“When women gained their equality, they lost their superiority.” ~ Unknown
It’s nobody else’s danged business what an employer pays any employee, provided both parties have freely entered into the arrangement without force or fraud. Despite the unfortunately already existing abundance of passed legislation in this area, and especially despite much more actual and urgent problems facing our country, it’s really none of the government’s damned business at all–but of course the cultural Marxists in the Obama administration and the Democrat party are at it, full-force, again.
Out comes the stale, overused Democrat media script bemoaning Republicans’ broad (pun intended) alleged “War on Women.” In this phase, it’s over some members of the GOP balking at attempts, by Democrats, of more politically-motivated, legislative micro-management of private enterprise in regard to “pay equity,” or “equal pay for equal work.”
I’m not even going to go into the Obama White House’s absurd hypocrisy on the issue. I’ll just address the core argument instead.
Yes, we all know, women generally lag behind men in comparative job compensation. The key word is generally. There are also plenty of statistics showing that college-educated single females without children do much better than their male counterparts in overall salary figures. We can quibble all day long over research studies and comparative demographic rates, but why? I already told you, it’s none of anyone’s damned business. It should be strictly between the wage payer and the wage earner. Beyond that, it becomes a very unnatural exercise in more of the same old political, scorched-earth obliteration of biologically-ordained gender roles, and Marxist annihilation of the nuclear family as the crucial social unit, the basic foundation holding healthy societies together over the millennia.
So women tend to make less than men? Good! As a general rule, they should. Not that it’s really any of my business either, but as an unabashed steward in good standing of the He-Man Womyn-Haters’ Club, and as an alert observer and respectful lover of Mother Nature, I have to point out that biology trumps politics in this area.
Women are different than men. They have, to use the language of business and the workplace, distinct core competencies and comparative advantages in roles and activities which are generally more suited to them than to men. No Republican anywhere, ever, decided things should be that way, unless one were to purport that God and Nature are Republicans.
Sure, many women, for whatever reasons (chiefly their particular individual natures and aptitudes) can actually be better than most men as cops or firefighters or engineers, soldiers or states-women, pilots or plumbers, construction workers or athletes or what have you. But that doesn’t mean we should just ignore the overall reality of natural gender differences in the aggregate, and artificially force a fake uniformity of value across all arenas for the sake of delusional and dystopian egalitarianism.
So, seeing as traditional and prevailing natural gender roles cast women not as usually the primary breadwinners of the typical household, it’s for good reason that employers weigh the facts of reality when making employment decisions, and society overall should support the traditional paradigm. Sue me for saying so. I’ll lecture anyone who wants to hear it about why discrimination is the most moral thing a person can do.
An employer considering two applicants for the same job, one male and one female, is confronted by economic reality. All else being equal–and with a limited amount of information about the candidates–for all the employer knows, the probability that the female will take excessive time off, or simply abandon ship entirely, in order to attend to female issues or child-rearing. In the ongoing processes and problems of production, competition, and market vicissitudes, this means that at face value, the female is of less value to the employer due to that increased probability, however latent, and the inherent, hidden liability and potential costs it brings. When making business and any other kind of survival decisions, with incomplete information, prejudice is often the wisest, most prudent course. In the rigors of the marketplace, the streets, and the jungles, Nature brooks folly for only so long before dead reckoning; the laws of probability and of actuarial tables are eventually brought to bear.
The argument for Mother Nature’s way goes on ad infinitum, but suffice it to say here that while of course there are plenty of exceptions, we should not pretend that men and women are in all cases identically suited or valuable in equal roles and jobs.
Furthermore, we must restore the discretionary prerogatives of the free market to the voluntary arrangements and agreements between employees and employers. In other words, leftists need to stop interfering, and forcing their twisted agenda, where they really have no legitimate business.
Perhaps more importantly, we must not scuttle the overall sheer superiority of women as nourishers and nurturers, as keepers of the hearth and home fires, and as having a worth beyond crass price–that is, priceless–in this respect.