OK, I'll be the a-hole that answers the question.
1) Having women in the workplace introduces a sexual dynamic that is counterproductive to a team dynamic.
2) Employing young women all but guarantees that an employer will have to eat more overhead and lose productivity when it comes time that the woman decides to procreate and uses their Family Medical Leave Act entitlement and take all 12 weeks off.
Flame away.
In a free market there are at least three principles of wage determination at work simultaneously. One is a tendency toward a uniformity of wages for labor of the same degree of ability. A second is a tendency toward unequal wage rates for labor of different degrees of ability-primarily intellectual ability, but also other abilities as well. And a third is a tendency toward the inclusion of discounts and premiums in wage as an offsetting element to the special advantages or disadvantages of the occupations concerned. The combined operation of these three principles helps to explain the full rage of the various wage rates we observe in actual life.These principles serve to keep the various ocupations supplied with labor ih the proper proportions.
Vive la diffe`rence
Either Williams or Sowell posited this long ago.
If minorities and women get paid significantly less for the same quality of work,
where are the companies composed solely of black women employees whipping their competitors because of the huge salary advantage?
This movement started out years ago as “Comparable Worth”, trying to relate the value of jobs traditionally done by women to those done by men. So questions such as: is a secretary performing work of equal skill to an auto assembly line worker? And on and on.
That became so cumbersome and difficult to present in a rational manner, I think the movement morphed into the equal pay for equal work cry we hear today. But there seem to be ample studies to show that pay is generally equal for the same work, it’s just that many women’s career paths are not as unbroken and seniority and experience are not acquired as rapidly as with men.
From personal experience.
My wife, now ex, successfully brought an EEOC claim against her current (at that time) employer.
She charged that she was being paid less commissions for doing the same sales job as her male counterpart. And she was being paid a lower %, even though she was actually selling more than him.
This is where it gets interesting.
She was hired as an office manager, not a salesperson. The salesmen they typically hired had degrees in Optics or Optical engineering, she had no degree. She kinda fell into the roll of a sales rep because she was really good at it. It turns out that the engineers they hired weren’t all that great at sales.
Businesses are dynamic, individuals are dynamic and things change soo often that using static numbers can be very misleading. Please understand, I don’t believe on-balance women are paid less than men, does it happen? sure. Is it some vast conspiracy against women?, not likely.
My wife won her case because their were tons of documents that showed the discrepancies. Discrepancies that went back for years and years. She did attempt to resolve this directly with her boss on a number of occasions but was told that since she didn’t have the Engineering degree, there was nothing that could be done.
Thomas Sowell has made that point many times over the years.
Liberals retort would be :
They put their biases over making $$$
Feminists push the “women make less than men” unacceptable-discrimination model for a very self-serving reason: so that companies will feel the need to OVER-PAY women rather than risk a discrimination lawsuit.