The fact that all of the examples of extreme stupidity referenced during national "Stupid Week," some of which are discussed in this blog, are exclusively the result of the activities of women is not meant to disparage, demean or in any way deprecate the significance and value of the fairer sex. After all, the Bible refers to women as the "weaker sex" and they are doing the best they can to rise up to the level of intelligence that we men enjoy. So when you see a woman struggling with stupidity stop and take a moment to encourage her to rise above her natural shortcomings and become more like a man.
Speaking of becoming more like a man (a reference which stupid women no doubt find offensive), women themselves readily admit that they aspire to that goal. I am not being a misogynist when I authoritatively declare that women are inferior. They shrilly scream out that truth on an almost daily basis. As proof for my belief I will reference an article in the newspaper yesterday that serves as a perfect example of this truth about women. The article was entitled "In a world first, Iceland will require firms to prove equality." The first paragraph of the article said, "Iceland will be the first country in the world to make employers prove they offer equal pay regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexuality or nationality, the Nordic nation's government said Wednesday -- International Women's Day." Let's consider this newly created law for a while today.
The article described the process by which women will receive equal pay with men by saying that the new legislation "will require all employers with more than 25 staff to obtain certification to prove they give equal pay for work of equal value." The stated goal of the new law was "to eliminate the gender gap by 2022." Pity the poor woman who works at a firm that employs only 24 people. She will be forced to continue living on slave wages, deprived of the enormous benefits derived from government protections under the new law. The choice of a totally arbitrary number to determine who the new law will apply to, besides being extraordinarily stupid, is an act of discrimination itself. In this case the government of Iceland is discriminating against women who work for companies that employ less than 25 people. There ought to be a law preventing that from occurring but it is highly unlikely it will be created by the spineless wimps who created the first law. But it is not the absurd and contradictory establishment of an arbitrary number that concerns me today. I am much more concerned about how "equality" is going to be defined. According to the new law, any particular job with a specific job description must pay the same amount to whoever fills the position. That person can be a man, a woman, a homosexual, a transvestite, a Caucasian or a Welshman and they will all be required, by law, to be paid the same amount.
Let me begin by admitting that I am not equal to women in any way, shape or fashion. No matter how hard I try I cannot conceive a baby, bear a baby, nurse a baby or change a diaper for a baby. That state of affairs, the result of random mutation, natural selection and the survival of the fittest, is entirely unfair. If I believed in the god of civil government I would beseech my deity to create a law making me able to bear children, thus proving my equality with women. I, however, do not worship at the throne of the State so that will never happen.
In addition to not being able to bear children, I am able to determine which direction is North, no matter where I am at any given time. I am able to park my car in a parking lot and remain equidistant between the lines. I am unable to put makeup on while driving down the road. I am incapable of talking for more than five or ten minutes without running out of something to say. About the only thing I share in common with women is a decidedly feminine inability to work with any mechanical equipment other than a broom, mop and a vacuum.
Now that I have established that men and women are not equal, as if that is something that is somehow difficult to prove to anyone who is not exceedingly stupid, let's consider Iceland's new law declaring that women are economically equal to men when they provide labor services to a profit seeking corporation that employs 25 or more people. The law says that if a man and a woman occupy the same position at a firm that firm must certify to the government that they are paid the same amount, ostensibly because they are performing the exact same function. Any firm that does not pay the women the same amount as the men will be subject to some sort of punishment. The presupposition that supports the doctrine of equal pay for women is that the people who fill the jobs with the same job description are identical in their skills, abilities, experience, goals and value to the company. That presupposition is downright stupid, to say the least.
Suppose I have a position open at my firm for a cleaning crew supervisor. I post the job and announce that I will pay $30,000/year for a qualified applicant. In a free society I would not post my salary along with the job notice. I would negotiate the salary with the person I want to hire until we come to an amicable and voluntary decision about what he/she would be paid. In Iceland however, I am forced to post the salary in advance because the new government law declares that everyone is equally qualified to fill the job and any discrepancy in pay rates is based exclusively upon my own hatred for women, transvestites and Irishmen. Two people apply for the job.
A female applicant is 50 years old. She has raised two children who do not live in her basement. She has 20 years of experience as a maid, including experience supervising other maids in a large hotel. She provides a long list of references informing me that she is of the highest moral character and will readily fulfill the terms of her employment contract. The second applicant is a 30 year old male who lives in his parent's basement. He is an expert at playing video games but his mother says that he never cleans his room. He has no references and he was late to the job interview. Of these two applicants, who would you hire?
The last question was a trick question. In a free market I might hire both of them. In a free market I might be willing to take a flyer on the irresponsible young man and hire him for $20,000/year. He deserves an opportunity to gain some job experience but I am not willing to pay him $30,000 to take that risk. In a free market I would also hire the woman. I would recognize that she is a very valuable asset for my firm and I would offer her $40,000/year to work for me. My goal would be to obtain and retain her services for as long as possible. Only an exceedingly stupid person would believe that the man and the woman deserve the same pay for the same job. Politicians and feminists who worship civil government are exceedingly stupid people.