Independent Women's Forum - Arrah Nielsen

Helping the Homeless through Mental Health Reform

info@iwf.org (Arrah Nielsen) — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:34:00 EST

The holidays are about caring and compassion, but despite the seasonal spirit, there is still a segment of society left out in the cold: the mentally ill and homeless. These are some of societies' most disenfranchised and are easy to overlook. They are the shabbily dressed hallucinating individuals who tote their worldly possessions in plastic bags and sleep on grates. Without adequate treatment, many of the mentally ill wind up homeless or in jail.

According to the Treatment Advocacy Center between 150,000 to 200,000 homeless individuals suffer from bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. In order to understand this problem, we need to identify not only who these street dwellers are, but how they got there. Psychotic street dwellers have not always been a part of city landscapes, and in bygone decades, greater efforts were made to house and take care of these vulnerable individuals.

Much of the increase in mentally ill homeless occurred as a result of a well-intentioned if ill-advised social experiment known as deinstitutionalization. Deinstitutionalization came on the coattails of the civil rights movement and sprang in part from the belief that everyone has a right to beat to their own drummer (no matter how psychotic or paranoid that drummer may be). Mental hospitals were closed in mass and the severely mentally ill were returned to the community, too often lacking the resources they needed to survive on their own.

President Kennedy authorized the building of community mental health centers, which were designed to provide treatment to seriously mentally ill individuals while they remained "in the community." The idea was that mental health workers would do community outreach and coax the severely mentally ill into treatment voluntarily. This idea is appealing, but not always practical. How is the mental health worker to reach out to the severely paranoid psychotic individual? How about: "I understand that the CIA has implanted a chip in your head, come to the local mental health center and we'll try to change the channel."

Another outgrowth of deinstitutionalization is a more narrow interpretation of commitment statutes. The predominant criteria for involuntary commitment today is dangerousness. "You can be as manic or psychotic as you want to be without being forced into treatment, as long as you are not a danger to yourself or others," explains Dr. Daniel Leggiadro PhD. of the Lancaster County Crisis Center in Lincoln, Nebraska. Leggiadro gives the example of an actively psychotic transient who was repeatedly jailed for sleeping where he was not supposed to sleep, specifically, in university stairwells. Recognizing that the man was mentally ill, the jail took him to a psychiatric hospital for treatment. The hospital was unable to keep him however, because while psychotic and unable to find a place to live, he was not an imminent danger. Says Leggiadro "I'm not against civil liberties, but sometimes people cannot appreciate their civil liberties."

Freedom from involuntary treatment has too often translated into the freedom to be a floridly psychotic homeless person periodically jailed for trespassing. This form of "freedom" is a mockery of the word. What the deinstitutionalization movement has shown is that despite the progress that has been made, there is still a lot of nuttiness in mental health.

To reverse the havoc that deinstitutionalization has wreaked, policymakers should expand the commitment criteria from dangerous to include gravely impaired. No one should have to deteriorate to the point of being a danger to themselves or others in order to receive help.

Closed down state hospitals should be reopened and remodeled recognizing the fact that there are too few inpatient facilities available. Medications aren't always taken and sometimes do not work, for that reason a need for inpatient facilities will continue to exist despite pharmaceutical breakthroughs. And some individuals are simply too sick for independent living to ever be a viable option.

If the measure of a society is how it treats its most helpless members how does ours stack up when it subjects the mentally ill to a justice system that unfairly punishes them and a mental health system that fails them? Mentally ill homeless people are not going away, but they need to go somewhere. Can we as a society find the solutions and compassion to give them a place?

Thanksgiving a Time for Gratitude, Not Political Correctness

info@iwf.org (Arrah Nielsen) — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:26:00 EST

It seems you can't even celebrate Thanksgiving anymore without offending someone. Protests are raised annually to what most people consider a day of turkey, family, and football. Each year around this season, there's the National Day of Mourning Activities held on Plymouth Rock to protest the perceived racism and oppression that still exists for Native peoples. Campus multicultural resource centers routinely host events such as "Thanks-taking: Thanksgiving through indigenous eyes." My personal favorite are the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals activists who don turkey costumes to demonstrate the cruelty of turkey eating.

These "pied pipers of political correctness," as author Thomas Sowell puts it, are not merely eccentric, they are wrong and do historical accuracy a real disservice. The view that Thanksgiving is really a celebration of genocide and oppression of Native Americans is simply false. There are many ways to promote better race relations: Dredging up resentment for grievances that are over 300 years old is not one of them.

It wasn't imperialism that enabled Europeans to triumph over the Indians, it was technology. Indians didn't have guns, horses, ships, or in most instances a written language when Christopher Columbus arrived. Europeans won despite being greatly outnumbered (initially) because their civil, mechanical, and naval engineering skills were superior. Competition between cultures is inevitable. The two cultures met and the technologically inferior one lost out.

There is much to admire and that we can learn from the Native American culture, but the belief that all Native Americans were peaceful nature lovers who were getting along just fine until Europeans came along is largely a myth. Cannibalism existed among the Iroquois, Caribs, Aztecs, and Guarani. Both the Incas of South America and the Aztecs of Mexico ritually murdered captives. Inca law dictated that anyone who showed grief during human sacrifices be punished. It is grossly inaccurate to portray the Europeans as vicious imperialists and the Native Americans as peace-loving pacifists.

Nor is it true that most of the Indians had environmentalist like concern for the land and its inhabitants. Running entire herds of buffalo off cliffs and taking only the nose or tongue of the buffalo, while leaving the unused carcass to rot, was just as likely to take place among Indian men as white ones. (Though white hunters preferred to take the buffalo's hide, not the nose or tongue.) This is well documented in Evan Connell's anti-Custer biography Sun of the Morning Star. When the Indians did make an exhaustive effort to leave no part of the buffalo unused, it was mainly because they were on the verge of starving to death, not because they were dedicated conservationists.

While it's true that many Indian lives were lost as a result of contact with Europeans, it is inaccurate to accuse the Europeans of committing genocide. The high death toll was due mainly to (unintentional) exposure to disease. Europeans brought small pox and measles to America, and because the Native Americans had no prior exposure to these diseases, they died in massive numbers. But disease transmission cut both ways. The Native Americans introduced Europeans to syphilis, tobacco, and cocaine. In Plagues and Peoples, William McNeill claims that bubonic plague was brought to Europe by contact with Mongolian traders. One-third of the European population died. Is it fair to charge Asians with committing genocide against Europeans? Hardly.

The multiculturalists overlook the sins of Native Americans culture because their purpose is to elevate all cultures-except of course for Western culture, which more often than not, they vilify. Consider the kinds of activities hosted by the multicultural resource centers that can be found on college campuses across the nation: the tunnel of oppression, the wall of hate, and thanks taking. These themes are all more likely to foster a better sense of victimology than understanding.

As historian and author Rick Shenckmen writes in Legends, Lies and Cherished Myths of American History, "The purpose of history is to understand why people did things, not to reduce the past to a series of moral lessons." The old myth of white innocence wasn't accurate. But neither is the new myth of white collective guilt.

The first official Thanksgiving holiday, commissioned by George Washington in1789 was a Christian one, designed to celebrate the providence of an Almighty God. That spirit of gratefulness is what we should remember with this and with every Thanksgiving in our free and profoundly blessed nation. Happy Thanksgiving.

Overlooking the Real Body Image Problem

info@iwf.org (Arrah Nielsen) — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:31:00 EDT

Bust out the hankies and bring on the hysteria, it is the ten year anniversary of Love Your Body Day and it is coming to a university near you! To celebrate you can play body-image boosting computer games like "Feed the Model" on AdiosBarbie.com, rail about the virtues of being a "thick chick," and listen to testimonials from women who do not like their thighs.

The ostensible purpose of Love Your Body Day is laudable-to encourage acceptance of all body types, and raise awareness of anorexia and bulimia. But while no one is proposing a Loath Your Body Day, Love Your Body Day is problematic because while event sponsors fixate on eating disorders and thin models they overlook the far more common problem of obesity. And in a land of super-sized ambulances and toilets built to withstand up to 1,200 pounds, America's obesity problem is well, big.

The National Organization for Women recommends the following activities for Love Your Body Day: host an "indulgence party" and encourage friends to come over clad in pajamas and eat "silly snacks" and decadent foods without guilt. Or you could take a survey on body image in order to determine which "ads or images or characters most represent an oppressive beauty standard." Lastly, you should try to find time to host a mock beauty pageant in protest of dangerous beauty standards that pit women against each other. The key to Love Your Body Day is subverting the beauty institution.

Routinely trotted out at Love Your Body Day are scare statistics like the one from the National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders claiming that 81 percent of ten year olds were dieters. However the survey defines dieting so broadly that essentially anyone refraining from eating anything is considered a dieter.

The extraordinary lengths we women got to in pursuit of a slim figure appear to stop short of eating fewer calories or exercise, given that nearly two thirds of American women meet the government's definition of being overweight or obese. "Am I Thin Enough Yet?" asks Sharlene Hesse-Biber in her book The Cult of Thinness and the Commercialization of Identity. Probably not. According to a 2002 Center for Disease Control report, the average American woman between 18 and 74 stands 5 feet 4 inches tall and weighs 164 pounds. This is nearly 25 pounds heavier than the average 1960s woman.

According to Harvard psychologist Nancy Etcoff, despite all of the feminist fuss over the beauty industry's harmful affect on women, thin fashion models are not responsible for anorexia. "With more than one-third of the United States population obese, there is no indication that the plethora of thin bodies around us is creating a society of thin people at all." If there is any relationship between the weight of fashion models and that of the average woman, it is in inverse proportion to what one would expect. While 1960s models were somewhat heavier than today's models, the average woman was thinner. Because thin fashion models are not the cause of anorexia, thicker ones are not the solution.

Despite assertions to the contrary, psychological research does not support the idea that exposure to fashion models makes women insecure about themselves for any lengthy duration. For the most part, people feel pressure to keep up with the Joneses, not the Rockefellers. Watching NFL games does not make men insecure about their athletic ability and too self-conscious to play football with their friends or family. Similarly, for most women, world-renowned beauties in fashion magazines are in a different league. Instead most women judge themselves according to the standards of the neighborhood beauty contest, not a world-wide one.

This isn't to say that many women don't put too much emphasis on their appearance and waste time obsessing about weight loss. Many women diet unsuccessfully, compare themselves unfavorably to models, and feel dissatisfied with their body. But feeling self-conscious about one's body should not be confused with a serious, potentially deadly, psychiatric disorder. The problem of anorexia is real, but so is the problem of obesity, and it is far more widespread and also deserves more attention and resources. Love Your Body Day places a disproportionate amount of attention on battling models and eating disorders. If healthy minds and bodies are our ultimate goal, the main focus should be the battle of the bulge.

Arrah Nielsen is a former junior fellow at the Independent Women's Forum.

Working Girl

info@iwf.org (Arrah Nielsen) — Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:00:00 EDT

Feminist groups have parroted the statistic that women earn only 76 cents to the male dollar so many times that it is seldom challenged by the mainstream media or anywhere else in the popular culture. Feminist groups imply that the wage gap is due to discrimination and that all women are victims.

But college women getting ready to graduate and find a job should take heart. The wage gap is a misleading statistic that fails to account for several crucial factors impacting women's wages such as:

Time worked. Women take much more time out of the work force and assume a greater share of the domestic load. Long, uninterrupted employment correlates with higher wages.
College majors and career choices. Women disproportionately major in the social sciences and enter lower paying, but more personally fulfilling, careers such as elementary education and social work. Bachelor's degrees in the hard sciences and technology command higher incomes than those in the liberal arts.
Playing it safe. Women are generally less willing than men to take dangerous or unpleasant jobs that offer higher wages to offset the extra risk.

In short, it is women's life and career choices -- not a patriarchal conspiracy -- that result in women earning less than men. The best way to boost women's earnings is to inform them of why men earn more and leave the choices and the consequences up to them.

Introduction
No doubt, you've heard feminists parrot the statistic that women earn only 76 cents to the male dollar. Senator John Kerry repeated this statistic in the fall on the campaign trail, as did Kim Gandy of the National Organization for Women. The 76 cents statistic has been repeated so often that most people simply take it at face value.

It probably has made the fun job of looking for post-graduation employment that much better, since you are preparing to get gypped as well as get a job. But take heart: as the real facts about the wage gap reveal, women can make just as much money as men. It all depends on the choices that you make.

What Is the Wage Gap?
Equal pay for equal work has been enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act since it was made law in 1972. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also banned sex-based wage discrimination. So it seems pretty remarkable that the wage gap is so wide and pervasive today. Attorneys should be having a field day with class action law suites over this grave injustice. But they are not. Could it be that even the legal establishment is itself involved in this glaringly obvious patriarchal conspiracy?

Fortunately, no. The wage gap is a misleading statistic. It compares all women to all men. Thus, the male orthopedic surgeon working in excess of 70 hours per week is tossed in alongside the female receptionist working 40 hour weeks. The statistic does not take into account the level of education, the years of work, and the choice of education. And these factors can have a big impact on how much money you make.

For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports "that the average person working 45 hours per week earns 44 percent more pay -- that is, 44 percent more pay for 13 percent more work." In other words, a small difference in number of hours worked can add up to a big difference in dollars earned. Women are 50 times more likely than men to take time out of the workforce, for care-giving and other reasons. This difference should not be overlooked when trying to get at the roots of the wage gap.

When males and females in the same occupation, with similar qualifications and experience, are compared there is virtually no difference in their pay. A definitive study of the gender wage gap conducted by economist June O'Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that women earn 98 percent of what men do when controlled for experience, education, and number of years on the job.

The Real Reason for the Wage Gap: The Choices Women Make
Warren Farrell, three time board of directors member of the National Organization for Women (NOW) New York City, points out in Why Men Earn More that one reason men earn more than women is because they are far more likely to take unpleasant and dangerous jobs, what Farrell calls the "death and exposure professions." For example, firefighting, truck driving, mining, and logging are just a few high risk jobs that are over 95 percent male. Conversely, low risk jobs, like secretarial work or childcare, are over 95 percent female.

Farrell points out that in California, prison guards can earn $70,000 per year in addition to full medical benefits, and retire after 30 years with a hefty retirement package. But it takes little imagination to figure out why California still has a difficult time staffing its prisons, and it goes without saying that most prison guards are male. Says Farrell, "As with most jobs, there�s an inverse relationship between fulfillment and pay."

Because men are more likely to take jobs that are unpleasant, dangerous, or dull in exchange for higher pay, they reap the financial benefit. Farrell summarizes this phenomenon this way: "jobs...that expose you to the sleet and the heat pay more than those that are indoors and neat." Individual women could choose to enter more risky but higher paying professions, but most choose not to.

There is little evidence to suggest that women earn less than men merely because they are women. In fact, according to the 1960 U.S. Census of Population, a decade before the Equal Pay Act was passed, never married childless college-educated white women who worked full time were earning 106 percent of what their male counterparts were making. Furthermore, Warren Farrell documents occupations requiring bachelor's degrees in which women's starting salaries actually exceed men's. Female investment bankers and dieticians, for example, can expect to earn 116 percent to 130 percent of their male counterparts' salaries.

Why then do women earn less than men? The primary reason is that on average maximizing earnings is less of a priority for women than it is for men. Men are 50 times more likely than women to be the primary or sole breadwinners for their families, and even well-educated women, who are presumably more ambitious than the average Jane, are less committed to their careers and less willing to make sacrifices for them. Surveys of female MBAs reveal that ten years after graduation, 20 percent do not work at all, having opted out of the work force in favor of being stay-at-home moms. A Korn/Ferry study revealed that only 14 percent of women, compared to 46 percent of men, say they actually want to be a CEO.

Comparable Worth? Comparable to What?
But feminist organizations like the National Organization for Women and the Ms. Foundation don't accept these differences in decisions as the real reason for differences in pay. They argue that female-dominated occupations are undervalued. Thus they insist that women who enter occupations such as elementary education and secretarial work, which have low starting pay and little opportunity for advancement, are victims of an economic system that undervalues and under-compensates their work. They argue for "comparable worth" legislation that would have the government decide how much professions ought to be paid in order that secretaries make the same wage as truck drivers.

To proponents of comparable worth, the mere fact that female-dominated occupations such as secretarial work and childcare pay less than male-dominated jobs like construction work, which require less education, is concrete proof that women are being unfairly discriminated against. What feminists and other comparable worth proponents overlook is that it is the market, not anonymous committees of wage makers, that determines what employees are paid. Comparable worth? Comparable to what?

Comparable worth was implemented in Australia in the 1970s, and while it failed to close the gender wage gap, it succeeded in creating labor shortages. "A 10 percent gap for full time workers and a 20 per cent gap for all workers remains, mainly because women have different labour force characteristics than men."

Minnesota experienced similar problems with comparable worth. University of Virginia economist Stephen Rhoads showed in his book Incomparable Worth that "pay equity" in Minnesota resulted in depressed wages and labor shortages in crucial occupations such as nursing and computer engineering. Furthermore, while the city of St. Paul spent an additional $32 million on salary expense between 1985 and 1992, debate raged on about which occupations were being compensated fairly and whether Minnesota was in compliance with the law at all.

In a free market, wages are a compromise between what employees are willing to work for and what their employers are willing to pay them. Instituting comparable worth will ultimately only hurt women and the economy by making women more expensive to employ, under-compensating certain professions causing labor surpluses and shortages, and stifling economic growth. There is simply no way that unelected bureaucrats can synthesize the full volume of information reflected in wage rates. The most accurate labor statistics available run a year behind...Wages are most accurately and fairly determined by the free association of labor participants.

Hearth and Home
Another reason women's average earnings are less than men's is that they tend to shoulder a greater share of the domestic load at home, and take more time out of the workforce for care-giving. Women more than men adjust their work schedules to accommodate their families. And in poll after poll, they express a preference to do so.

"Well, why can't men and women share domestic responsibilities 50-50 so women will be just as free and unencumbered as men are?" the conventional feminist argument goes. Some couples manage to create such an arrangement, but in general couples typically find it easier for each partner to specialize and make the sacrifices required to sustain the family. Most couples find that one career has to give when children come along and it is usually the mother's.

Scholars can debate whether it is societal pressure or innate desire that makes women elect to spend more time with their children. But so long as these decisions are a reflection of women's expressed preferences, this isn't a problem that needs to be solved.

Case Study: You
What factors are you taking into account as you start looking for a job? Probably potential earnings are just one of many factors you are considering before entering a career field. Personal fulfillment, safety, job flexibility, and working conditions weigh in along with salary.

It is wrong to assume that maximizing earnings is the primary goal of every worker. The important thing is that everyone is free to make their own decisions and is constrained only by the talent and ambition they possess. If women earn less than men as a result of their own choices and preferences, than that is an outcome we should be willing to accept.

Conclusion
Feminists have ignored how women's lives and goals differ from men's. In doing so they have overlooked the fact that it women's life choices -- not sex discrimination -- are responsible for the infamous wage gap. In order for women to reach absolute parity with men, they will have to work full time all the time, and choose career paths that pay more, but are less flexible and fulfilling. This recipe for equality is at odds with what most women want, but that does not seem to matter to feminists pushing the notion that women are shortchanged economically. They have mistaken equal opportunity for equal outcomes.

Understanding the reasons why men earn more than women, not promoting the paranoid, tiresome notion that women are victims, is the key to boosting earnings. It is the knowledge of how individual choices impact workplace earnings -- not divisive ideology -- that will empower women. College women should take note: the truth will set you free.

Arrah Nielsen is a former junior fellow with IWF.

Gender Wage Gap Is Feminist Fiction

info@iwf.org (Arrah Nielsen) — Fri, 15 Apr 2005 00:00:00 EDT

As much as feminists love to parrot the statistic that women earn only 76 cents on the male dollar, they rarely bother to provide an explanation or solid evidence for this claim. But fortunately a smart new book has hit the shelves just in time for Equal Pay Day to help them out.

Equal pay for equal work has been enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act since it was made law in 1972. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also ban sex-based wage discrimination. So it seems pretty remarkable that the wage gap is so wide and pervasive even today. Attorneys should be having a field day with class-action lawsuits. But they are not. Could it be that even the legal establishment is complicit in this glaringly obvious patriarchal conspiracy?

The 76-cent statistic (now actually 80 cents, according to the U.S. Census Bureau) is misleading because it is a raw comparison of all working men and women. Thus a female receptionist working 40-hour weeks is tossed in with the male orthopedic surgeon putting in 70-hour weeks.

A study of the gender wage gap conducted by economist June O' Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that women earn 98 percent of what men do when controlled for experience, education, and number of years on the job.

Warren Farrell, three-time board of directors member of the National Organization for Women New York City, exhaustively debunks the wage gap myth in his book "Why Men Earn More." Farrell documents occupations requiring bachelor's degrees in which women's starting salaries actually exceed men's. Female investment bankers and dieticians, for example, can expect to earn 116 percent to 130 percent of their male counterparts' salaries.

The real reason than men tend to out-earn women is the choices they make. Men are far more likely to take unpleasant and dangerous jobs, what Farrell calls the "death and exposure professions." For example, firefighting, truck driving, mining and logging -- to name just a few high-risk jobs -- are all more than 95 percent male. Conversely, low risk jobs like secretarial work and childcare are more than 95 percent female.

Farrell points out that in California, prison guards can earn $70,000 per year plus full medical benefits and retire after thirty years with a hefty retirement package. But it takes little imagination to figure out why California still has a difficult time staffing its prisons, and it goes without saying that most prison guards are male. Says Farrell, "As with most jobs, there's an inverse relationship between fulfillment and pay."

Because men are more likely to take jobs that are unpleasant, dangerous or dull in exchange for higher pay, they reap the financial benefit. Farrell summarizes this phenomenon this way: "Jobs that expose you to the sleet and the heat pay more than those that are indoors and neat."

Another reason women's average earnings are less than men's is that they take more time out of the workforce for care-giving. Women, more so than men, adjust their work schedules to accommodate their families, and in poll after poll, they express a preference to do so.

"Well, why can't men and women share domestic responsibilities 50-50 so women will be just as free and unencumbered as men are?" the conventional feminist argument goes. Such an arrangement is unrealistic as it requires both husband and wife to work part-time. Couples typically find it easiest for each partner to specialize and make the sacrifices required to sustain the family.

Arrah Nielsen is a junior fellow at IWF.