Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Poor rich women?

In the papers today is the news that female millionaires will outnumber male ones in Britain within 15 years.

Keep this in mind the next time you hear complaints about men earning more than women. As I've often argued, the feminists who make these complaints seem to assume that the money men earn is for themselves: that it is somehow "male" money which men pocket for their own use.

In reality, much of the money men earn goes to their wives. So the more men earn, the wealthier women are likely to become. That's what's happening in Britain, where the fact of higher "male" earnings is soon going to co-exist with a higher number of female millionaires.


  1. Quite right. But it seems you didn't consider the fact that women's money might go to their husbands/boyfriends.

  2. Lisa, true, but that's not the point. The assumption is that there is an economic loss to women because of higher male earnings. In fact, women are enriched through such earnings, as is clearly shown by the number of female millionaires.

  3. The Article was in Melbourne's MX newspaper [mon-13th-Aug].

    The title was:

    It went on to boast at how it is predicted that almost half of the British/UK millionairs will be women by the year 2015-2020.

    Finally, it concluded that the 2 'major' reasons for this was the (wait for it) - "Bigger Divorce Payouts", as well as "Women Living Longer Than Men" (Therby having the 'millionair-ess' status into their old age'.

    THAT - was the extent of the article. You are welcome to verify it yourselves.

    Time and time again, I see very 'rare' examples of female accomplishment in the typically male-dominated world that is based on merit alone (that I, in fact, applaud) - but mostly,the media keeps raising women above their 'actual' achievements. (Especially compared to men, that they are always saying they are 'equal' to).

    Again, to all those women who can make it in a male environment, I applaud your achievements. I don't however approve of lowering standards through 'Affirmative Action' & 'Equal Opportunity' in order to achieve a 50-50 representation in the workplace SIMPLY because one is female. If a company has three candidates in an interview, and one of them is female - then the person who 'scores' best, should be hired (whether male or female). The company shouldn't be forced to hire women through an absurd political program just to make up numbers for women.

    It's EXACTLY the type of discrimination that (supposedly) feminists are opposed to, and insults women in the workforce who actually got the job on merit alone.