Smarter Than Thou!

THE WAR BEWEEN THE GENDERS

“To the Contrary” is a panel discussion show on Public Television. The rotating participants are five women. Most are, of course, raving crazy Liberals. The show usually does have one more or less real Conservative. The concept is that these women have something distinctive to contribute regarding current events and issues. Otherwise why would they be talking about subjects? That is, they have something to contribute as women, as opposed to simply being regular human beings who can already tell good from evil and prudence from rashness. That is, is a particular feminine view different from a masculine value system? After all if women, with respect to men, were not “to the contrary,” then the show could not justify its own existence or title.

One premise, often unspoken but always understood, is that it would benefit the nation if more women were in leadership positions and elected offices.   Usually the remedy to this catastrophe is expressed as follows. It would be fair and better if the proportion of women in office should match the proportion in the general population, that is a little more than one half.

But why would this be beneficial? Let me analyze. Either the women DO see things differently from men, or they see things as men do. That is, rationality is gender neutral, or it is not. IIF it is gender neutral THEN the gender of the office holder is not a factor in his personal worth. Thus to advocate a certain percentage of women office holders is to be prejudicially sexist. This would be prejudiced against more qualified men simply because of their gender. However, IF gender does make a difference THEN the women, if they care about the nation, should advocate that the superior gender dominate, and oppose any men be elected to any office! They should unless they are generally inferior.

In other words, as long as there are different genders, sexism is inevitable.

THE WOMANLY WAGE GAP

THERE is a key article of belief among feminists, and even among some real women, that working women earn less than men. The position is that women earn a specific amount less, usually something like 70 cents to a dollar, when compared with men. And, of course, the implication is that this overpaid hypothetical man, and this underpaid hypothetical woman, are both doing the same job equally well. The unpaid premise is that everyone should be paid the same. Let me try to identify this oppressed group.

The reason why the position is a belief, and not specific, is that the major premise would be impossible to prove. Consider the following categories. Civil Service, other government workers, and the military, are obligated to pay equally for equal levels of employment, regardless of gender. Unions negotiate similar gender indifferent equality agreements with employers. So in these immense segments of the labor force greater male pay for equal work status is literary, impossible. Those who are working for minimum wage, both men and women, are, by definition being paid the same. This eliminates another group that includes millions of workers. Academic employers (such as schools) pay differently for different ranks, and a different male sex does not make a difference in pay. In other words, with regard to immense segments (easily a majority!) of employees, men and women must be---and ARE---paid equally for “equal work.”

Now consider the following. Salesmen, and salesladies, are often paid a small (if any) salary and then a commission. Here pretty much everyone has equal opportunity, because their compensation is determined by their own efforts. This arrangement is agreed to by the employee, so no injustice is done. The self-employed, for obvious reasons, can not be considered unequally paid because of their gender, unless women themselves are behind the conspiracy. Obviously large segments of the labor force can not be considered as deprived.

Does a farmer’s wife (and daughters), who helps her husband, count as being an “equal” worker, except in pay? Is she employed or not? Suppose Mister X and Miss Y both write novels. Suppose that X’s novel earns money, while Y’s novel fails to do so. Is this a case of equal workers being denied equal pay? Or is it a case of one novel being better than another? The same applies to artists. My point here is that many employment categories are “fuzzy” and the terms income or employment are not readily determined. To say that women are unjustly deprived in these areas is nonsense, as there is no way too determine these things.

What about the movies and theater? The producers will pay an amount that will induce the actor or actress to perform. There is no such thing as a movie “equal” to another. So equality in payment for equal movie work here is inconceivable. The bigger stars (those not covered by union wages) are paid what they are worth, regardless of gender. Some are men, and some are women. Again, there is no way to compare roles and work effort. If the males get more it is perhaps because women will willingly work for less. A freely agreed upon monetary agreement is an injustice to no one.   The myth of some societal conspiracy based upon an evil male created injustice is simply a foolish fantasy. It simply allows incompetent women to explain away their personal failures.

Let me add one last comment. Suppose, for a moment, that the inequality does really exist. What does it mean for the nation? It means that a large segment of the productive population is working a significant period of time for no pay. That is, they are, in essence, volunteers. That is, they lower the effective cost of production. Why is this a problem? It is as if China moved to Minnesota and its workers decided to work for free. Only they would all need to be women.      

AMERICA THE HUMOROUS

I believe that I have some sense of what Europeans think of Americans. It is a spectrum, ranging from jealousy to contempt to amusement. I think this is because (most?) Americans believe that idealism can be made into reality. Such efforts, of course, fail, because all such efforts will always fail. Blame this on the result of Adam’s sin. However, Americans continue to pretend that reality can be created, destroyed, re-created, reversed, etc, by decree from some authority, if intentions are noble enough.

I offer, for purpose of mostly amusement, an example. Consider the concept of bail. A person has a right (sort of), when accused of a crime, to be released upon posting bail. The so-called principle is that the defendant will be reluctant to forfeit this money if he does not reappear in court when told to do so. This is logical. Making any action potentially painful should reduce how often this action is committed.

However, consider the following. Officially, that is during most of the judicial procedure, the defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty. So, officially, the defendant is (still) an innocent man. Yet he is being effectively punished by being required to post money, either his own or borrowed at a high rate of interest, or be sent to jail. Supposedly equal before the law, this totally favors the rich over the poor.

An innocent man---and I speak from personal experience---wants an open trail, with truth being exposed, as this will only help him. So he wants to reappear in court and to testify. Yet, even though “innocent,” he most likely will be asked to post bail or go to jail to await the next court appearance.   That is, he can be imprisoned, even though innocent, without a trial, without a case being made against him. This only happens because the reality is that everyone already considers him to be guilty. Most defendants are.

It takes an exceptional nation to sustain such a dishonest system. There is ample reason for the Europeans to be amused.

ANOTHER LOOK AT AN EVIL

One of the more repulsive aspects of the Obama reign was his frequent excuse of “It’s not my fault because I was not the previous president.” After Adam none of us ever have to deal with a world of our making. We always start with a universe created, or highly modified, by the generation before us. Our job is to do the best we can with what we receive. This may mean that, if we are able, we eliminate the bad aspects (e.g. smallpox and polio). But when we can not eliminate (e.g. pollution) we do what we can to make things better, or soften the bad aspects. Elimination may take more than one generation.

In the movie “Anthony Adverse” the main character gets involved in the slave trade. He runs an African station where slaves are bought, to be sold to dealers. Those “candidates” who are not fit enough to be sold were given to a Catholic missionary, who built for them a refugee village in the jungle. Obviously the Arab slave traders, who captured these potential slaves, would abandon them to starve, or kill them. The Arabs were not about to give them an all expenses paid “refund” trip back to their homes. My point is simple. Anthony, by being involved in a horrible business, did good, namely saved lives of poor creatures. Had Anthony not been there the next station chief would let the defective types die. He cooperated to make things better, the cooperation being an essential means to a good end.

A long time ago a (purely by coincidence) slave named Aesop wrote some fables by which he hoped to spread wisdom. One fable involved a bull being bothered by flies. A helpful animal (assume a dog) came by and felt pity. He offered to chase away the flies. He was surprised when the bull declined his offer. The bull explained that these flies had already bitten him and had feasted on his blood. If the dog chased them away then most likely a new swarm would descend upon him and drink the rest. I think that the moral was something like: it is sometimes better to put up with a current difficulty than to replace it with a new one.

I do not hold that American racial slavery was a good system. However, as best I can conclude, it was much better, in general, than it was in the Caribbean and South America. And making something bad into something better is a basis for some degree of defense. America is guilty as a nation of a number of bad actions. I am simply stating that the guilt of slavery needs to be relaxed, a bit.