- Text smaller
- Text bigger
“A dual spigot for an exterior faucet”: We purchased this item at Home Depot, the shop where men roam to feel at home.
The item was without a sticker. A woman clerk was manning the checkout counter. She and her female colleagues congregated to solve the problem. A man at the back was contacted on the intercom system and asked for a price. Alas, and eventually, another man had to save the day. Not one of the ladies was able to coherently describe the 2-outlet faucet adaptor, for the purpose of pricing the item.
A young man who worked the floor staged an “intervention.” He arrived on the scene, held the thing comfortably in his hands, and intuitively blurted out the description above. It was second nature to him. A few minutes later, we were finally on our way.
No doubt, this youngster’s female coworkers on the Home Depot floor would describe the task they just failed to execute as one demanding “equal pay.”
In reality, this anonymous, symbolic guy is worth much more to his employers than the gals. If his bosses did not fear a class-action lawsuit from his always watchful female coworkers, the man would be paid commensurate with his worth to the company; or his productivity.
Yes, that young man is more productive than his female colleagues in delivering the service that is Home Depot’s stock-in-trade. He saves customers time (and time is money). And much more.
Everywhere you go, men are enabling – and compensating for – female incompetence in work to which women are unsuited.
Everywhere, men are doing double duty, sometimes endangering themselves (as in police work), to give girls the delusions of omnipotence they demand. And they do this without question. I guess a guy doing unequal work for equal pay would get fired if he questioned this PC protocol.
The Republican Party’s operatives seldom challenge the pay inequality folderol. The Daily Caller’s take on gender reflects the mindset of your typical Republican toots; it enforces the Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber perspectives we’ve come to expect from the Democrats and the Republicans, respectively.
The correspondent protested Nancy Pelosi’s pay-equity protest, staged in Washington, D.C., the other day.
Inveighing against “income disparity between men and women,” the House minority leader (who should seldom be taken seriously), had said this:
“It’s 2012. It’s 2012, everybody. What is it we’re talking about women getting paid less? Are you going home to your little girls each day and saying: ‘Work hard, study hard, be diligent so that when you grow up you can make less than your brother?’ … There seems to be a decision somewhere in some companies and parts of our economy that that’s an OK thing to do.”
In the typical tit-for-tat, rudderless case the Republicans excel at making, this reporter condemned Pelosi – but not for her bogus theory of pay inequality, but for her hypocrisy. To wit:
“… a report in the Washington Free Beacon … revealed that women working for Senate Democrats in 2011 had an average salary of $60,877, whereas male staffers made about $6,500 more. Pelosi chose not to condemn the Democratic senators,” complained the Daily Caller’s cub (female) reporter.
Implicit in this accusation is that the wage discrepancy reported spoke to the widely accepted conspiracy to suppress women’s wages.
Had this reporter been capable of argument, this is what she’d say: “We commend you, Mrs. Pelosi, for not practicing the nonsense you preach and paying your staffers in accordance with their productivity” (a term you can’t honestly apply to the wealth-consuming government worker, but which we will, for the sake of argument).
Further, “We’re glad that Mrs. Pelosi knows as well as we that the length of time a woman has been in the workforce, her age, experience, education; whether she has put her career on hold to marry and mother – all factor into the wage equation.”
“Good for you, Nancy, for showing in practice that you understand that women are more likely than men to have had an interrupted career trajectory and to opt for part-time and lower-paying professions – education instead of engineering, for example.”
If your average Republican were capable of dispelling distaff America’s claims of disadvantage with economic logic, this is what she’d conclude:
If women with the same skills as men were getting only 78 cents for every dollar a man earns, as Pelosi lamented, men as a group would have long-since priced themselves out of the market. The fact that entrepreneurs don’t ditch men for women suggests that different abilities and experience are at work, rather than a conspiracy to suppress women.