International Women’s Day
Interesting article in the Daily Telegraph today:
‘Australian women in full-time jobs earn $100 a week less than men, a union analysis of recent figures reveals. The Australian Council of Trade Unions analysis, based on recent Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, shows full-time female workers earn on average 10 per cent less than men. Released ahead of International Women’s Day today, the figures also show real wages of female workers have fallen 2 percent in the past year. ACTU president Sharan Burrow said the research showed women in the workforce suffered the same gender pay gap they did in 1978.’
It is interesting how the gap between men’s and women’s average earnings has persisted, despite the fact that employment discrimination on the ground of sex has been illegal in Australia since the 1970s. What’s going on?
(It would be appropriate at this stage for all the government agencies devoted to achieving parity of earnings between men and women to admit that they and all their laws and coercion have been a failure, that they are not equal to the task, and that they should therefore be abolished. But don’t hold your breath waiting for such honesty. The usual response of such vested interests is to cry for more government powers, personnel and taxes.)
There are two possible reasons for the persistence of this difference. One is that men and women are not equal in the value or liability they represent to the employer. The other is irrational prejudice against women, that is, a value against women not based on their economic worth.
Feminism is defined as belief in the economic, social and political equality of the sexes. Yet if one sex has babies, and the other one doesn’t, how can one meaningfully say they are equal? If there are two classes of human being, and one typically spends 40 years in the workforce, and the other typically takes off 6 to 15 years to look after children, how can we say they are equal? If women have to have a raft of unequal rights, such as maternity leave, to try to put them on the same footing they would have been on if they weren’t women, then how can we say the sexes are equal? What is it supposed to mean?
(To call it a gender gap is of course to assume that the matter is gender, rather than sex. But women have babies as a matter of sex, not of gender, so it’s probably more accurate to call it sexual discrimination.)
If we assume that women workers have the same economic worth to employers as men, that leaves irrational prejudice as an explanation. Maybe men and women are equal, it’s just that employers’ irrational prejudice prefers men for no good reason.
But of course if that were the case, then the employer who discriminated against women would be imposing a competitive disadvantage on his own business. Other things being equal, he would lose money. The way would be clear for other businesses to out-compete such businesses by employing women on equal terms with men. The result would be that – by a selection process deriving from consumer sovereignty – the more successful egalitarian businesses would tend to supplant the sexist ones.
That is why I suspect that the nostrum of the equality of the sexes is, in fact, false, for obvious reasons. Most women have children. Children cost money and time. Women typically try to get other people, especially men, to pay money or value to them to help raise their children. They will try to do it by consent, and they are not above trying to do it by coercion. That’s exactly what the women’s movement tried to do to employers. But employers aren’t stupid. They don’t just sit there waiting to be exploited. They react.
And when you think about it, there is no reason why women should be able to use coercion to force other people to submit to being exploited as money objects so women can use them to get satisfaction of the values that women may think are important, any more than there is for men to be able to use coercion to force women to submit to being exploited as sex objects, so men can use them to get satisfaction of the values that men may think are important.
Since all governmental schemes to get rid of sexual discrimination in employment have failed, we are left with the principled option, but feminists of both sexes should never despair. After all, there is no need for coercive measures, because the sexes are equal, right? So the feminists have a perfect opportunity to prove that they are right by voluntarily raising the necessary capital, voluntarily starting up and running viable businesses in the open market, and voluntarily employing the sexes on equal terms in those businesses. Hooray for liberty and equality!
In the meantime I am determined to campaign for government to illegalise the sexual discrimination historically suffered by poor, ugly, old and dull men when beautiful women refuse their offers to have sex, based on nothing but irrational prejudice. Here the situation is exactly parallel to that of employment. The distribution of the socially constructed benefits of gender has not been equal, and this inequality offends notions of social justice. Just as the capitalist, when it comes to workplace relations, is unfairly advantaged vis-à-vis the worker, by virtue of his larger capital, so the beautiful woman, when it comes to sexual relations, has an unfair advantage over the ugly, poor, old or dull man, by virtue of her greatly unequal sexual desirability. (Any given man wants to have sex with her more than she wants to have sex with him – the exact parallel with the employer who chooses from a pool of rivals.) Her refusal to have sex with him is an act of discrimination which, as it is unfair, should be illegal. By discriminating against him, she victimises him, and if there’s one thing we equalitarians don’t like, it’s victimisation. Or she may agree to have sex with him, but only if he does something he does not want to do, like shout her out to dinner and a show – but which he only does for fear of her ‘reprisal’, her refusal. Therefore she forces him to act against his will, and is a perpetrator of coercion. He has become the victim of an assault, a violation, an attack, an abuse – ‘material sexual violence’.
It is no objection to a law against employment discrimination that the businessman may be compelled thereby to give to someone he doesn’t want to favour, the benefits of his personal services. We need to value inclusiveness, not discriminate against the disadvantaged! And what could be more inclusive than sexual intercourse? The fact that the employer may not consent, or that he is being subject to coercion, or that the law may require his personal service, is irrelevant! The high value of equality overrides lesser values like mere human freedom. And who could be more disadvantaged in seeking sex with beautiful women, then poor, ugly, or old men? Hooray for sexual justice! Down with irrational discrimination and unfair prejudice! Hooray for government departments enforcing the political value of equality to redress the historical disadvantages suffered by sexually undesirable men; to take their side, to tax, and harry, and hound, and vilify, to ‘name and shame’ the wrongdoers, and to educate the community. Hooray for equality and social justice!
Amazing something so daft and morally bankrupt could ever have commanded public acceptance, but that’s how it is with the socialist idea of the ownership of other people on the road to a perfect society.
Let’s be clear: sexual equality that is inconsistent with the principle of self-ownership and human freedom is bad in morality and bad in practice.
The women’s portfolios of government should be abolished.
34 Comments »
Leave a comment
-
Recent Comments
Yobbo on Confessions Of A Bleeding-Hear… 
John H on Confessions Of A Bleeding-Hear… 
Damian on Confessions Of A Bleeding-Hear… 
John Humphreys on Confessions Of A Bleeding-Hear… John H on Confessions Of A Bleeding-Hear… 
jc on Confessions Of A Bleeding-Hear… John H on Confessions Of A Bleeding-Hear… 
Chris on Confessions Of A Bleeding-Hear… 
Kevin S on The Great Depression – a… Damian on Confessions Of A Bleeding-Hear… 
michael on Confessions Of A Bleeding-Hear… 
Tim Andrews on Confessions Of A Bleeding-Hear… 
TerjeP (say tay-a) on Confessions Of A Bleeding-Hear… 
Borris on Confessions Of A Bleeding-Hear… 
Amy on Confessions Of A Bleeding-Hear…
LINKS
Featured Book
Stats
ALS elsewhere
Such ideas will always infect the political body until we create a constitution that keeps the public sphere separate from the private sphere. To take your example even further- good looks should be communalised. Every year, at their eighteenth birthdays, people should have plastic surgery done to resemble whoever was most beautiful in that year! Then they can go looking for work without being discriminated against! To ensure variety, only under-18 people can be voted for. Then, with everyone equally beautiful. we’d end discrimination! And you could tell how old someone was by who they’d been modelled on (“The ‘Dakota’ look proves you’re at least 40, you liar!”)
Mandatory Equality for all!!!
I have seen it claimed that when wage data is normalised to take account of qualification and years of on the job experience women are actually paid slightly more than men.
It should also be noted that men on average have more dangereous jobs (as reflected in data on rates of workplace death and injury). It seems reasonable that people who do more dangereous jobs would quite reasonably tend to get paid more.
If the wage disparity is due to real differences of worth (due to experience, ability, risk aversion or flexibility) then any attempt at normalising womens wages upward through regulation would tend to cause an increased level of unemployment for women.
Presumably not all feminists are socialists. Although most that aren’t probably use some label other than “feminist” these days as the word has lost some of it’s status amoungst women in recent decades.
When is international libertarian day?
Good points. Any ideas on how to create a constitution that keeps the public and private spheres separate? There was an article at mises.org recently that talked about government based on contract (real contract that is, not ’social’ (non-existent) contract).
Funnily enough, feminism of course used to be called women’s liberation back in the bra-burning days. That was a more individual-freedom from socials mores thing. It seems to have taken on the name feminism about the same time that it became more of a ‘force people into complying’ thing.
An international liberty day is a great idea. It would serve to set forth the basic idea: freedom to do what you want, so long as you are not hurting others. It is very exciting to see how the world is becoming one through the wonders of digital communications: bit thanks to capitalism. All these different cultures, the Masai, the Tajiks, the Chinese, looking out to each other after millennia of tradition. Although they may realise it more than we in the west do, liberty is the idea for our times.
Channel 7 had “I, Robot” on this evening. I’ve seen it before and in high school I read the book that it takes it’s name from. But it was great to watch it again. It is a classic freedom versus safety story. It plays beautifully with the idea of where a set of logical rules can lead you and your society. If you have not seen it then it’s well worth watching. And the special effects and action are good also.
Yin and Yang. Neither can free itself from the other. They can never be entirely separate. Purity is an ideal. It is an asymptote that you can pursue but never truely arrive at. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. There are no silver bullets, only levers that might make the task easier.
If taxation was unconstitutional then who would have an interest in preserving such a constitution and the government that was built on it? Many people I imagine. Would it work? Would it server the purposes of liberty? Would it be sustainable?
Justin,
This is the typical type of nonsense sense I expect to hear from the fallocentric maleocracy!
Serio tho: It’s funny because I was thinking the same thing today but regarding racial equality laws in the US. If johnny racist hires John Smith despite the fact that he’s not as competent as Juan Sanchez then it’s his fault and his business will suffer because of it.
Being able to work and have a baby is not only fallacy but it’s harmful to the kids. I love this excerpt from Vice: After college, girls have to decide if they want babies or a career. If you think you’re going to be a graphic designer and then stop everything at 36, find the right guy, have the baby, and then go back to your career when the kid starts pre-school, you are sadly mistaken. Your eggs are shit at 36. Don’t get mad at us, it’s God’s fault. So if you don’t want to be a lonely spinster who watches Sex and the City like it’s on fire, get over careers and find a reliable man.
P.S. Careers aren’t that great anyways; it’s not all golf and strip clubs, it’s mostly putting out fires and worrying about lawyers.
[...] Jefferson blogs on gender pay differentials concluding that “The women’s portfolios of government should be [...]
Pingback by Club Troppo » Missing Link | March 10, 2007
Terje says: “I have seen it claimed that when wage data is normalised to take account of qualification and years of on the job experience women are actually paid slightly more than men. ”
Well I’ve never seen that – care to cite some supporting evidence?
When is international libertarian day? – I think this is when libertarians become a significant proportion of the population, or are widely credited as achieving something of lasting social value.
DisOb, a recent study conducted by the British government’s Women and Equality Unit lists key factors that contribute to the average pay differences between sexes. This study was discussed in the March issue of The Economist, last year. The key factors listed in the study are reproduced in summary here:
*Human capital differences
*Part-time working
*Travel patterns
*Occupational segregation
*Workplace segregation
Further details of this study can be located at this address:
http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/
The British government’s Women and Equality Unit and the Australian Libertarian Society find common ground(!)
I’ve seen the same data as Terje, and I seem to remember much the same finding — that the discrepancies were largely coming from differences in job categories (I will try and find the link). I actually think people don’t complain about this difference much in places like Australia anymore, so to some extent the example is a strawman (strawwoman ?
If you have a more international perspective though (hence _international_ woman’s day), then it is pretty clear that there is discrimination based on no other grounds apart from sexual identity, and that includes rich democracies — if I remember correctly, places like Japan and Korea have hugely differering salaries. Its worth considering what the implications of this are. Probably more importantly, you might also like to consider poor countries where women basically have no rights (including the right to work), and what the best methods are for changing this situation.
Actually,
now I think about it, a potential reason for the change in the percentage wage difference in Australia that has nothing to do at all with IR laws is that birth rates have gone up (both in an age and in number). Presumably this is taking mid-30s/early 40s women out of the workforce. If women in this age group are earning more on average, then that would take the average down.
It should be strawperson, conrad
Anti-sexual discriminiation against ugly people is an amusing concept – and shows the absurdity of socialist principles in other areas… or so I thought.
After the “mexican thread” a few days back (where men could be charged for not having sex with their wife), and we went down a similar discussion path, I mailed that story around the office – with my own comments. Our office has a lot of young lefties, and so I thought it would stir the pot a little and get them thinking about things from a diferent perspective.
Though they could see the absurdity in the mexican laws, and seemed to find amusement in my suggestion of “pooling sexual resources”, they failed to make the connection I’d hoped. In fact, most of their reponses seemed to be, “This mexican law is silly, but… [insert bullshit here]“. It’s an uphill battle
Women’s portfolios, minority portfolios, affirmitave action – they should all get the chop.
Disinterested Observer.
Thanks for your question. I located the source in this book:-
TITLE: “Basic Economics – A Citizens Guide to the Economy”
AUTHOR: Thomas Sowell
EDITION: 2004
CHAPTER 9 – Productivity and Pay.
p152.
In turn Thomas Sowell cites this as his source:-
The Economic Report of the President 1973 – “The Economic Role of Women”. Published by the US Government Printing Office.
Hey, thanks for cross-posting this post to another website, whoever did it. I appreciate it and am very disadvantaged when it comes to that sort of thing.
Why don’t we reclaim April Fool’s Day as a Libertarian celebration- celebrating the right to be different, to make a fool of yourself, if you so choose? Originally, AFD was the start of the new year, but when the calendar was changed centuries ago, some die-hards were called fools for hanging on to the old day. They made themselves fools over April, as it were.
Let’s transform this day of difference into a day for eccentrics of all types! There’s the natural day for us!
Not quite what I had in mind.
If you have a more international perspective … places like Japan and Korea have hugely differering salaries. … you might also like to consider poor countries where women basically have no rights (including the right to work), and what the best methods are for changing this situation.
A very valid point. While it’s pretty obvious that statistics merely fail to reflect real life in Australia, in many places real life for women is quite grim.
In Afghanistan, for example, it’s not enough to wear the full burqua with eye slits. Unaccompanied women are in grave danger anyway. If the Taliban are not defeated, women will again be refused education and returned to a life of complete dependency. Yet numerous European countries led by left-wing governments have refused to send troops.
Throughout much of the Islamic world, women suffer severe disadvantage. In Pakistan, for example, a woman who is raped is likely to be punished while the rapist is not.
In parts of Africa, female genital mutilation is widely practised.
And there’s places like Korea and Japan where discrimination is culturally entrenched in the job market.
Janet Albrechtsen recently commented in The Australian how strange it was that Australian women (along with their US and British colleagues) remained silent about these genuine cases of discrimination while endlessly railing against a non-existent problem at home.
Most women in the world would infinitely prefer to suffer a loss of career opportunities due to children to their current situation.
Actually, I don’t even think its really a woman’s problem at all in many places — its an everybodies problem — so Janet Albrechtson shouldn’t think it is strange about Australian women not commenting, she should think its strange about Australians not commenting.
I can’t see how places like Korea wouldn’t be better off if they had higher rates of female participation in the work force, and I can’t see how places like Japan and Korea wouldn’t be better off if the women who were more capable than the men in the senior positions were in those positions instead. It seems to me that places afflicted by strong cultural biases against females working are wasting a great amount of human resources.
[...] I’m still a feminist but no longer a libertarian. In part, here’s why: Feminism is defined as belief in the economic, social and political equality of the sexes. Yet if [...]
Pingback by international women’s day « Trinifar | March 11, 2007
Your message got mangled, Trin. Please tell us why you are not a libertarian, so we can tear your argument to pieces. I would have thought that libertarians were true equalitists, since we try to treat each person equally, and try to not think in stereotypes.
AND when are we going to have an International Bloke’s Day? Men also contribute to ’society’, I’ll have you know.
Just a small detail Trinifar – Justin is a bloke. Does that change your argument, or would that be sexist?
I don’t think that it is the role of European governments to libertate women in Afghanistan. Not that any notion of the proper role of government usually slows them down any.
Yes, Trin, I’m a bloke. I forget why I clicked the female gender box. Oh that’s right. It’s because I’m only a male as to biological *sex*. As to social *gender* , I’m female. That’s why they put ‘gender’ there instead of ’sex’, right – to allow for inclusion of expressions of gender identity like mine? Didn’t confuse you with bullshit did it? Good.
Trin, you need to decide whether you think women and men are equal in worth. If they are, there is no reason why anyone should be compelled to pay extra to women to fund their differences, since they are of equal worth.
You also need to decide whether or not you think violence or the threat of violence to make use of someone’s personal services against their will.
Mere personal argument is irrelevant, off-topic, and tends to confirm the suspicion you don’t have any answer to the substantive issues.
nicholas gray: Your message got mangled, Trin.
Nicholas, it didn’t. That’s how wordpress.com blogs show that another blog post references this one. If you click the blue “international women’s day « Trinifar” link you’ll see the post on my blog.
Please tell us why you are not a libertarian, so we can tear your argument to pieces.
Thanks for that very pleasant invitation. If you are actually interested, I’ve written two posts on my blog that discuss libertarianism and shed some light on my personal views.
AND when are we going to have an International Bloke’s Day? Men also contribute to ’society’, I’ll have you know.
Just like your mother may have told you if you asked when there would be a children’s day, every day is bloke’s day.
Justin, I updated my post to reflect the new (and startling) information.
Actually Trinifar, the idea that only women have problems and that every day is blokes day is a basically false cultural stereotype in countries like Australia — there are innumerate problems that are more strongly associated with men than women, with men far over-represented at the bottom of the social ladder. Try looking up the statistics for mental health, criminal activity, substance abuse, homelessness, average age of death etc. Not that I care much for either, but a men’s day focusing on some of these under the carpet issues seems equally as valid as a women’s day.
Conrad,
You missed workplace death and injury. Child custody. Suicide.
Regards,
Terje.
[...] at ALS blog, Justin Jefferson has this post on International Women’s Day (IWD), which also retouches on the concept of “sexual [...]
Pingback by Political roundup « The Blog of Fleeced | March 12, 2007
Conrad and Terje, you are saying there is good cause for employers to pay men less.
Personal problems of individuals are a reason to pay a group they belong to more or less, mandated by law?
Why and how does this work?
Has wage equality policy worked?
Will it ever work?
At what cost to meritocracy and general welfare?
People get paid, as do all other resources, according to their marginal productivity. Set the wage above this or make non wage costs too high and they are unemployed. Wage equality and EEO makes employing more men too costly and it is an implicit subidy to women.
Women will get paid less as long as they have children and the demographics are that senior managment are predominantly male. Wait two generations and the only difference will be from child bearing. Wages are not telling the whole story though: individuals act as households with respect to disposable income. Men who are partnered or married fathers tend to compensate as women stay at home more to make up for forgone income.
Wage equality is really bad policy made upon poorly read data.
“Australian women in full-time jobs earn $100 a week less than men, a union analysis of recent figures reveals. The Australian Council of Trade Unions analysis, based on recent Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, shows full-time female workers earn on average 10 per cent less than men. Released ahead of International Women’s Day today, the figures also show real wages of female workers have fallen 2 percent in the past year.”
This requires fuerther ripping:
More prostitutes are female, and have a high incentive to and easy course of action to under-report actual income.
Despite the discrimination from the ADF, women simply don’t choose to do the same work as men – e.g the mining sector. Women are not less valuable than men, but the labour that men speicalise in right now is more beneficial per worker to society right now.
Never forget this is full time work only. Most middle aged men are full time employed and fewer women are. This is the bulge in the demographic, and also these men have seniority and more qualifications than younger men and women.
There are two possible reasons for the persistence of this difference. One is that men and women are not equal in the value or liability they represent to the employer. The other is irrational prejudice against women, that is, a value against women not based on their economic worth.
Actually this leaves out the most obvious reason: Men and women generally are attracted to different types of work, and the types of work that men are attracted to are generally better paid.
Especially at the moment, the best paid jobs are in mining in construction, along with the historically well-paid careers in business.
Plenty more women are becoming doctors and lawyers nowadays, but still very few are becoming corporate vice presidents, investment bankers and CEOs.
And women are overrepresented in low paying professions like teaching and nursing.
Men and women generally are attracted to different types of work, and the types of work that men are attracted to are generally better paid.
And women are overrepresented in low paying professions like teaching and nursing.
Women follow their hearts, whereas men sell out for the cash. Probably with good intentions like being able to maintain a family or children.
I would of liked to have been a mathematician. But I realised that this doesn’t pay and it’s hard to get work so I became an engineer, which was the next best thing for the technically minded. As my needs grew I could see being a technical engineer being a limiting factor, so I began to concentrate on the contractual side. Now I’m even looking at selling right out and moving into the business and legal side. Yet I still hold a great affection for being a mathematician but I’ll never do it as I’ve got a family to support and I’ve developed expensive tastes!
A woman is much more likely to enjoy working in the arts, or with children or whatever, which doesn’t pay like being a corporate lawyer. Then when faced with this she is less likely to be willing to sell out and start suing people for all they’re worth as she’d still rather work in her area of interest and passion, even though the money is lower. Of course some women do become corporate lawyers and earn the big bucks, but I think it’s a fair generalisation or the lefties wouldn’t be whinging so loud.
Different lifestyle choices for different people.