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.