by Zach Bigalke

Created on: July 24, 2007

The greatest hindrance to equal compensation of the sexes for equivalent work is the ongoing argument that we should all be treated equally, despite gender or race or creed or any other unique characteristic. As the top-ranked writers on the negative side of this debate purport, their argument is similar to those which would oppose hate-crimes legislation - namely, that every crime is a terrible tragedy and that some should not receive preferential treatment in redressing their grievances. The flaw in this argument is that not all actions are done with the same intent.

Take for instance the case of Lilly Ledbetter. Going to work for Goodyear, Ledbetter worked for years in a management role alongside men. She performed the same tasks as her male counterparts and with the same level of positive results and competency. Yet she discovered - alas, too late - that she was receiving grossly less compensation for her work. What was the underlying reason to pay this woman less than the men performing the same job description? As her work record indicates, she was an exemplary employee who performed to the same standard required of the Y-chromosomers in the office. The only justification, then, was that she was paid less merely because she had two X chromosomes.

There are many grey areas in this issue. For instance, if a male and a female applicant apply for the same job, but one cannot perform all the tasks (for instance, the requirement that one be able to lift fifty pounds at a time repeatedly without injurious effect), then it is justifiable to hire the person capable of performing all the tasks required. Regardless of the applicant's gender - I have met plenty of women who can perform greater physical feats than myself - the job description and pay rate should be determined well in advance of the interview process. Adjusting this rate based on gender is discriminatory and wrong.

I will finish this with one caveat. To those who would compare the injustices of inequality of pay and hate crimes, realize that both are done with the intent of provocation and intimidation. Women have been paid historically lower rates than men in an effort to scare them away from higher-paying positions; hate crimes are committed in order to "send a message" to others of the same race or religion or sexual orientation of the victim. Both are indeed crimes, certainly, but the underlying intent of the action supercedes the action itself. Just as it was beyond mere murder when Matthew Shepard was pistol-whipped outside Laramie or James Byrd, Jr. was dragged behind a pickup truck in Jasper, Texas, so is it beyond mere pay inequality when women are subordinated through the payroll system. Both are attacks against a large class of society, and both are more immoral than the robber who busts indiscriminately through windows...

Learn more about this author, Zach Bigalke.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.