Readers' Forum

Mr. Bolick suggests that "defenders of the market must ... expose comparable worth as a paternalistic theory that assumes women are incapable of succeeding on the level playing field guaranteed by the present anti-discrimi nation laws." However, if you concede the moral legitimacy of "the present anti-discrimi nation laws," I suggest that you have already surrendered the high ground-and conse quently undermined your case by accepting the opposition's premises. In reality, the pre sent "anti-discrimination" laws should be re pealed as well. It is completely indefensible that an employer who wishes to support the embattled traditional family by favoring mar ried men is now a criminal. Similarly,if an em ployer believes that women's well-being will be facilitated by deliberately hiring more fe male employees, he (or she) should be entirely free to do so. We forget too easily that modern economics was born in the eighteenth century as an out growth of a belief in natural law, which led to the conclusion that there are certain things best left to natural processes, including eco nomic decisions. Employment decisions in a free society-as, except for state oppression of blacks, the United States has always largely been-cumulatively reflect authentic individu al choices. Very simply,the crucial reason that men make considerably more (on average) than women is that-as, for instance, a 1982 Harris Poll conducted for Virginia Slims demonstrated-approximately nine out of ten women (in contrast to men) do not desire full time employment outside the home.

If those who believe that most women do not properly understand their own interests would limit their efforts to persuasion, one could simply address the plausibility of their belief. One could demonstrate its similarity with the Marxist notion of "false conscious282 THE FREEMAN • JULY 1989 ness," and note the contradiction that those holding this view often claim to represent the majority of women. However, when feminists add to persuasion the pervasive coercion of "anti-discrimination" legislation-whether it is called "equal pay for equal work," "affirmative action," or "equal pay for work of equal val ue"-that eternal vigilance which is said to be the price of liberty obliges liberty's defenders to take a stand, as both Clint Bolick and Ellen Frankel Paul have so eloquently done. I would only caution that this battle cannot be won if one concedes one's opponents' premises-and in this case, there is no need whatever to do so, on the contrary, they should be called to ac count.

NICHOLAS DAVIDSON New York City (Note: Mr. Davidson is the editor of Gender Sanity: The Case Against Feminism [University Press of America, 1989].) Ellen Frankel Paul Replies: Both Clint Bolick and Nicholas Davidson agree that I have somehow failed to "claim the moral high ground for adversaries of compara ble worth." I really thought that I had, but ap parently my statement in the Introduction that "justice and equity must triumph over efficien cy" was too sketchy to convey my intent. What I meant was that even if the market is most ef ficient-which nearly everyone concedes-this wouldn't be enough, in the sense that if compa rable worth carried the moral argument that would trump the efficiency case for the mar ket. The final chapter of the book was written to demonstrate that, indeed, comparable worth cannot carry the moral argument, and there fore both considerations of morality and effi ciency weigh in on the side of the market. I hope this clarifies my intent, at least, and I will have to leave it to others to judge whether I succeeded in making the case.

I must confess, though, that I am still puz zled by Mr. Bolick's criticism that I did not suc ceed in claiming the high ground, when in the very next paragraph he outlines what I should have argued to claim that ground, and this sketch turns out to mimic precisely the argu ments that I did make in Equity and Gender, namely "expose comparable worth as a pater nalistic theory," an "elitist concept, denigrating the value of blue-collar jobs," and "raise the Orwellian specter of a commission of 'experts' determining wages in some mystical fashion and supplanting the will of individuals." Per haps I'm losing my touch as a writer, but then why did Mr. Bolick commend my "superb abil ity ... to take complex issues and translate them into English." It's undoubtedly petty of me to carp about a highly favorable review, but I am genuinely mystified by this line of criti cism. With Nicholas Davidson's point that Mr.

Bolick, by implying that the present anti-dis crimination laws create a level playing field, has himself conceded the high ground, I am in total agreement. In fact, I am in the process of writing a much more ambitious and compre hensive book than Equity and Gender on pre cisely this topic of the moral legitimacy of anti discrimination laws. I expect that Mr. Davidson will find this book much to his liking. ELLEN FRANKEL PAUL Bowling Green State University We will share with readers the most in teresting and provocative letters we re ceive regarding Freeman articles and the issues they raise. Address your letters to: To the Editors, The Freeman, The Foun dation for Economic Education, Irving ton-on-Hudson, New York 10533.