How many times have you heard, "A woman makes seventy-four cents on a man's dollar?" Some people would like everyone to believe that employers are deliberately paying women less for the same work that a man does. This is simply not true. The statistic is being taken out of context in order to push the feminist cause. Comparing the average male salary with the average female salary without considering context is wrong and misleading in so many ways. If women truly did the same work for less money, all businesses would hire all women employees to cut the extra cost of hiring men. Certain corporations cut costs by hiring undocumented immigrants, or outsource to poorly run, cheaply paid workers overseas. If women did the same amount and quality of work, then these corporations should be hiring more women than men. That has not been the case overall in business, so there must be something wrong with the initial statement that women do the same work for less money.
Upon closer examination, men are more likely to take riskier jobs, jobs during odd hours, and jobs that are further from home for the sake of a higher wage. Women sometimes choose lower paying jobs in order to have more conveniences such as jobs that allow for more time at home, low risk jobs, and jobs that allow for more flexibility. If family and children were taken out of the equation, women can and do in some instances make just as much (if not more) than men . That said, when children are taken out of the equation, are performance quality equal? Not necessarily. In some cases, women without children still take more time off from work than men without children . We can't blame everything on the kids. Sometimes, it's actually about the quality of work.
What do you think about this view: male workers have the rights to earn more money because, when comparing men in general to women in general, men actually do more work? Take professional tennis as an example. The Wimbledon Championships have been traditionally the most prestigious tournament in the game of tennis. In 2007, after women players protested for the right to have equal prize money, Wimbledon conceded in giving both the men and women equal prize money. Although the prize equality would make sense in regular tournaments where both men and women play best two out of three sets to decide a match, but in a grand slam match (and in many regular tournament finals) men have to play best three out of five sets while women still play only two out of three. Men matches also account for more fan attendance which means more money for the tournament. Many women players celebrated this new equality and said it was a great movement that would help set the stage for more equality for women everywhere. However, is it fair to offer the same prize for a lesser athletic performance? Now, athletics should not be held to the same scrutiny as the professional sphere, simply because athletics depends on body strength, and males and females are biologically built differently. However, the inequalities in athletics could be used as comparisons to life in the professional sphere.