Investor's Business Daily, April 5th, 2007
Gender: The name has been changed, but the purpose is the same. The Equal Rights Amendment is back to correct a perceived injustice that is the consequence of the choices liberals said they wanted women to make.
The ERA, as it was called in the heady days of feminism back in 1972, was championed by supporters as a way to "put women into the Constitution." Women were said to not be full participants in either American democracy or the American economy. Phrases like "gender gap" and "equal pay for equal work" along with the famous "glass ceiling" came into vogue.
Concerns about the unintended consequences of its simplistic language and the power it might grant to litigious liberals caused it to fall short of ratification. For example, could insurance companies charge different rates even if actuaries determined women had different health problems and life expectancies?
With Democrats back in control of Congress, the ERA is back as well, this time under an alias -- the Women's Equality Amendment. It was introduced in the Senate and the House last week. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., chairman of the House judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, says he plans hearings on the revived ERA.
Wage discrimination has long been a hot-button issue for liberals. Sen. Hillary Clinton last month introduced something called the Paycheck Fairness Act, complaining that women continue to make "just 77 cents for every dollar a man makes." She says the bill would give government more power to make "an equal paycheck for equal work" a reality.
The problem with that figure is that it is both right and wrong at the same time. As Carrie Lukas, vice president for policy and economics with the Independent Women's Forum, points out, surveys have long shown that "women tend to place a higher priority on flexibility and personal fulfillment than do men, who focus more on pay." The 77 cents fails to account for differences in experience, seniority, education and hours worked.
Women tend to avoid jobs where travel and relocation are required. Their service is often interrupted, they take more hours off, and they spend less time in the office than men. On average, Lukas reports, women leave the work force for a decade to care for their children.
One study, the National Longitudinal Survey on Youth, tried to account for these differences and, when it focused on childless men and women aged 27 to 33 with similar educational and employment history, found women earned 98 cents to a man's dollar.
In his book "Why Men Earn More," Warren Farrell, a former board member with the National Organization for Women's New York chapter, analyzed 25 decisions people make in choosing a job. On average he found men are more likely than women to make decisions that increase pay.
The least-appealing and most-dangerous jobs are disproportionately filled by men. Some 92% of occupational deaths occur among men, and the reason is not discrimination based on gender. Still, Farrell was able to pinpoint 13ore than three dozen professions in which women out-earn men.
Where genuine discrimination exists, it should be rooted out. But policy decisions should not be made by statistical anomalies resulting from individual choices. Nobody should be discriminated against on the basis of who they are. But in the real world there are differences between us, including the consequences of our free will, differences that cannot be legislated away.
And just why aren't there any female middle linebackers in the NFL anyway?
Copyright 2007 Investor's Business Daily, Inc.
