- The Washington Times - Tuesday, April 10, 2001

Gender feminists may as well go ahead and admit theyre communists. Itll make things so much easier if we understand our terms.
By "gender feminist," I mean those who believe in equality regardless of obvious differences. "They" want equal outcomes, period. The rest of us Normal Feminists and Other Great Americans want fairness but understand that "gender" connotes differences and that equal outcomes arent possible without draconian (read: communistic) government intervention.
In other words, "they" believe in equality even if it isnt fair; "We" dirty rotten capitalists, who sometimes come in female flavors, believe that a free market is fair. The pay-equity jihad is a case in point.
Those of you whove been busy making a living and upgrading your bomb shelters may have missed Equal Pay Day this past Tuesday. I know, you were still nursing hangovers from celebrating Womens History Month and it slipped by. Not to worry; Aprils foolish days are entrenched and destined for sequeldom.
The now-annual Equal Pay Day was sponsored by the National Committee on Pay Equity, which contends, despite contrary research and common sense, that women still earn significantly less than men do. The exact figure seems flexible, but the latest is 28 cents less on the dollar.
Whatever the mythical amount, the wage-gap equation is calculated on spurious assumptions. To support their thesis, the equal-pay number-crunchers use the median wages of all men and all women in the work force, regardless of age, educational level, occupation, experience or working hours.
Golly, you mean bosses earn more than assistants? And coal miners earn more than typists? And Ph.D.s earn more than high-school dropouts?
Well, not in Cuba. And not here, if the NCPE is successful in pressuring Congress to enact corrective legislation. Keep an eye on Hillary "Hey, Love Your Flatware" Rodham Clinton, that champion of open-market principles.
The real deal on the wage gap is that women and men who work comparable jobs generally earn comparable wages, plus or minus a few cents. The actual gap is closer to three cents on the dollar, according to independent and well-respected research.
A 1993 study by economist June ONeill, using data from the Labor Departments huge database (National Longitudinal Survey of Youth) and published in the Journal of Labor Economics, for instance, found childless women age 27-33 earned 98 percent as much as their male counterparts.
This 2 percent difference suggests that motherhood, not gender, is a more likely explanation of wage differences. Yet the NCPE contends that when women earn less, its because theyre women. Ergo, discrimination.
The fact is, women and men of equal qualifications, experience and work hours are usually paid comparably. In instances where women earn less, nondiscrimination explanations often can be found. One that springs to mind: Women get pregnant and have babies, which leads them to make different choices.
As economist Nancy Pfotenhauer, president of the Independent Womens Forum, put it, "Women make decisions all the time based on things other than salary enjoyment of the job and ability to have time with their families."
Meanwhile, women are entering traditionally male-dominated fields at increasing rates and are being paid comparably, according to a new analysis by the Employment Policy Foundation. Whatever gap remains will adjust itself by the laws of supply-and-demand. Unless the NCPE has its way, in which case you can bid incentive and the promise of the American dream a Fidelista farewell.

Kathleen Parker is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2020 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide