Let's say you are the owner of a Mom and Pop grocery store. You have
two employees, Jane and Mary. Jane works 3 hours a day, while Mary
clocks in 5 hours. Jane comes to you asking to be paid the same amount
as Mary, since her paycheck isn't "equal" to Mary's. How do you respond?
Despite the absurdity of this scenario, this is exactly what is
playing out in the world of professional tennis.
At Wimbledon, men must play up to 5 sets to win, while women only play
3 sets. Obviously, you can show a lot more commercials for Pimm's during
those 2 extra sets of tennis.
But the female tennis players think they are entitled to equal prize
money.
This is how the CEO of the Women's Tennis Association
explains
it: "It's not about the
money, but the women feel very strongly that as a matter of
principle...they deserve equal prize money."
Note the selective application of the word "equal." If the WTA
believes in true equality, then why not pay the runner-up the same as
the first place winner?
And the comely Anna Kournikova garners $7-10 million from product
endorsements, far more than any male tennis players do. Why not allow
the men to benefit "equally" from parading around in their underwear?
But the intellectual dishonesty that underlies the Wimbledon
controversy is a mere skirmish in a much larger war.
Common sense and anthropological research reveal these facts about
women, men, and work:
1. Women are the primary caregivers of infants and young children.
2. In order to support women in their caregiver role, men become the
primary breadwinners.
3. Men predominate in occupations such as mining, construction, fishing,
and lumbering. While these jobs may pay well, they are far more
perilous.
But these biological and social facts are ignored in a recent report
from the International Labor Organization. The
recent ILO document,
"Time
for Equality at Work" makes the case that sex-based wage
discrimination is rampant around the world.
Here's a glimpse into the ILO's logic: "Truck drivers, for instance,
are usually men." This lamentable fact is explained by what the ILO
calls "occupational segregation," which means that women are unwittingly
being shunted into the low-paying jobs. Apparently, the ILO wants
mothers to breastfeed their infants as their 18-wheel rig careens down a
two-lane highway.
The ILO report makes the claim that "Occupational segregation by sex
has been more detrimental to women than to men." If this is true, then
why is it that men are often forced to spend long periods away from home
to support their families? And why are men, not women, the victims in 9
out of 10 occupational deaths?
And if there is any lingering doubt, this statement on page 51 of the
manifesto reveals the true intentions of the ILO: "The growing
prevalence of wage-setting systems based on workers' productivity or
performance instead of on the content of the job raises new challenges
for achieving pay equity."
In other words, the "content" of the job (as determined by some
heavy-handed government agency) should count for more than how much a
worker produces. Clearly, ILO does not understand that delinking salary
from productivity undermines the entire economic engine of society.
If the ILO's insidious theories continue to spread, the Law of Supply
and Demand will become a quaint historical footnote. Instead, my
Comrade, we will be singing the praises of "From each according to his
abilities, to each according to his needs."
