Androgynous Nation - The Prevalence of Jeans

Often the most seemingly random topics find themselves percolating in my mind. The past couple of days I have been thinking about jeans--you know, the denim pants that everyone wears. I would actually say that jeans are quite wonderful, if it weren't for the fact that everyone wears them. To be sure, they are fairly practical, and they are at least decently comfortable. Actually, what bothers me most about jeans has almost nothing to do with jeans at all. What bothers me is that women wear them. Everywhere you go, women are wearing jeans. Old women and young girls, trendy chicks and frumpy gals, gorgeous babes and grotesque women all have a commonality in that they all wear jeans. While there are occasional obvious exceptions, as a rule, women wearing jeans look significantly less feminine than girls who wear more traditionally feminine garb.


As I was growing up in a socially conservative family, occasionally my mother (who ironically now wears jeans most of the time) would read some sort of article on how women wearing pants is immodest or unbecoming in some way. I even remember watching a video sermon that nearly insinuated that wearing pants was a symbol of rebellion and a rejection of authority. At the time, I really didn't care one way or the other, since what women should or shouldn't wear seemed to have no pertinence to my life. While I still wouldn't quite agree with such an extreme socially conservative position, I find it both interesting and even somewhat surprising how similar the view of many secular and even liberal minds is to such a position. The truth is, those who understand and value the intrinsic differences between men and women, between masculinity and femininity, also recognize that certain forms of dress are more masculine and certain ways to dress are more feminine. Femininity in women is something that is desirable and attractive. All other things equal, women who act and dress in a more feminine manner are nearly universally considered more attractive than women who act and dress in a less feminine manner. Sadly, modern culture has lost sight of that simple truth in its destructive march toward an egalitarian utopia.


In fact, since the rise of feminism (which is quite a misnomer, since it diametrically opposes all things feminine), American culture has set forth an androgynous ideal in nearly every aspect of life. Men are told to be more sensitive, less angry, more talkative, more submissive and overall less masculine, while women are taught that they should be stronger, more determined, more independent, more assertive, more driven and overall less feminine. In many ways, this cultural shift is perfectly mirrored and revealed by the very clothing modern people wear. Not long ago, Dave in Hawaii wrote an excellent blog on how this shift in thinking has changed the way women dress today. Personally, I think that the prevalence of jeans and other unisex clothing flawlessly illustrates the fact that modern America neither understands masculininity and femininity nor values them.

The truth is, a woman wearing jeans is something much bigger than simply the wardrobe choice of a single individual. Either consciously or unconsciously, it is a symbol of conformity with the modern utopian ideal, which is based on the flawed premise that there is no ultimate difference between men and women. A girl wearing jeans is either making a statement that she accepts what culture teaches without critically examining it or is a making a statement that she rejects the natural differences between men and women and chooses to forsake the pursuit of beauty and femininity to chase after uniformity and aesthetic dullness. Neither of those statements are good ones to make. Why should a woman typically dress in a way that minimizes her natural beauty? Why should dressing up to look nice only be for special occasions? Androgynous dressing is as much an affront to nature and God's design as wearing a burqa is. In one case it's a rejection of femininity because of fear and lack of self-control, in the other case it's a rejection of femininity out of spite and rebellion.



While it virtually goes without saying that the way a person dresses has a major impact on how they are perceived, I especially notice how much a girl's wearing jeans changes my perspective of her. Recently, I saw a girl that I'm mildly attracted to at a social function. She was wearing a really thick and colorful sweater, had her hair pulled back in a ponytail and was wearing some generic-looking jeans. As I looked at her, the word "boyish" sprung to mind completely unbidden. Never before would I have connected that particular descriptor with her. Just the fact that she was wearing jeans radically changed my instinctual impression of her. In contrast, a little while back I ran into a girl that I don't consider very attractive, but on this occasion she was dressed very nicely. She wore a cute dark coat and a medium-length skirt of subtle color. Just because of how she was dressed, she looked sweeter and more feminine than usual. Some would say that such perceptions and impressions of girls based on how they are dressed is a bit shallow and doesn't take enough factors into account. To this I simply reply that how a girl is dressed is not merely an aesthetic factor (which does matter a lot to men), because it is also something that speaks volumes about how she perceives herself and the world.



But, don't just take my word for it. Decide for yourself. What sort of girl looks more beautiful and feminine: a girl wearing jeans, or a girl wearing a dress or skirt? While androgyny is something that contemporary culture advocates, it seems clear that working towards such a goal defies nature, makes a people more drap and dull, deprives the world of much-needed beauty, makes both men and women less attractive, and shows a lack of appreciation for God's creation. Now, if a woman wants to diminish her beauty and attractiveness by dressing in an androgynous fashion by wearing jeans, then she is certainly welcome to do so, regardless of the stupidity of such a goal. But in such a case, at least it should be an informed rejection of nature and her own physical appearance, rather than simply cultural conformity out of ignorance. Those women who properly know their place in the world and value their appearance will dress themselves in a feminine manner and avoid wearing clothes that would look equally fitting on a man.

Female-Instigated Divorce

In some of the discussion generated by this post, I stated that I am "extremely radically opposed to vacuous female-instigated breakups and divorces." My sister then wrote:

I notice that you are "Extremely" opposed to the ones instigated by girls. I don't think that's right. Guys are JUST as depraved as girls. I am extremely opposed to girls not instigating break-ups for the right reasons. You should (in my view) be radically opposed to MALE-instigated divorce. Why are you putting down the girls here?

While I quite agree with her point that men are certainly as intrinsically sinful as women and are not morally superior to them, the radical relational disintegration that we see in modern America is not as much of a balanced issue as one might expect. It is true, that I am quite opposed to male-instigated breakups and divorces. However, these are far less common than female-instigated ones. According to Alfred Cohen's Statistical Analysis of American Divorce, originally published in 1929,

Women's freedom or the modern emancipation of the wife from dependence on the husband is asserted to be a leading cause of divorce by most judges. Their opinions are supported by evidence that 71 percent of all divorces at the present time are granted to wives. That the wife instigates the suit in divorce court has been preeminent in American family history. In 1867, when the divorce rate in the United States was only one-fifth its present size, wives were then granted 64 percent of the total divorces.

And, in the past century, little has changed regarding the instigation of divorce. Stephen Baskerville writes:

In the largest federally funded study ever undertaken on the subject, Arizona State University psychologist Sanford Braver demonstrated that few married fathers voluntarily leave their children. Braver found that overwhelmingly it is mothers, not fathers, who are walking away from marriages. Moreover, most of these women do so not with legal grounds such as abuse or adultery but for reasons such as “not feeling loved or appreciated.” The forcibly divorced fathers were also found to pay virtually all child support when they are employed and when they are permitted to see the children they have allegedly abandoned (1998, chap. 7).

Other studies have reached similar conclusions. Margaret Brinig and Douglas Allen found that women file for divorce in some 70 percent of cases. “Not only do they file more often, but . . . they are more likely to instigate separation.” Most significantly, the principal incentive is not grounds such as desertion, adultery, or violence, but control of the children. “We have found that who gets the children is by far the most important component in deciding who files for divorce” (2000, 126–27, 129, 158, emphasis in original). One might interpret this statistic to mean that what we call divorce has become in effect a kind of legalized parental kidnapping.

While I am opposed to male-instigated divorce, the simple fact of the matter is that American divorce is and has been an overwhelming female-instigated thing. In 1867, 1.78 times as many women instigated divorces compared to men. In 1929, 2.34 times as many women instigated divorces as men. Presently, 2.45 times as many women instigate divorces as men. That seems a bit lopsided to me. While, this overwhelming sea of female divorce might possibly be ameliorated if there were reasonable grounds for divorce, such as infidelity or abuse, the statistics clearly show that this is not the case. Most divorces are instigated by women and most of the divorces instigated by women are instigated for unreasonable and/or vacuous reasons such as "not feeling loved or appreciated" or wanting control of the children. This means that most female-instigated divorce is either based simply on emotion or is initiated out of a desire for control. Getting divorced is bad enough. Getting divorced for the wrong reasons is even worse. Given that women are instigating divorces overwhelmingly more often than men and mostly for unreasonable reasons, I am radically opposed to such destructive irresponsibility.

And destructive it is! Divorce is not simply the termination of a single romantic relationship. It's effects are far-reaching and horribly destructive. In his book, Fatherless America, David Blankerhorn calls the modern American crisis of fatherless children, "the most destructive trend of our generation." In his study, Is There a Fatherhood Crisis?, Stephen Baskerville writes,

Virtually every major social pathology has been linked to fatherless children: violent crime, drug and alcohol abuse, truancy, unwed pregnancy, suicide, and psychological disorders--all correlating more strongly with fatherlessness than with any other single factor, surpassing even race and poverty. The majority of prisoners, juvenile delinquent inmates, high school dropouts, pregnant teenagers, adolescent murderers, and rapists come from fatherless homes. (Daniels 1998, passim)

Not only does is divorce a rejection of God's plan, an affront to one's partner and a sacred violation of one's vows, but it is horribly destructive for one's children, who must go on living life as fatherless. It is horribly destructive for society who not only has to deal with the initial fallout from a destroyed marriage, but also is directly harmed by the actions of fatherless children who go wrong because of growing up fatherless.

This is a subject that I am passionate about because it is destroying our society, wounding countless people, affecting many people I know and even affecting me personally. My grandparents, after being married for over 35 are in the process of getting divorced. My grandmother instigated the divorce out of a malignant desire for control. Since the whole fiasco began, she has been adamantly avoiding our family and won't even see us on holidays. Also, the toll it has taken on grandpa's health has been immeasurable. The past two years have physically aged him more than past fifteen years before that. It deeply pains me to see his suffering because of her wrong actions.

While it would be unreasonable to unfairly unilaterally blame either sex for the problem, there is clear evidence that the chronic American divorce epidemic is primarily female-instigated, and is typically instigated for vacuous or power-hungry reasons. There is clear evidence of the horrifying impact it has had on the personal, social and national health of Americans. So, while it is true that I am opposed to male-instigated divorce, that is not the bulk of the issue we face today. Female-instigated divorce is a major issue in our country, and it is clear that the blame for so many divorces primarily lies with women. I blame Germany for instigating World War 2, because they are responsible for their evil attempts to dominate Europe. Similarly, I blame American women for instigating the divorces that they do, because they are clearly responsible for a vast majority of the divorces in America, and consequently, they are responsible for the social fallout of such divorces. That is why I am extremely, radically opposed to female-instigated divorce.

Correlation Between Women Working and Lower Wages

Earlier this week, I posted a controversial blog advocating gender-based discrimination in the workplace. My argument was that, because of the economic and social losses to society that result from women working, businesses should be free to choose to hire men over women. When I was talking with a friend about my argument, he suggested that I gather some data and put together an econometric study to see if the facts support my hypothesis that having more women in the workforce does actually result in lower relative wages. His idea was quite brilliant. Yesterday, I spent several hours pulling data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the US Census Bureau and numerous other official and academic sources. After accumulating the data, I assembled it all into a series of spreadsheets and performed some basic statistical analysis. For anyone who is interested, you are welcome to download my study. My study looks at the increasing percentage of women in the workforce, the increase in real GDP and the increase in wages, from 1948 through 2007. Real dollars are all indexed based on a 2005 level of inflation.

Note: The following section contains a bit of dry numbers and economic data. If you are not economically inclined, feel free to skip down to my summary.


(Click on graph to see full-size image)

This graph shows the growth in US population, the growth in the workforce, and the number of men and women employed during each year. In 1948, 41.7 million men were employed compared to 16.6 million women. In 2007, 78.2 million men were employed compared to 67.8 million women. This means that the male labor force grew by 88% in 59 years, while the female labor force grew by 308% in the same period. Total population growth was 108%. This illustrates that women entered the workforce at a dramatically high rate, far outpacing natural gains due to population growth. My analysis is that this mass entrance of women into the labor market directly resulted from the changing social values in America. More specifically, feminism is one of the leading causes of the dramatic change of the workforce composition.


(Click on graph to see full-size image)

This chart narrows the focus to the aforementioned composition of the workforce. In 1948, men composed 71.52% of the workforce, while women accounted for 28.48%. In 2007, men made up 53.58% of the workforce, while women held the remaining 46.42% of the jobs. The ratio of men to women went from 2.5:1 to 1.15:1 during the study period. For every one man who joined the workforce, three women also joined. This trend lasted unbroken from 1954 to 2004.


(Click on graph to see full-size image)

Here we are looking at the growth in average production per worker (real GDP divided by workforce size), average wage income, and real GDP per capita. Our nation has grown substantially richer since 1948, both in current dollars and in real dollars. The raw profitability of each worker has skyrocketed with our increases in technology and improvements in labor methods. Wages have also grown in the same period, although not at the same rate as profitability. From 1948-1974, profitability and wages rose at similar rates, but a major change occurs following that period. Since businesses exist to earn profit, they seek to generate the most money, while paying as little wages as possible. During the period from 1948-1974, average wages varied from 69.15% to 76.84% of average worker productivity. In simpler terms, on average, workers were paid about 73% of the value they contributed to the economy. Since 1974, worker productivity has grown faster than wages, resulting in a steady decline in relative wages, down to the 61% of contributed value that is paid in wages to workers today.


(Click on graph to see full-size image)

These are the raw values for the workforce composition and the average wage expressed as a percentage of average worker productivity. Wages rates fluctuate somewhat wildly in the 24 year period from 1948-1974 while maintaining a slight upward trend, and then consistently fall from 1974-2007. For more clarity I created a second version of this graph, which plots the polynomial trendlines of each variable.


(Click on graph to see full-size image)

The trendlines show the changes that are happening in a smoother and clearer fashion. As my previous charts showed, the percentage of women in the workplace has steadily risen, changing the fundamental composition of the workforce. Likewise, the percentage of men in the workplace has decreased, at a parallel rate. Meanwhile, though relative wages increased slightly from 1948-1974, they have consistently decreased since then. Presently, relative wages are 12 points lower than they were during the 1948-1974 period, which is a 15% decrease in relative wages. Unsurprisingly, lower relative wages is precisely the sort of effect we should expect to see, when applying Austrian economic theory to the labor market. Allow me to explain.

Economic theory centers around the concept of scarcity. Things have their value in direct correlation to the scarcity and desirability. The equilibrium price for any good or service is found where the demand and supply curves meet. All other factors held constant, there is typically an increase in price when a good or service becomes more scarce, or when demand increases. Likewise, all other factors held constant, prices decrease when a good or service becomes more abundant, or when demand decreases. Therefore, if supply increases faster than demand, prices fall. This is precisely how the labor market functions. Businesses determine the demand for labor, and workers applying for jobs determine the labor supply. When women join the workforce and apply for jobs there is increased labor supply. If the increase of demand for jobs does not keep pace with the increased supply of labor, then the price of labor (wages) falls.

Therefore, what we see happening in the graph is that initially, in the period from 1948-1974, demand for workers rose faster than supply, even with the influx of women into the job market. Because demand was rising faster than supply, there was a mild increase in relative wages. However, somewhere around 1972 market saturation was reached, and from that point on the labor supply grew faster than demand. Since women are the largest addition to the labor market, supplying 2.2 times more additional labor than men (after adjusting for normal labor supply growth due to population increase), it is clear that their addition to the workforce directly impacted relative wages. This is a completely normal and natural economic effect. When supply competition increases, prices fall. Economic theory would suggest that women joining the workforce en masse would cause wages to fall, and the historical data illustrates that indeed, as more and more women entered the job market, wages did fall, after a short period of lag.

Summary
Though correlation does not imply causation, we can clearly establish that there is a direct correlation between women joining the workforce and a drop in relative wages. As the percentage of women in the workforce increased from 28% to 46%, an 18% increase from 1948 to 2007, relative wages for all workers fell from 72% to 61%, a 15% cumulative drop from 1948 to 2007. During the period from 1948-1974, the average national employment was 38% of the nation, while during 1997-2007, the average national employment was 48%. This means that more people are working, but they are making lower relative wages than in 1948. In 2007, the average income was $55,680 real dollars. If relative wages were paid at the 1948 rate, the average income in 2007 would be $65,720 real dollars. This means that an 18% increase of women composing the workforce can be correlated with a 15% decrease in relative wages.

Based on this evidence, I would suggest that even neglecting the additional costs incurred by women working instead of remaining at home, there is a clear correlation suggesting that the economic effects of more women working results in monetary detriment to all workers. Though there are numerous economic factors involved, making it impossible to determine the precise impact of a higher percentage of females in the workforce, the economic impact is clearly sizable, probably resulting in at least $10,000 less average wages per year for today's workers, both men and women.






Editor's Note: If anyone knows where I can find Labor Statistics prior to 1948, I would be much obliged if you linked me to them. I would love to expand my study to 1913-2009.

Discrimination Is Necessary For Social Reform

Today I just read an interesting and controversial article by Laura Wood, entitled Why We Must Discriminate. In it, she argues that for gender roles to be restored, for families to begin heading towards healing rather than towards the increasing dysfunction that is rampant in America, and for the resultant good of our nation, the legal environment must be changed in order to allow businesses to utilize customary discrimination and favor hiring men. In her own words:

First and foremost, we must restore customary economic discrimination in favor of men. America’s businesses and institutions must be free once again to favor men over women in hiring. If they are not, family life will never return to a reasonable state of health; the happiness of women and children will continue to decline; and men will fail to flourish and prosper.

Customary discrimination, in relation to the sexes, is the voluntary and informal practice of favoring men over women in hiring. It is not encoded in law or enforced by regulation. It exists as a result of a common understanding that men must support families and cannot adequately do so if they compete with large numbers of women, a form of competition that lowers their wages and reduces their marketability. The relative stagnation of men’s wages in the last 50 years proves the point.

I haven't read many articles specifically advocating discrimination, and I happen to agree with her argument. The truth is, feminism has been economically and socially detrimental to individuals, families and communities. Having gender-focused anti-discrimination laws does benefit businesses, but at the expense of everyone else. Personally, I believe that anti-discrimination laws of all sorts distort incentives, reduce liberty and encourage a flawed understanding of the concept of legal equality.

Specifically regarding women in the workforce, feminism may have initially appeared to be liberating. By allowing women to choose whether they pursue a family or choose a career, the apparent effect is that women have more freedom. When women first began entering the work force, it was economically advantageous for a family to earn a second income. The male provider already earned enough money to provide for his family and so adding a secondary income substantially boosted discretionary income. However, by nearly doubling the supply of labor, the equilibrium price of labor dropped dramatically. Because of the artificially low market value of labor, men and women both earn less money than if the labor market were limited to just men or just women. This decline in real income almost necessitates two incomes. Since men earn substantially less than they did before women entered the market, the amount of money needed to adequately provide for a family living in modern America is nearly equal to two full-time incomes. This means that with the rare exception of men who are wealthy, for most families, neither parent can afford to be jobless. While previously women had the option of having a job or staying at home and raising a family, now they are required to work, just to make ends meet. The resultant effect of feminism is that while previously most women didn't work, now most don't have the option of not working. Nearly twice as much work is required to earn the same amount of real income.

As bad as the economic aspect of women working is, the social effects of this are where the real harm lies. Since most women must work, they have significantly less time to spend raising children, making a difference in the world, and savoring life. There is less time for familial relationships, less time for being involved in the local community, less time to spend teaching children how to life virtuous lives, and less time for relaxation and personal hobbies. The lack of all these things serves to increase stress, decrease family unity, decrease enjoyment of life, decrease non-business related social development, and decrease the quality of childrens' education. Women's loss of social freedom and social influence is a major loss for them, directly, and for men and children, indirectly. Presently, there is a culture bias against women remaining at home and raising their families full-time. Educational instutitions and businesses profit from women in the workforce.

Why would women ever accept a return to discrimination?

The end of customary discrimination was never in the interests of women. It has forced the majority to help support their families while raising their children and managing a home. The experiment was tried. The apple was eaten. Women now see that careers come with personal costs and that many jobs are not as thrilling as feminists claim. They are ready to embrace discrimination again.

I think Laura is absolutely right. Right now, for the sake of individuals and families, America desperately needs to revoke anti-discrimination hiring laws and businesses need to intentionally choose to hire men over women. Gender discrimination is 100% necessary for America to begin true social reform. The health of our nation, the happiness of our people, the morality of our citizens, and the cohesion of our families depend on it. Let us discriminate intentionally and assertively, without apology!