Gender inequality

Over recent years there has been a growing concern about ‘gender inequality’ (see for example the Workplace Gender Equality Agency) with claims that women are systematically paid less than men. Many of these claims are refutable – see for example the writings of Judith Sloan.

But there are other aspects of ‘inequality’ that are not generally raised by the WGEA and activists. That is: men pay more tax and receive less social security. Men live fewer years. And men are more likely to die violently.


Take life expectancy. The most recent life tables show that a new born male can expect to live to 80.4 years, a female to 84.6 years – an additional 4.2 years. And, sadly, undertaking a sex change operation from a man to a woman will not add years to your life.

For those aged 65 (relevant to the discussion on social security below), men can expect to live another 19.6 years and women 22.3 years.


Using ATO data from 2015-16, we can see that there were 4.6 million net taxpayers who were female and 5.5 million net taxpayers who were male. There were 6.5 million females registered as taxpayers and 7 million males registered as taxpayers. (Note: net taxpayer here is a person who has paid more than $1 in tax during the financial year – it is quite different to the concept of a net financial contributor to society where we would have to subtract government payments received from the tax paid).

For the 4.6 million females who were net taxpayers, they paid an average of $13,672 in tax.

For the 5.5 million males who were net taxpayers, they paid an average of $22,281 in tax.

That is, the average male net taxpayer pays 63 per cent more tax than the average female net taxpayer.


In 2017, there were 4.95 million male social security recipients and 6.9 million female social security recipients. In all major classes (according to DSS data), females received on average more than men: FBT, family, age pension, disability and carer.

But let’s just examine the age pension, for which the Baseline Valuation Report (30 June 2015) provides interesting data.

Last year there were 927,849 part rate age pension recipients and 1,538,990 full rate age pension recipients – a total of 2,466,839. Payments to those age 65 and above total $63.265 billion. The Baseline Valuation report estimated that the total future lifetime costs (as at June 2015) of the age pension for all Australians was $507 billion.

For those aged 65 (at June 2015), the average future lifetime costs of the age pension was $290,000. For men it was $240,000 and for women $325,000.

So the average female age pension recipient aged 65 can expect to receive 35 per cent more age pension than the same aged male age pension recipient.


So there you have it. Women pay less tax, receive more social security and live longer. Is this important? Perhaps not, but it is another way to look at gender inequality to show that women are not always worse off than men. After all, how much is a few years of life worth?

I do get tired of the ‘inequality’ debate. After all there are so many ways in which it can be measured and can be more important that the rigid male / female divide.

Some people are more attractive than others, some will live longer, some will die peacefully in their sleep, others will die painfully over many years, some will be disabled, some will be more intelligent, others less intelligent. Some will inherit wealth, others won’t. Some are born in poor countries to poor families; others to rich families in rich countries. Some will enjoy richness and health for many years and then die horribly and painfully. Others will be modest but live satisfying and fulfilling lives.

This obsessive focus on inequality diverts attention from the most important part of society: allowing people to go about their lives, free from interference, free to speak their minds, trade, socialise, live and die.

No state apparatus can address the myriad of factors that drive difference, nor should they attempt the same. To focus on one – gender inequality of income – is to ignore far more pressing and important differences.

All this obsession does is to create neurosis, jealousy and victimhood. For those who by any reasonable measure are more privileged and enjoy higher living standards and longer lives than anyone else in history.

About Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus

I'm a retired general who occasionally gets called back to save the republic before returning to my plough.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Gender inequality

  1. Sydney Boy

    And 92% of workers killed in the workplace are male.

    So men are killed in the workplace at a rate of nearly 12 times as much as females.

  2. Ooh Honey Honey

    Oh why are you playing these stupid games? It’s their game and you’re playing it. Aren’t you a retired general? Then choose your battles!
    Men and women are not just “different” in every respect we know of and most likely in all the others, but more likely necessarily opposed. They are two conflicting, contrasting and complementary halves of a branch of life that developed sex to reproduce. These gimcrack social science indicators deserve nothing but derision, they are a cult’s decor and nothing more.
    Let’s just win the main battle and move the fuck on.

  3. Ooh Honey Honey

    Sorry, on a second reading you aren’t really playing their game. But Steve Martin’s joke in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, getting angry that “Men get more prostate cancer!” actually applies to all of these things.

  4. Tel

    A lot more men are sitting in prison, than there are women.

    Since the “Progressive” calculation for black people in prison gets worked backwards to discover bias in the court system, out of consistency we should be discovering a much larger anti-male bias in the court system… but strangely enough “Progressives” never mention that. You don’t think… they have some agenda or something?

  5. stackja

    Wo men, fe male, gender, inequality? For who?

  6. “Growing concern”, my arse.

    Usual tub thumping by usual activists, media and virtue-signalling CEOs. Not by the voters in general.

    When will Australia learn the lesson of Trump that you don’t have to listen to these people any more?

  7. stackja

    N – Australians in the past ignored silly people.

  8. David Brewer

    Life expectancy, tax payments and welfare cheques are all outcome indicators and therefore unreliable in principle as evidence of discrimination.

    So is the “gender wage gap”, of course. And the fact that men are more often victims (and perpetrators) of violence. All these phenomena can and do have plausible explanations that do not involve discrimination.

    Yet there is discrimination in the workforce, and elsewhere. Most of it is ineradicable – humans discriminate, even dogs discriminate.

    The only real issue for public policy is unjustified discrimination in and by the public sector, including in the disbursement of public funds. Private, voluntary transactions should be left alone.

    And the only real, unjustified discrimination in the public sector is in favour of women and “minorities”. There are scores of examples – dedicated government departments, myriad assistance programmes, preference in employment, bias in divorce cases and other legal matters, and so on. They should all go, in the interests of a fair society.

  9. Pickles

    When you’re a boy the whole wide world is your toilet.

  10. nemkat

    True, but that didn’t work out for the PooJogger.

    Those 92% fatality stats must include car accidents to and from work, otherwise how does a woman get killed at work?
    I’ve never heard of it happening.

  11. BrettW

    When will we get a Govt agency looking into employment discrimination against white males wanting to join the Police, ADF, and other workplaces that used to choose on basis of best person for the job.

    When you look at the WGEA, HRC, Diversity Council, HR depts and who are behind the policies you will find most are staffed by women. The males are afraid to speak out for fear of being accused of being misogynists.

  12. Roger

    A lot more men are sitting in prison, than there are women.

    We clearly need structural reform.

    Two places to start:

    Targets for imprisoning more women.

    Diversionary pathways to keep convicted males out of prison.

    You know it makes sense.

  13. entropy

    Those 92% fatality stats must include car accidents to and from work, otherwise how does a woman get killed at work?
    I’ve never heard of it happening.

    one iced vovo too many.

  14. Norman Church

    Why enter a debate about equality of outcomes anyway? Even this excellent piece by the author implicitly endorses this key destructive Marxist paradigm.

  15. gowest

    You left out CSA payments

  16. Malcolm Thomas

    This post is old news. Warren Farrell set it all out in The Myth Of Male Power a couple of decades ago. Feminists were never able to properly rebutt Farrell and so largely just ignored his inconvenient truths.

  17. All this obsession does is to create neurosis, jealousy and victimhood.

    Yes that is the aim of the turds who peddle this BS. Division and hate is the M.O of the left, they thrive on it and cannot survive without it.
    It’s funny, as the author points out, that you never hear about “equalising” negative outcomes, you never hear for more women to work in sewerage or fishing.
    Women seize on the tortured stats to advance and reward themselves with unearned benefits. It’s how we end up with the likes of Kathy Newman and Emma Alberici, bridges collapsing and a feminazi who wouldn’t know which end of a rifle to pick up being paid 4 million to destroy the SAS.
    In a fair world they’d all be stacking shelves in Woolies.

  18. Tombell

    Homelessness, custody and property arrangements dictated by the Family Court….. The list goes on and on. No talk yet of a Minister for Men’s Affairs?

  19. Splatacrobat

    Diversity & Inclusion officers are the modern-day equivalent of the Political Commissars during WW2 in the USSR. Only this time they are predominately women (who dominate HR positions) and feminists dedicated to helping other women to the detriment of men.

    Five years ago you would be hard pressed to find a D&I officer position on employment and recruitment websites, but nowadays it’s the coolest thing to have for companies who want to flaunt their gender equality credentials.

    They are the union delegates to the feminist movement like the shop steward is to the Socialist movement. Embedded, emboldened, and ideologically driven.

    The worst thing you could do would be to let one of these post modern feminists destroy your company with their Rasputin like advice.

  20. Pete

    Well see one of the Queensland Universities has got on board and is removing any male references such as Workman, Workmanship, of course all this does is harden my resolve against those seeking to undermine our society because of their desire to control the way that one is allowed to think, i.e, along their lines. If you were to ask me, i would say its sickness getting out of control.

  21. Entropy

    There was a David Brin sci fi novel I read years ago. An interesting conceit was looking at humans from an alien’s perspective.
    It was observing the leader, which the alien called a man, but from the shape could tell it was female.
    I think the “men” referred to themselves as Mel, Fem, and leaders as Ser.

  22. struth

    Diversity and inclusion officers are social engineering sexists and racists no different to Hitler in their level of evil insanity and should be called on it.

    Men, you brought this on yourselves.
    We became lazy, and too tolerant of our women.
    They could talk as much shit as they wanted to, and we let them, without calling them out on it.

    This actually scared women, because they immediately felt insecure, like they always do if a man isn’t actually in charge of the situation ( no matter how they complain) and went running to the government for that security.
    They’d rather be in a black sack being arse fucked by a big hairy backed Mussie and feel secure in the fact he will defend them, than to feel as if their men have abandoned them.
    Until it happens.

  23. flyingduk

    But but but…. because…’fairness’ = shutup!

  24. Boris

    Australians in the past ignored silly people.

    But nowadays they have such influence that you ignore them at your own peril. We need to fight them.

  25. Boris

    Why enter a debate about equality of outcomes anyway? Even this excellent piece by the author implicitly endorses this key destructive Marxist paradigm.

    The piece exposes the flaw of the equality of outcomes

  26. Egor

    But, but…Canada has its first female PM. Justin is a girl and is tragically about to be cauterised by Trump as a NAFTA middleman for Chinese steel imports to the US via autos

  27. LBLoveday

    “…net taxpayer here is a person who has paid more than $1 in tax during the financial year”.

    Surely anyone who has spent just $11 in the year on non-tax-exempt goods or services has paid more than $1 in tax.

  28. Lutz

    I thought for some reason it is now called inequity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.