Argumentative Essay: Equal Pay For Equal Work

Equal pay for equal work is an outdated and reductive artifact of the feminist movement which fails to acknowledge extraordinary workers, take advantage of physiological and socioemotional differences in the sexes, and promotes an enslaving and socialist ideal that values labor over results. We should, therefore, abandon it. Businesses should award salaries based solely on merit without regard to gender or other factors, even if a gender bias should emerge as a result.

Indulge me for a moment. Imagine a dynamic, gender-specific economic system with man-dollars (♂$) and woman-dollars (♀$). Work, pay, and goods are all sexed. There is a fluid and responsive exchange rate that adjusts to conditions of supply and demand. You want to buy a purse, you must spend ♀$; a tie, ♂$. This is an absurd supposition, but that is practically the system that we have created for ourselves. Think about it: Something pink costs more than something blue. Women are paid less than men, and certain jobs are dominated by

one sex or the other. Why?

Well, a lot of it has to do with the idea that we are conflictingly fixated on the concepts of equality and individuality. We desperately want to believe that any two people are equal, in any context, and in spite of any physical, emotional, educational, or environmental differences. Likewise, we also argue that all people should be treated equally, despite any differences in appearance, behavior, intelligence or social class. Our desire to distance ourselves from prejudice has blinded us to inherent and unavoidable biases which comprise and, dare I say, enrich humanity.

In a 2007 US Supreme Court case, Ledbetter v. Goodyear, the suing party demanded compensation to equalize pay discrepancies that were the result of deliberate and intentional discrimination. Due to a statutory limitation, Ledbetter’s claim was denied, but many argued that she may have won the suit, were it not for those impinging limitations. Assuming Goodyear willfully chose to pay Ms. Ledbetter less based on her gender, what could be their motivation? Perhaps it was a simple question of economics.

The science is murky about whether or not an individual’s gender bias is something one can control or dominate, but has been shown to be nearly universally present. That tendency to react differently based on gender or sexuality means that businesses should take a responsible interest in their exploitation and counterbalancing. Was Goodyear simply reacting to the effect of sexual dynamics in the workplace? Perhaps.

The point is that it is not the person, or the task performed, or even the effort with which it is performed that should determine one’s compensation.

It is the effect of those and all other contributing factors on productivity or profits that matters. Some argue against this type of evaluation, saying that judging a person in this way is hard and even subjective because one’s value often is not pegged to the number of widgets they produce or sales they bring in. John F. Kennedy, was no feminist, but let us draw a comparison to man’s sojourn to the moon, about which he said, “We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others,

too.”

Isn’t it about time we let go of the socialist rhetoric of feminism and bigotry and start on a path that launches humanity into a new era of accomplishments? We should acknowledge one another’s limitations, from wherever they may arise, and honor each other’s unique and individual contributions for what they are. To equate them only diminishes their value and perpetually robs us of our identity.