It’s Equal Pay Day, the annual holiday intended to remind everyone of the still very much real wage gap between men and women, so what better day for self-styled Manosphere “economist” Aaron Clarey to declare that the economic worth of women is based almost entirely on their hotness?
Clarey, who is not actually an economist and doesn’t seem to understand many of the basics of economics, points his blog readers to an article highlighting the success of VietJet, a Vietnamese airline famous for its bikini-clad flight attendants.
“[T]here’s a very valuable economic lesson here that all women, but especially western one’s need to learn,” Clary mansplains. “And that is what determines their economic value.”
The answer to that big question? According to Clarey, it’s how smokin’ hot the woman in question is.
“No other commodity in the world is in as high of demand as female youth and beauty,” he asserts.
And the reason why is that half the world’s population (the would be men) demand it. And not only do they demand it, they demand it highly. They demand it so much that they built civilization to
afford itwin it over, so much so to the point we could say nearly all of human civilization and global historical GDP was created to get it.
Well, you could say that, Mr. Clarey, but you’d be wrong. Not that this stops Mr. Clarey from making this dumb assumption the basis for his boldly retrograde economic theory.
As Clarey sees it, women need to stop complaining about being seen as sex objects and embrace the power of their temporarily pretty faces and hot bods. Women, he argues,
need to view this from a purely economic, empirical, and clinical point of view that I’m trying to make, otherwise the vital economic lessons that lay within will be lost on them and it will be their loss. … Half the population (that would be men again) demands and will pay a pretty penny for female youth and beauty.
There’s just one little problem for the little ladies: Looks fade, and since (in Clarey’s estimation) women don’t really have much else going for them, they’re kind of screwed.
“[M]en produce the vast majority of economic production in the world,” Clarey declares, and “whatever other skills, talents, desires, and ambitions a woman has, there just isn’t going to be as much demand for them compared to youth and beauty.”
So what can women do? Emulate Hedy Lamarr, who “was not only a stunner, but also a scientist on the side.”
Clarey assures the little ladies that they don’t have to choose between a modeling or acting career and a STEM degree — apparently the only two options women available for women who want to earn real money. They can do both!
Choosing to major in electrical engineering or going on to become a computer scientist does not mean you must forego modeling, acting, or simply benefiting from female beauty, and vice versa. Being the most demanded commodity in the history of the world is an added bonus and additional choice conferred upon pretty, young women in addition to the same career choices men have.
Trouble is, most women are just too lazy to choose either path, much less both.
Based on declared college majors and a simple walk in the public [sic], the majority of women are neither majoring in STEM nor maintaining their beauty. They are instead opting to major in the liberal arts and eschewing the gym, neither of which are in demand in the real world. And the reason why is very simple. Hitting the gym and studying math is hard.
You know what else is hard, Mr. Clarey? Being an actual professional economist rather than someone who plays one on the internet. Generally speaking, real economists don’t consider “a simple walk in the public” to be a substitute for actual data.
But I digress.
Clarey moves on to provide the ladies with more beauty tips.
To maintain your physical beauty you have to diet, eat right, run, work out and exercise. Additionally for women they must comport themselves accordingly, wear the right fashion, all of which is an effective and taxing part time job.
COMPORT YOURSELVES, LADIES! Your economic success depends on it!
Now, Clarey is well aware that many ladies will find his unsolicited advice patronizing, to say the least. That’s because THEY CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH, if “the truth” is defined as “a bunch of stuff Aaron Clarey pulled out of his ass.”
Clarey goes all tough love:
You may find this insulting, you may find this offensive, but the real world of economics does not care about your feelings or what you’d like.
Suck it up, buttercup!
The real world demands engineers, computer programmers, doctors, accountants, plumbers, and electricians.
Apparently in Clarey’s imaginary world, these are pretty much the only real jobs out there.
If women don’t train for these jobs, or take advantage of their “additional option of translating your youth and beauty into money,” well,
[t]he only other option is what nearly 75% of women choose and that is to pursue fields where they need to beg, plead, and pull teeth to get funding. So whereas Intel will willingly pay a female computer science graduate $80,000 a year for a job in Silicon Valley, or a rich husband will willingly set up a beautiful woman for life, the ugly women’s studies or communications major has to literally go begging to non-profits for charity or lobby the government to force taxpayers to pay for their pointless career that nobody ever demanded and does nothing to benefit the world.
Clarey — who does not himself have a STEM job — demands that women embrace STEM as the only game in town other than marrying a dude with money or simply being pretty for a living.
The reality is that the world demands STEM type majors. Not the touchy feely malarkey that passes for the liberal arts. And if you don’t like that, women (unlike men) have a fortunate alternative option. An enviable “Plan B.” You can use your looks and youth to score a husband, resources, a career, and other financial advantages men simply can’t. Beyond that, there are no other options.
Let’s take a quick look at some economic data on what jobs women in the real world — as opposed to Clarey’s imagination — actually do.
Here’s a chart from the Department of Labor (click on it to see it full size.)
Yeah, teachers and nurses, who needs them? And we might as well fire all the administrative assistants while we’re at it. It’s not like business will grind to a halt without someone doing all the unheralded but vital behind-the-scenes work that keep them functioning, oh wait. A closer look at the data also shows that women make up more than half of all accountants and auditors, so clearly there are more than a few women who know something about math.
Also, I don’t see a listing for “modeling,” so apparently this option for taking advantage of what Clarey thinks is women’s primary economic asset isn’t available to quite so many women as Clarey seems to think.
Women make up nearly half of the work force. You’d think that someone claiming to be an economist — or even someone who just “walk[s] in the public” — would have a slightly better understanding of what women actually do for a living. But that would require looking at data from places other than his posterior.
Clarey also takes aim at those who suggest that maybe men should learn to think of women as more than just sex objects. As Clarey sees it, this is RANK TYRANNY and he won’t stand for it!
No, seriously, he uses the word “tyranny.”
Do not men have the right to like what they like? Are they not allowed to be free to have tastes and preferences?
The problem in thinking there’s something wrong with men for being attracted to female youth and beauty (as they have been since time immemorial) is that it is women forcing their desires on other people. It is telling them, nay, demanding others want what they want them to want. Not what the individual wants. And you can call it whatever euphemistic phrase academia has concocted to make it sound valid, good, and noble, but when you boil it down, it’s nothing more than rank tyranny
Clarey really isn’t very good at this whole economics thing. Or the whole blogging thing. Maybe he needs to take advantage of an entirely different career option.
Take a look at this video below (and yes, I know I posted it yesterday as well). Clarey is the guy wearing the oh-so-styish “I [heart] NY” t-shirt. Watch him walk. Do you think he’s got what it takes to be a runway model?