Equal Pay Day, a feminist holiday built on false statistics, was a bummer this year. Senator Hillary Clinton, who has been visible (and vocal!) at previous EPD press confererances,  was notably absent at this year’s lacklustre event.  

A blogger for Human Events chided the no-show: 

What excuses would she have? Her job had duties more important than helping women everywhere achieve ‘equal status’? Aren’t women’s rights human rights, after all?  What else, she couldn’t pick up the right pantsuit? There’s not a lot of justification for the good senator missing this one.

A legitimate excuse might be that her daugther was sick and needed her care–the real reason most women often stay home from work. They’re ‘pro-choice,’ free to choose their families or their career–or if they’re lucky, a mix of both. Most women, when confronted between work or caring for a loved, would duck out of a presser.

Or maybe Equal Pay Day isn’t cool if you’re running for president and don’t want to be seen as a feminist sock puppet?

Unlike Hillary, the IWF did show up at the event, but only to hand out a press release debunking the notion that women make less money than men because of sexual discrimination. The slight discrepancy, when appropriate measured, it often comes out to 2 cents on the dollar is because of life-enhancing choices women make.

The Human Events blogger reports our IWF press release, which was handed out at the Hillary-less event and which noted that “Warren Farrell, a former board member of the National Organization for Women’s New York chapter, identifies 25 decisions that individuals make when choosing jobs in his book, Why Men Earn More.  Women, he finds, are much more likely to make decisions that increase their quality of life, but decrease their pay.  Most people understand that many women often take time out of the workforce to care for family members, particularly young children.  Even women who work full-time log fewer hours in the office on average than full-time working men. It is common sense that a worker who remains employed continually is going to make more than someone who drops out of the workforce for several years.”

A blogger for the Washington Post wrote an Equal Pay Day essay that retailed the same old feminist stuff:

And don’t go thinking the working woman numbers are pulled down by lesser educations or inadequate experience or because women chose to take time off to give birth or raise children. These numbers measure salaries of women who work full-time and haven’t been out of work for any type of pregnancy, maternity or disability leave within the past 12 months.

The last twelve months? That’s hardly enough time. Your salary is based on a time span longer than the last twelve months. A guy who’d only been in the market for a year would be considered a neophyte, and so should a woman, unless we require special privileges to thrive in the workplace.