According to many sources of reputable statistics (giving the benefit of the doubt), the average woman in the United States earns about 80 cents on the dollar of what the average man earns?

But, once we start breaking down these large aggregates of averages down to different subsets, we can see more reasons for the numbers. What are the largest factors that make women in the average earn less?

Disaggregating the data:

  1. Is age a factor?
  2. Why don't greedy businesses hire only women and save on cheap labor?
  3. How much does marriage and family affect the dollars? (hint: a lot!)

Questions to consider if trying to "close the gap" by social policy:

  1. What about biological differences?
  2. How do we handle the needs of children?
  3. Do geographical and demographical factors complicate the issue?
  4. What about non-monetary compensation that some value over others?
  5. Would we stifle the unique traits and personalities of individuals?
  6. Would we be fighting a never-ending battle and unintentionally cause poverty?

Does the average woman in the United States earn about 80 cents on the dollar of what the average man earns?

Statistics don't lie, right? There is admittedly truth to these statistics that we should consider.

Before we assume too much, we need to ask these three questions to figure out how to interpret the data:

  1. What are the preferred college majors and jobs for the average man and woman?
    Not all college degrees and jobs are created equal. Do career choices naturally lead to a difference in salaries?
  2. What are the working preferences of the average man and woman?
    Do working preferences such as type of work and flexibility lead to lower pay? Is raw salary the only factor in a job that commands a price tag?
  3. What roles in the family do that average man and woman perform?
    Can childbearing and rearing reduce the average woman's earnings compared to the average man? Can we consider a husband's earnings part of the wife's "income"? Is this difference of career earnings really a concern about "injustice" or is it a matter of design in nature?


Articles Cited:

"The narrowing, but persistent, gender gap in pay"

"Pay equity panel examines persistent gender wage gap"

"Women Dominate College Majors That Lead to Lower-Paying Work"

In this episode we conclude our series of episodes responding to John Iriving's article in the New York Times. We demonstrate how Dr. Horatio Storer's writings and campaigns influenced state legislatures to criminalize abortion by making the law consistent with advances in science and medicine. We see how the laws against abortion strengthened, but then began to scale back as the eugenics movement in the early twentieth century ranked the worth of one life against another. We examine some quotes from Margaret Sanger, the founder of abortion provider Planned Parenthood that show the strong eugenics mindset behind the origins of abortion as a means of population control and engineering.


Sources Cited:

"The Long, Cruel History of the Anti-Abortion Crusade"

Margaret Sanger, "High Lights in the History of Birth Control," Oct 1923.

Margaret Sanger, Woman and the New Race, Chapter 5, "The Wickedness of Creating Large Families." (1920)

Margaret Sanger, "America Needs a Code for Babies," Article 4, March 27, 1934.

This episode begins to demonstrate from American history in the 1800's that the medical conspiracy that John Irving wants us to believe outlawed abortion was no conspiracy at all. It was simply the reconciliation of science and medicine with law. We look at the influence of Dr. Horatio Storer in shaping the landscape of abortion thought in the the 1850's and 1860's by doing what Mr. Irving seems to avoid: we actually his words instead of assuming a sinister motive.


Sources Cited:

"The Long, Cruel History of the Anti-Abortion Crusade"

"Report on Criminal Abortion"

Why Not? A Book For Every Woman

"Dr. Horatio Storer (1830-1922)"

Silent No More Awareness Campaign

In this episode we continue to respond to John Irving's article from the New York Times that laments the fact that some people believe that babies in the womb should not be killed intentionally. We examine Mr. Irving's strange assessment of abortion law in America in the 1800's. Mr. Irving apparently believes that a bunch of doctors managed to conspire together for the selfish reason of wanting to control women's "reproductive rights." Allegedly getting abortion outlawed was part of their agenda to create a monopoly over health care. Somehow they managed to convince the governments in all states of the United States in a very brief time to grant them the power they desperately wanted.

We use some basic common sense and logic to take apart this strange conspiracy theory.

Sources Cited:

"The Long, Cruel History of the Anti-Abortion Crusade"

"The Quickening: The Momentous Pregnancy Event That Became a Relic"

"Bringing Down the Flowers: The Controversial History of Abortion"

"Abortion Was Illegal In All 13 American Colonies In 1776"

In this episode we continue to respond to John Irving's article from the New York Times that attempts to prove that the pro-life idea that human life from conception deserves not to be killed is a recent innovation in the United States. Irving attempts to argue that early colonial America was friendly to abortion during the time of the Puritans.

We examine this premise by doing what Irving doesn't do in his article--prove his assertion by actually citing sources. We look at three court records from colonial America that prove that abortion before "quickening" was still considered "murder" and a felony. Then, we ask the questions about why abortifacient advertisements seemed to abound in the early 1800's.


Sources Cited:

"The Long, Cruel History of the Anti-Abortion Crusade"

"Did Colonial America have abortions? Yes, but…"

Judicial and Testamentary Business of the Provincial Court, 1637-1683: 1679-1680

"19th-Century Classified Ads for Abortifacients and Contraceptives"

In this episode we continue our response to John Irving's article for the New York Times that attempts to bash pro-life advocates over the head with a history lesson. Irving claims that colonial America was actually friendly to abortion practices.

Before we examine the colonial period we look at Scriptures against abortion. Then, we observe a consensus among Christians of the first five centuries that abortion at any stage of pregnancy is wrong--even if the science of the day could not tell when life begins in the womb!


Articles Cited:

"The Long, Cruel History of the Anti-Abortion Crusade"



Epistle of Barnabas

Letter to Diognetus

Athenagorus of Athens
"The Christians Condemn And Detest All Cruelty" from A Plea for the Christians

"Apology" (chapter 9)
"On the Soul" (chapter 27)
"On the Soul" (chapter 25)

Hippolytus of Rome
Refutation of All Heresies (book 9, chapter 7)

Basil of Caesarea
Letter 188 (chapter 2)

Gregory of Nyssa
"On the Soul and the Resurrection"

John Chrysostom
Homily 24 on Romans

Augustine of Hippo
On Marriage and Concupiscence (book 1, chapter 17)

In this episode we begin to respond to an opinion piece written by John Irving for the New York Times. We put Mr. Irving's reasoning to the test of logic and fact and show how his references to "men in power" and "modern diagnostic ultrasound" contradict the very premises on which he bases his idea that colonial America was more friendly to abortion practices.

We also note that Mr. Irving accuses pro-life advocates of evil intent. Yet, he never addresses the actual position that pro-life advocates claim for themselves. He never even attempts to deal with the real arguments against abortion. This is a huge elephant in the living room for Mr. Irving's article.

Articles Cited:

"The Long, Cruel History of the Anti-Abortion Crusade"

September 16, 2019

Dark Humor in the Bible

Prepare to be simultaneously shocked and entertained as we look at some examples of dark humor in the Bible. How many sermons have we heard tackling these rather unsettling portions of Scripture with a little embarrassment or cringing? Since the Word of God is pure and holy, we have to understand that God has a side to Him that can require some thick skin on our part.

Put on your seat belts and try to be amused with these six stories (with dark humor titles):

  1. Quail Fail (Num 11:10-20)
  2. Left-handed and under-handed (Jud 3:14-25)
  3. What's the point? (Jdg 4:1-24)
  4. The supply and demand of madmen (1Sa 21:10-15)
  5. The false god who needs a potty break (1Ki 18:20-39)
  6. The king is dead, long die the king! (2Ch 21:1-20)
September 9, 2019

Revenge of the Extroverts

To relieve possible tension from you extroverts who may have been ruffled by the previous episode, we allow extroverts to voice their own advantages over introverts. We hope extroverts will appreciate this modest attempt to bow down to some ways in which you are superior to introverts.

Remember: this episode and the last one are for entertainment purposes only!

Five advantages of extroverts include

  1. Extroverts are more likely happier
  2. Extroverts are often more outwardly health conscious
  3. Extroverts create wider social networks in business
  4. Extroverts synergize a lot more
  5. Extroverts statistically earn more money

Articles cited in this episode:

"The Secrets of Happiness"

"Do Extroverts Have an Advantage in Entrepreneurship?"

"The Advantages of Extrovert Employees Over Introvert"

"4 Advantages Extroverts Consistently Have Over Introverts at Work, According to a New Study"

Load more