less than I though she should, I told her, she took a proper stand and got her 15%. It was that simple to correct “the gender gap”. She could have gotten a 25% raise if she only accepted a job offer that crossed her desk, which would have required her to work in the field much more.

I think that companies take qualified people and will pay the minimum they can to keep them. In jobs of the same type in the same company I think you would find that women and men get paid very similarly.

Harri

@ kmg: How’s that ad hominem working out for you? Feel free to actually have an argument next time.

@ Customers Revenge and Kat: anecdotal evidence doesn’t equal data. It’s a bit frustrating to debate these issues when every time somebody knows somebody who was discriminated. As if the issue wasn’t contentious enough as it is. There are numerous rigorous studies done on these issues, and few outliers – no matter how personal – doesn’t change the results.

I’m not saying there’s no discrimination in wages. I’m sure there is. But it is blown way out of proportion, and when comparing oranges to oranges western women are doing about as well as men, pay-wise.

Cecily

Matt:

The two assumptions you listed aren’t the only assumptions in your scenario. Let me list a few more:

- That companies can always accurately assess the productivity of their employees, and the potential productivity of job applicants.
- That companies, without fail, “want to hire people at the most attractive price in relation to productivity”, and no confounding factors such as nepotism, negotiating skills, subjective assessments of “likability”, “fitting into the culture”, physical attractiveness and so on ever come into play.

Both of these assumptions have been shown to be false in studies. Hiring managers are people, and people’s decisions don’t always sit neatly on those curves we learn about in Econ 101. If they did, there would be no need for this site.

There are plenty of studies like the two below:

http://drcenter.org/studies/applcnts_autoservice.pdf
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06080/673595-334.stm

Harri: Right, women “choose” to make less money by consistently entering lower-paying fields and then taking more time off once children enter the picture. Why is it that men aren’t making these “choices” in such great numbers? Doesn’t that point to some sort of inequality, in circumstances or in expectations, somewhere?

Consider this: women choosing to devote their time to their husbands and children is what enables men to work those high-paying jobs with grueling hours. Many high-earning, successful men are supported by wives who take care of things like child care, household chores, errands and so on, allowing them to devote more time to their work. The partner-as-personal-assistant is a luxury that working women seldom have access to. If women were to stop assuming sole responsibility for these things, men would have a much tougher time putting in those 60-hour work weeks while still expecting to have a family, a house, a dog and so on.

Harri

Cecily, cogent points and a fresh perspective in your last paragraph, and I agree completely. That is exactly the kind of attitude I’d like to see more of: less finger-pointing, blaming and shaming, and more constructive criticism, creative thinking and looking for win-win solutions.

If more men would be more willing to cut work hours – and more women willing to accept a household pay cut -, perhaps we would have healthier families. Too often I read about men who work too much and never play with their kids or spend “quality time” with their wifes. It’s a two-way street, and way too complicated to be summed up in a “women earn less” or “men work more” sound bite.

I Will Teach You To Be Rich » There’s an interesting discussion on women and salary happening in the comments section

[...] an interesting discussion happening in the comments of last week’s post about gender and money. As usual, the [...]

April

Just from my own perspective, I did choose a job that doesn’t require hours upon hours of overtime because I value quality of life and family-time more than money, so I identify with much of what has been said.

As for salary negotiations, I am 100% guilty of not doing this. In my particular situation, I had wanted to work for the company I’m with now for over two years. One position opened up, but I didn’t get hired, so when the next one opened up, I aggressively pursued it and was offered the job. Unfortunately, I lost that aggression when they offered me the job and threw out a salary number. It was a little more than I was making before, and I just accepted it because I wanted the job. Now, a year later, we had a review, but salary isn’t discussed during performance reviews. A month or so after the review, at the end of the fiscal year, they bring you in, tell you what your raise is (which I think has already been put in the budget), and that’s that.

I don’t mean it to explain all of this as a cop-out, I just don’t know when the appropriate time is to bring it up with my employer. That, and at my last company, anyone who asked for a raise was basically on their way out the door, so I admit I’m gun-shy.

Meg

Harri-I wasn’t blaming men (or calling them money hungry) when I asserted that they often make more than equally qualified women. And by equally qualified I mean same work experience, same job, same resume, etc. I do believe the figures are exaggerated–I don’t think the discrepency is that big when you adjust for all factors. But it does exist. As I said, this has been shown to be the case ONE TO FIVE YEARS OUT OF COLLEGE when resumes and work experience are similiar–in the SAME entry level jobs. I wish I knew exactly where I read that so I could link to the study/article. I’ve also read about studies that put men and women up for jobs with the exact same resume and got different results.

I DON’T think these things are often the result of discrimination, and I know it’s not the same in every industry. I think discrimination and stereotypes play a subtle role (if a subconscious one).

But the bottom line is that women will accept less. So the markets pay them less. THAT’s the problem. Men should not demand less; women need to demand more–actually they need to WANT more. I know too many girls hanging out in entry level jobs not trying to move up, not asking for more money, not working quite as hard as their male counterparts. It’s because of socialization. Young women don’t have the pressure that comes with wanting to (or having to) support an entire family. Sure they can if they want–but they aren’t considered a failure by society if they don’t. This changes incentives dramatically–which as we all know changes markets.

Plus, many women (who probably would die before they admit it) are obviously just waiting to get married so they can quit working. Rather than find a rewarding job or focus on their careers, some women know (and plan) they can “opt out” of the workforce. All these factors skew the “medians” and “averages.”

SJ

Interesting discussion. I make almost twice my husband’s salary, in a more demanding job, at the same institution. However, I do really believe that there is a wage gap, brought on by a combination of women not negotiating and a cultural workplace difference. For more stats, check out
http://www.wageproject.org/

In terms of negotiating salary – I tried really hard for more salary when I was hired but didn’t get it – however I did get a promise to work from home one day per week (which in the end wound up as 1 day every other week or so) and that they expected that if I was as good at the job as they expected me to be, I would be considered for a promotion in 1-2 years. I decided to take the job, as the experience it offered would allow me to get a better job somewhere else if the salary never increased further.

I planned to ask for a raise around my 1 year anniversary there – and was surprised by my boss giving me the promotion – with a 14K salary increase! without my asking. A big part of that was being very proactive in my review, talking about all the differences I’d made since I joined the group. etc, and also making the point to him that three people were supposed to be hired to do this job (and it is still only me 1.5 years later). I had been through career counseling prior to this switch and ti was really due to my counselor’s coaching that I took the review process so seriously as a way to advocate for my own achievements.

I can’t speak to what it is like to grow up male, but as a female there is a strong cultural training not to be too loud about your accomplishments because you will not seem womanly (read: scare off prospective mates, but also that it doesn’t look good to society to be a strong woman) We’ve come a long way in our society with this, but let me say as a female scientist we are not all there yet – I and many of my colleagues still face discrimination, overt and subtle, based on gender, regardless of work ethic or parental status.

Peter

Meg, you state about the difference in pay: “This [discrepancy] has been proven over and over and is evident from the first year of the first job out of college.”. Perception of “equal work” may be different among women and men because it can be based on a prediction of future career. Even before maternity leave is taken, for example, those who have seen it happen many times or in their own lives can expect that within 5 years of college a portion of young women will get married and maybe have their first child. Some of them will come back to work quickly, some will take a year off, and still others will take 5 years or more off. Many husbands and fathers (such as myself) can even attest that women can have a hard time predicting when they will want a baby because it is a true biological need that can suddenly “appear” in someone who will “wait ten years” or “never have kids”. Remember the playground where girls said that boys were gross? “I’m never getting married,” they say. Only a few years later a biological need appears that changes their plans, and they write “Mrs. ” on their notebooks. Wanting babies can occur in the same way, can the results can be wonderful for a husband who would otherwise drag his heals.

I know it isn’t fair to the career woman who does not have children in her 20s or 30s, but people with experience generalize on what they have seen to aid their predictions of the future. It is human nature and the nature of business to predict.

Kent Irwin

The survey on women and money is very interesting. I thought in this enlighten age we were closer to parity – but boy were we wrong, we discovered:
• Earnings Differences: According to the U.S. Department of Labor, women working full-time, year-round, earn roughly 74 percent of what men earn
• Retirement Differences: A Study by the National Center for Women and Retirement Research at Southampton College of Long Island University found that 58 percent of baby boomer women had saved less than $10,000 in a pension or 401(k) plan, while baby boomer men had saved three times that.
• Social Security & Retirement Plan Differences: Of course, less money earned by women, means less money saved for retirement or contributed to Social Security benefits, and because women live 79 years on average while men live 72, women retirees are poorer in retirement than men. The fact that women live longer than men means that they need more money in their retirement than men do.
• Decision Making: The next generation of retirees may have been raised in an environment in which men handled the money decisions. More women actually pay the weekly bills, but they may have little knowledge of the larger family finances such as retirement plans, Social Security, IRAs, insurance, annuities, etc. because they may have deferred to their spouse’s decisions. It is essential for women to understand the ‘big picture’ of their finances, especially for retirement, divorce, or death of their spouse. Because women make less than men, are less prepared for retirement, and receive smaller retirement benefits, they need to make sure that their husband’s retirement benefits will pass to them if their husband dies first. Because women may be more intimidated about asking questions of their attorney or financial advisor, they may miss crucial details (such as single-life annuity which may bring higher levels during the husband’s life but that ends when the husband dies first), or incorrect beneficiaries on life insurance policies.
• Divorce: During a divorce, women may be more concerned about custody issues and keeping the house than their future retirement and may agree to forgo the 401(k). Single parenting brings a whole host of financial challenges, including lost wages from parenting responsibilities and childcare and babysitters. If the extra expenses and possibly lower income are not included in the divorce settlement, the single mother may find that she is unable to keep the house and she loses the two most valuable assets: the house and the 401(k).
• Health Insurance: When an employer changes to a high-deductible plan, it costs on average $1000/year more for women than for men because women’s costs are higher (mammograms, the cervical-cancer vaccine, Pap tests and pregnancy related services)
• Care Giving: Another huge drain on women’s finances is caring for their aging parents. More women care for aging parents than men. However distasteful it may be to condense a daughter’s love for her parents into a discussion of money, this issue must be addressed so that women can prepare. Because of the aging baby-boomer population, these numbers will soon become staggering. If you add caring for young children into the mix at the same time, the financial results can be devastating.

kmg

@ Harri, the reason I reacted as I did, which you chose to construe as ad hominem, is that your first comment effectively blames women for wage discrepencies. Subsequent comments, which you yourself recognize as being valid, point out the various social forces at play here. So perhaps instead of asserting that “A major reason for the discrepancy is the fact that women _choose_ jobs which pay less, they _choose_ to work fewer hours, and they _choose_ to get out of the workforce,” thereby placing the blame solely on women who make those “choices” (which I would argue are infrequently purely “free” choices in the way you seem to imply they are), you might focus some of your attention at the macro or systemic level. That is a conversation that might be interested, rather than what sounded to me an awful lot like, “everyone would be equal if women really acted like they wanted to be.”

P.S., Congrats on your advanced econ degree, but diploma notwithstanding, you don’t get to point to the the Scando-Finnish region as evidence that if women worked more/harder, they’d be paid equally, considering the substantial differences that exist from the ground up in gender equality when conparing that region to the U.S. Different socializations + different social and legislative responses to historic discrimination + different takes on idealized gender equity = different outcomes.

Rick

I’ll throw one more thought out there. Discrimination exists everywhere. It’s very much a world where the strong survive. I’m very young looking for my age (I’m 27 and could easily pass for 20 or younger). It has been a constant struggle. I’m just now overcoming that struggle in terms of pay. It’s very hard to negotiate your pay when you’re constantly referred to as little buddy. And it kills your confidence to be treated as such. I really have no doubt that many women go through this in the workplace. But I’ve also seen strong women. And they all make more money than me.

I’ve had to fight for raises. It’s not fun. My guess is a lot of women are in the same boat but avoid the fight.

mary

I guess I am in the minority here- I work with a male co-worker who has the exact same degree that I have (we went to grad school together as a matter or fact). I make roughly 1/3 more than he does because I have additional skill sets that he does not have. Also, my boss is a man. My boss knows that money is the #1 priority to me because I have told him. I have never asked for a raise but have gotten significant ones almost every year- 5k or more. I guess he doesn’t want to lose me…

kmg

@ mike c: You might enjoy the book The Two Income Trap, co-written by Elizabeth Warren (Harvard Law professor and expert on everything you’ve ever wanted to know about bankruptcy law and empirical studies) and her daughter. The book addresses the idea you describe in your second to last paragraph. It’s an easy read, but insightful. They book looks at what happened in the U.S. once a two-income family became the gold-standard, and looks at where that second income goes and why it feels so necessary now –their data says it’s not primarily a consumer lifestyle, but mostly increased health care costs and the escalating cost of having a residence in a “desirable” and “safe” school district.

As you may have guessed from my previous comment, though, I don’t think there’s anything “post-feminist” about a culture in which the vast majority of all stay-at-home parents are women. Ever wonder why that statistical disparity exists? Until we have men embracing the role of primary at-home child care providers in the same numbers as women (and women are the primary/sole breadwinners just as frequently as men are), we’re not really “post” anything.

Justin

@kmg: I think the whole 50% thing is a very narrow way of thinking about this. You have no idea what kind of decision making process went into each of those families. You have no idea how many of the men offered, but they decided it was simply better for the women to stay at home in their situation.

It’s not 50% you’re looking for. Setting arbitrary number targets is only a good way to fail or create resentment. Which sales person is happier, the one who is told to simply do their best every day or the one that is held up to monthly quotas? What you really want is every family viewing this as a real decision with two options, and picking the one that is best for them. If that results in 95% of the time the men keep working, then so be it.

kmg

Justin, you’re right, I don’t have ay idea what kind of decision making went on in individual families, but you’re asking me to look at the micro level when the rest of this conversation is addressing the macro level. You incorectly assume I’m trying to decree that that half of all SAHPs must be men, and half must be women. I’m not interested in dictating anyone’s choices but my own. However, *at the macro level*, all other things being equal, at we would expect to see roughly the same number of women as men staying home with children. We are not seeing that. The logical conclusion is that all other things, then, are not equal.

@ Harri: “And no, anecdotal evidence of your friend’s sister with a doctorate marrying the carpenter doesn’t equal data.”
There you go being pro-actively insulting again. Why? It doesn’t make you sound clever, and it doesn’t make me feel dumb. I guess my hopes for you were far too high.

Karen

Side note: For those of us who are trained in qualitative data gathering methods, what is described as anecdotal by more statistically oriented folks actually does qualify as data for us, albeit an admitedly different type of data, but useful nonetheless.

While familiarity with one’s environment including all ltypes of challenges and discrimination is important, I believe that it is more important to have self-awareness (eg. know what you want to do, why you want to do it) and accept these challenges and figure out ways to overcome them. Changing social environments where men earn more and women less can take decades to change while changing oneself, including one’s approach, is much more managable. Also, one’s personal example can elicit those very changes one may seek in one’s environment. All of this can be achieved through persistence, building self-confidence, and developing an achievement style that is uniquely one’s own. if you have a healthy self-confidence, you’ll know what you deserve to earn and you won’t feel bad about asking for it. If you’re confident in the products you produce – which can come through especially well when you actually enjoy what you do – it’s not hard to show why you deserve to earn what you should earn.

Smart money management is a must for anyone who has dreams and wants to achieve them. One danger of ‘gender’ discussions is that it can collapse ‘men’ and ‘women’ into two very static categories. And while many of us women have been socialized in particularly docile ways, it’s still no excuse to continue certain patterns if we recognize that they are ultimately unhealthy and/or unproductive. Everyone one of us has something unique to contribute and share but if you don’t know what that is or you don’t value it or you expect someone else to place a value on what you offer, then you will always be shortchanged.

Cecily

Harri:

The practice of hypergamy is about men’s choices as much as women’s, and also speaks to what society values in men as opposed to women. For every female lawyer who would be ashamed to marry a carpenter, there is a male carpenter who is put-off by the thought of a wife who out-earns him.

This makes sense when considering what mainstream culture considers to be a “catch” – when talking about men, it means high-status; for women, it means beautiful. Both men and women are after the “catch”. I suspect that, for most people, equal pay for equal work is an easy idea to accept; it’s much harder to give up the adolescent fantasy of marrying “the prince” or “the most beautiful girl in the world”.

Feminist author Linda Hirschman recommends that career-minded women marry poorer men in order to maintain some power in the relationship. Hopefully in the future, a choice like this won’t be considered “marrying down”.

kmg

Justin, I’ve already tried to engage Harri, and have gained nothing by it (insults? no thanks), so I don’t plan to continue just to edify you. But see Cecily, who said roughly what I would’ve. Also, you’re wrong that that’s the only argument I’ve made to Harri–you apparently missed our exchange upthread, where he decided not to respond when I called him the “choice” language he later backpedalled on. It’s just not worth it anymore.

I disagree that women and men have different base drives–you’re not going to find a lot in support for that statement in well-controlled studies, but let me know if you find something. Yes, there are biological differences, for example breasfeeding, but those go out the window for formula-fed babies or after the child is weaned. And obviously, I agree that social differences exist, but those social differences (including “social topographies”, I like that phrase, thanks) are largely constructed or socialized. They are not, and need not, be static over time. Where they are unfair, ill-founded or (yes, I’ll say it) sexist, they can be and should be challenged. That benefits everyone. And once those underlying factors are controlled for, we should be able to expect statistical proportionality. It doesn’t exist right now, which means that a lot of the underlying factors are still fundamentally out of whack.

As a side note, I’d refrain from trying to identify the “base ideology” of a perfect stranger. It comes off as arrogant. Thanks for being largely civil, though.

Cecily

I was wondering how long it would take for evolutionary/biological arguments to enter the discussion. They usually take this form:

“Because of (highly speculative and poorly-supported theory x), this is the way things have always been, and the way they always will be.”

To me, these arguments are a signal that the person making them is interested in defending the status quo (in this case, women earning less money and doing more unpaid household/childcare work) over social change.

Massive societal change that seems to go against evolutionary imperatives has been seen over and over again in human history. Whence the popularity of lifelong monogamy and birth control?

g

Choice seems to be popping up a lot here (”women do/don’t have a choice when they leave the workforce”, for example), and, perhaps fittingly, biology has also entered the picture in response.

I would like to humbly submit the following mundane hypothesis: women often focus their energy on things that make them attractive to men and men often focus their energy on things that make them attractive to women. From this vantage point, the choices made by both sexes should reflect the values that each sex seeks in the other. To back this up, I’ll quote “The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature”:

“The study was done by David Buss [http://tinyurl.com/2eonxv] of the University of Michigan, who asked a large sample of American students to rank the qualities they most preferred in a mate. He found that men preferred kindness, intelligence, beauty, and youth, while women preferred kindness, intelligence, wealth, and status. He was told that this may be the case in America, but it is not a universal facet of human nature.

“So he repeated the study in thirty-seven different samples from thirty-three countries, asking over one thousand people, and found exactly the same result. Men pay more attention to youth and beauty, women to wealth and status. To which came this answer: Of course women pay more attention
to wealth because men control it. If women controlled wealth, they
would not seek it in their spouses. Buss looked again and found that
American women who make more money than the average American woman pay more attention to the wealth of potential spouses, not less.
High-earning women value the earning capacity of their husbands more,
not less, than low-earning women. Even a survey of fifteen powerful
leaders of the feminist movement revealed that they wanted still more
powerful men.”

To those who have read studies that found something different, I would like to see them (I really mean this). But please don’t say, “I have read of studies that refute this data but can’t produce them”.

If Buss’s study has any bearing on reality, we would expect men to be more aggressive at seeking wealth (asking for raises, seeking high-paying positions) and more likely to be willing to work long hours (in sometimes dangerous conditions) to get it. We would also expect women to expend less effort toward earning money, since men don’t care nearly so much about wealth and status in women.

I know this is unpalatable to some, but please remember that unpalatability has no effect on the truth value of the above arguments. Remember, too, that what is natural isn’t necessarily desirable, and I am not advocating sex differences as such. Rape and murder are also natural (they’re common to every culture in the world, as far as I know, and there are good evolutionary reasons to expect this), yet nobody would advocate them as “good”.

Queercents » Women and Men: Thinking Differently about Money

[...] at IWillTeachYouToBeRich.com, a well-known personal finance blog, conducted a reader survey about gender and money. The results (served up in a 30-page SlideShare presentation) revealed some stunning differences in [...]

Deb

It doesn’t help to ask for more money if you’re a woman. You will be perceived as pushy and aggressive (good in a man, very very bad in a woman). Women can either work for less or not get hired at all, those are the choices the male establishment has allowed them.

And by the way, I have read that men lose more work time to alcoholism (anybody know a workaholic man who isn’t also a heavy drinker? I don’t!) than women do to pregnancy. And doesn’t anyone think it’s unfair that women are punished for continuing the species?

As for waiting until you’re in your 40s to have kids, yeah that works great if you’re a guy, not so much if you’re a woman. Your fertility drops DRASTICALLY after 35 and is pretty much non-existent after 40, despite the media’s fascination with older mothers. And please show me the teenager who wants a 60-year-old mother, anyhow, it’s RIDICULOUS for women in their 40s to have babies, even if they’re lucky enough to be able to.

The whole “career arc” is based on being male. Staying fertile till you’re 90 and with a wife who holds down the whole rest of your life (including, most often, relationships with the man’s family of origin) so you can devote yourself to that supreme god, MONEY.

And yeah, the system also makes whores of women because frankly, whoring (also known as marraige) is always and forever the best-paid job you can get without a dick.