Recently by Don Cooper: Dolts and Idiots
Recently on ABCNews.com there was an article entitled: Women vs. Wal-Mart. It was an article regarding the misogynistic tactics used by Wal-Mart in a systematic attempt to oppress women in the workplace. Or in their words: "women were uniformly disadvantaged." That is to say, women were victims again.
The article goes on to point out that "Christine Kwapnoski of Concord, CA. told her boss at a division of Wal-Mart that she wanted a job promotion," but she didn't get it and didn't like her boss's response, so she decided to sue.
Really? SHE told her BOSS that SHE wanted a job promotion? Wow, is that how it works? I had no idea. Let me go upstairs right now and tell my boss I want a promotion and see how that works out for me. And if he refuses or gives me some smartass remark, then I'll sue him for discrimination against unprofessional, irresponsible, rude, and arrogant employees. We are certainly a minority and need protection by the federal government, otherwise how will we ever get, keep, and be promoted within a job? In fact, as an employee I want to be able to do whatever I want, whenever I want, and not even have to work if I don't want to but still get paid. I want to be able to decide my own work schedule. Can the government make that happen for me?
She’s lucky she wasn't fired for insubordination. Her rights to work were not violated and she has no right to be promoted, but now Wal-Mart’s rights are going to be violated by being forced to hire and promote women just because they’re women — not because they’re the right people for the job.
You see, Christine is a victim — just like the blind guy hired by UPS I met the other day at a trade show. He and his UPS manager were looking for special software with the ability to read text and convert it into audio. UPS hired a blind guy for a job that requires the ability to read!
(It's happy-hour somewhere in the world, right?)
The article goes on to correctly point out that: "[this case] will likely encourage an avalanche of new class-action litigation on a broad array of subject matters, beyond employment issues." Of course it will. America is a litigation nation. Any group of people, and I mean ANY, who can organize and raise enough financial capital can then — thanks to the government's legalized bribery, I mean lobbying — influence the government to pass legislation that violates our rights, imposes harmful economic constraints, and does nothing more than transfer wealth from those willing to earn it to those who aren't.
That's how Title VII, the federal law that prohibits sexual discrimination, came about. But of course Title VII isn't really about sexual discrimination, as Walter Block has pointed out many times. If it were really about sexual discrimination in society, then all heterosexuals would be guilty by discriminating against members of the same sex in their personal relationships as would homosexuals be guilty of discrimination against members of the opposite sex.
Hooters too would be guilty of sexual discrimination by not hiring men to wait tables; Victoria's Secret has no male sales associates; strip clubs have only female dancers; the LPGA only allows female golfers; NOW, the National Organization for Women, doesn't represent men at all; and the list goes on.
The differences between men and women are all around us and it would be economic suicide for any business to ignore them. That's why restaurants have a men's room and a lady's room, why Nike has a men's division and a women's division, Schwinn makes men's bikes and women's bikes, JC Penney has a men's department and a women's department, there is Playboy and Playgirl, gynecologists and…well, you get the point.
Discrimination between men and women is a part of life. Hell, even our own language makes the discrimination. That's why we have words like man/woman, mom/dad, brother/sister, aunt/uncle, bride/groom, boy/girl, sister/brother, grandma/grandpa, and waiter/waitress — clearly discriminating between the sexes. Is the English language in violation of Title VII? Some would say yes as the assault to homogenize the language has already been politicized and created gender neutral words such as server, salesperson, and flight attendant. I guess eventually a wife won't be a wife but rather a life partner and a girlfriend won't be a girlfriend but rather a friend with benefits.
The crux of the women's lawsuit against Wal-Mart is that women had been paid less than men in comparable positions. Walter Block has written extensively on this issue and found that those wage disparities, although they exist, cannot be attributed solely to male chauvinist pigs — that the differences between men and women in the work place must be considered. In fact, it would be irresponsible and negligent on the part of a manager not to.
David Kramer also points out the absurdity of the argument that businesses, able to cut their costs so significantly by hiring more women, still don't because they are just so innately misogynistic. Their inferior view of women far outweighs their own desire to do well in their businesses' bottom line. Nonsense.
For example, if a newlywed woman applies for a position that requires a multiyear, long-term commitment, should the fact that she could become pregnant (intentionally or not) be ignored? Should the impact on the company and, therefore, the livelihood of other employees be discounted? The physical effects of pregnancy affect women in different ways. Some are out of the office for long periods of time before, during, and after the pregnancy. And what about her maternal duties after the birth? Doesn't waking up at night to breastfeed take a toll on the mother's sleep? (The father obviously can't breast feed.) What if it's twins? Men, on the other hand, have none of these concerns in the workplace.
I know people don't like facts. They really muddle up the "victim" argument.
And what if a manager were to discriminate based solely on sex? What if he is a misogynist of the nth degree? Does he not have a right to be a jerk? Of course he does. And if his manager likes his hiring decisions and the company is profitable, then he's doing what's expected of him. Who would be better off by discriminating in favor of women just because they are women?
And what if two employees, one male and one female, are up for a promotion and the manager feels they are both exactly equal? How then should the decision be made? It has to be based on something; it has to discriminate on something. What should it be then? Who's taller? Who's "nicer"? "Who's a Steelers fan"? In PC America it will most likely be made based on who is more likely to file a frivolous law suit if not chosen, and that will be the woman.
The bottom line is that when multiple people apply for a job or a promotion, the decision maker has to ultimately make a decision and that decision will be discriminatory since he can't choose both at the same time. So what should that discriminatory decision be based on and who has the right to dictate what it should be? I know who it shouldn't be: the employees up for the job or promotion.
These women feel differently though. They feel they're different. They feel they "deserve" more. They live in that land of nod where life is all rainbows and unicorns and gosh darn it what the grown-ups in the real world are doing just isn't fair.
And that's why I drink!
Don Cooper [send him mail] is a Florida native, Navy veteran, economist, business analyst and father.