Fair enough, I agree wholeheartedly.
But the argument actually underlines the fact that although supposedly equal, men and women are different, a fact feminists want us to ignore.
Much has been made of the fact that women earn on average 72 cents for every dollar earned by men, a dubious fact that feminists trot out as proof that women are discriminated against in the work place.
But putting aside the veracity of that fact (which is highly disputed,) the correlation between pay and gender is not ipso facto a result of discrimination.
It is like saying the fact that our prison population is 90% male is proof that our justice system discriminates against men.
Perhaps we can better deduce that men by nature are more likely to break the law than women. Take your pick
Yes, dear feminists, men and women are different, equal but decidedly different. It is when feminists ignore this glaring fact that we get into the absurdities of the gender equality movement.
A great example of this is the controversy launched by tennis star Novak Djokovic who complained that the politically correct trend of offering women equal prize-money in major tournaments like the US Open or Wimbledon is unfair since men are responsible for generating much more revenue.
In a convoluted rebuttal in Money magazine writer Kerry Close's number one argument for equal pay is that;
"Female tennis players work just as hard as men."Really?
According to this train of thought, an artist who works as hard and expends as much effort as Michelangelo should command the same price for the sale of his or her paintings. Hmmm....
She then goes on to say;
"Female tennis players....already realize that both genders should receive equal pay for equal work."The equal pay for equal work is a valid argument when the product of the work is equal, not the case in men's and women's tennis.
Two employees who shuck oysters may work equally long and hard, but if one shucks double the amount of oysters in the same shift as compared to the other, he or she deserves higher pay.
But that isn't even the case in women's versus men's tennis where men spend considerably more hours at work.
At Wimbledon in 2015, Novak Djokovic spent 16 hours on the court to win the championship, while his counterpart on the female side, Serena Williams needed only 10.6 hours to win her championship.
And finally the author makes this argument;
"It's a myth that fans are always more interested in men's tennis."Alas, also not true. The author cleverly alludes to several rare exceptions that essentially prove the rule. Women's tennis generally attracts about half as much fan interest as men's tennis.
At Wimbledon this year, a tournament that offers equal prize money for men and women, viewership for the men's final was 9.2 million, while that for the women was 4.3 million. Link
And so any argument for equal pay for women's tennis players is not based on economics, but rather irrational feminism where reality is always tempered by flights of discrimination.
There are actual domains where women make considerably more than men, the fashion industry a good example where the top male models make a fraction of what top women models make.
Is it discrimination or economics?
And so too is ridiculous the complaint that women pay more for dry cleaning or hair cuts because of discrimination. Unfortunately, few are willing to confront this feminist nonsense.
Women pay more for dry cleaning and haircuts because they want to. They are much more particular about quality than men and thus pay a premium.
If women were as price driven as men, certainly somebody, perhaps a smart woman, would open a dry-cleaning business and charge women the same as men, with the resulting avalanche of business from disgruntled women assuring that the enterprise would become a rousing success, leading other dry cleaners to follow suit or lose customers. How come it isn't so?
If women earn just 72% of what men earn, why wouldn't a smart boss hire only those women and ignore the overpaid men. If the women produce as much as the men, then the company would have an astounding competitive advantage and profits would soar!
As for hair salons, nobody but nobody will disagree that women are generally much more concerned with their hairdo than men and willingly pay more for the right result. Otherwise, low-cost women's hair salons would flourish. Let us remember that most women's salons are owned and operated by women, so any perceived discrimination is self-imposed.
Now there are a few salons across the country that now charge by the length of hair, not by gender, but they are few and far between, making my point that choice isn't always about price, especially among women.
And by the way, should not those long-haired individuals complain about discrimination by virtue of their long hair being charged more?
Isn't it age discrimination when children and seniors pay less at the movies?
What about happy hour where women pay less or night clubs that give out free drinks to women to encourage them to come?
We live in a free enterprise society where businesses can and do easily jump in when opportunity presents. If women are over-charged or underpaid, there are simple market remedies that present. When bars want to increase the number of female patrons, they offer incentives. Theatres understand that kids and seniors have less disposable income and so offer discounts.
Markets generally regulate themselves, unless subject to monopolistic conditions. Barbershop and dry-cleaning prices aren't controlled by an anti-women cabal, they are a result of market forces.
It is too easy to blame perceived inequalities between men and women on discrimination when other factors are really at play.
Now to the idea of gender equality in Parliament, an idea that every feminist holds sacrosanct.
Regardless of what feminists say, political parties are bending over backwards to recruit women and visible minority candidates, even to the point of encouraging and promoting the under-qualified.
One only has to look at Justin Trudeau's gender equal cabinet that has led to the promotion of under-qualified women, two of whom which have flamed out spectacularly with others floundering in inexperience or incompetence.
The Liberals have elected 30% of its sitting members as women, yet offer them 50% of cabinet positions. This is a clear case of discrimination, or as feminists like to put it, affirmative action.
Clearly more competent men were left out to satisfy Trudeau's feminist fantasy where quality takes a back seat to gender politics.
Now let me preface all this with the opinion that women make equal or better politicians than men. If anything they are generally more honest and involved in corruption but a fraction of the time men are.
But there will always be fewer women than men in Parliament unless the numbers are goosed unfairly by idiots like Justin Trudeau who view perception as more important than substance.
There are a variety of reasons that women see being a Parliamentarian as less compatible and desirable than men do.
Parliament means long hours away from family and members cannot take maternity leave in good conscious, leaving constituents without representation. Unlike the office accountant who goes off on maternity leave and is replaced with a temp, women Parliamentarians cannot be replaced temporarily, and so face the difficult decision of having a career or a family.
Generally, women choose work that keeps them close to home and family to a higher degree than men, a fact which is a result of choice.
To blame society for the lack of gender equality in Parliament is to ignore reality, the withering fact is that for some very good reasons, women in a much higher proportion don't see the job as desirable. That is called choice and free will.
We can accept that Parliament will always have a disproportionate amount of men versus women because that is what women want.
Or we can promote from the lower ranks of the unqualified to fill the imaginary gap and suffer the consequences.
Fewer women in Parliament is not discrimination, but more women in Parliament certainly is discrimination.