Trigger Warning, the following contains fact and logic. Those experiencing feminist outrage because, feelings, and or logical fallacy, are enthusiastically encouraged to waive their right to silence.
My first furtive fumbling with feminism ironical began in the carpark in front of the figurative bike shed. It was the eighties, the big hair and bad fashions have long since been consigned to the “what were we thinking” bin of history but the rising insidious ideologies of the radical lesbian feminist continued unabated spawning the epidemic of epidemics we are reported daily by the contemporary thrilled main stream media. Thank goodness for the greenhouse gassing of the planet that the burning of bras has stopped. Germaine Greer was still explaining why women’s lack of sexual enjoyment was the fault of men’s inability to find the clitoris. Harriet Harman was appalled that society could not comprehend fathers were irrelevant in the successful raising of children. So wonderful though, that as the English deputy prime minister she is now able to implement all her ideologies. Valerie Solanas was still promoting her SCUM Manifesto, literally the society to cut up men, after ironically having used a gun in the attempted murder of three men that including one Andy Wahol. Insurance companies were telling the world that women were better drivers than men.
Not that I knew it at the time but looking back I should thank them for my red pill moment. This illustrates why we should never stiffly freedom of expression. The bigots, the idiots and the dishonest should be given all the rope that they need. The response of the intelligent man is to plait them a rope of fact and logic.
At the time I thought they were just wrong because there weren’t any champion women racing car drivers then as there still aren’t today. Later of course I understood both the underlying dishonesty and the economic motivations of the insurance companies tapping into the disposable incomes of working women. Unfortunately like every single feminist statistic, and there has been bullions of research dollars spent on feminist equality, not a single one tells the whole truth. Ninety nine out of one hundred letter boxes agree that women are better drivers than men in much the same way that turtles are better at parking than women. It is guilty pleasure of many men, especially brunching in the weekend, bacon and eggs on the footpath, a good coffee, and counting the gear changes of the women attempting to parallel-park. Twenty three is my record. Better? Actually women typically have lower speed accidents meaning that they are less of a risk. These dishonest insurance companies extrapolated Economically-Safer into Better-Drivers and lower premiums to attract female customers. I said dishonest because the same logic is not extended to men in the health insurance market. There, women spend two health dollars for every dollar spend by men but insurance companies are not telling men that they are lowering their premiums because they are healthier than women. Seems economic dishonesty only flushes one way.
Recently ANZ Australia continued that truth, announcing that they were paying all and only their female staff an addition five hundred dollar super bonus over and above what they were paying their male staff. Their reasoning, they were attempting to close the Super Gap! Putting aside the obvious discrimination, and the legal gymnastics that allow a bonus be paid only to female staff, what rampant hypocrisy of ANZ to pay their female staff less than they are paying their male staff, then claiming female friendly, pay an additional pittance to close the gap that they created? What other sexist discriminatory explanation? Super is paid as a direct percentage of salary. If women are being paid less super than men for doing the exact same work then they are being paid less salary than men for doing the exact same work. We have all heard of the wage gap, President Obama stating that women are only paid seventy seven for every dollar a man earns for doing the exact same work. The facts are clear, the logic simple, the conclusion obvious, only ANZ don’t pay their women less than their men. They are simply using the same statistical dishonest, the inability to tell the whole truth, that is representative of every single piece of feminist research.
It’s true, in total men are paid more than women, but not more for the exact same work and not for the exact same amount of work. If you work in a lower paying position, work less hours, take greater leaves of absence, you will earn less in both salary and super. That is not sexist discrimination that is economic, mathematical, logical reality. If your response is still, yes but, then there is only one question left to answer, how much rope will you require?