We really do value women less than men

Forbes magazine’s annual Celeb 100 list, chronicling the world’s highest-paid entertainers over the past year featured a wide range of talents from all over the globe including a British chef, a Canadian rapper and a Russian tennis star – but only 16 women.

The combined women on the list make $809m, compared with $4.35bn for the men. This reflects the gender pay gap among both celebrities and the wider society, according to Forbes.

So there we have it, the global result of how all human beings value women as against the value all humans apply to men.

Humans appear to value men more highly than women. Shrug. If that’s what we do, well, that’s what we do, isn’t it? Worrying about it is akin to being concerned over bipedalism. Or being viviparous.

8 thoughts on “We really do value women less than men”

  1. Well, I don’t value women less than men. I think such class based analysis is silly.

    All we know is that we value fewer women in the top 100 than the men in the top 100, which might be for a variety of reasons. For instance that males have more incentive to accrue wealth, since women tend to judge men by their wealth and status, but the converse isn’t really true.

  2. Excuse me if my maths is wrong here, but if you add up all the money on that list ($4.35 billion + $809 million), then women made 15.7% of the total amount and you have 16 women on a list of a hundred people.

    0.3% difference. That’s what they are complaining about? Or am I missing something here?

  3. And here I thought it was always supposedly the right that knew the price of everything, but the value of nothing.

    Women should only be measured by the size of their paycheck?

  4. The biology of it is that all fertile females can breed whereas males have to compete to impress the females: peacock tails, stags’ antlers, fast cars, a billion in the bank all help to transmit genes to the next generation.

  5. It’s not comparing like for like. They’re all entertainers, which is a very vague category. We can’t really tell much by comparing a singer to a celebrity chef, surely. And the top 100 is arbitrary and non-indicative. For all we know, there are more women than men in the top 1000, or top 10000. We cannot tell from this list.

    Honestly, Tim, I’m surprised at you, responding to a piece like this by accepting its statistical premises.

  6. Worrying about it is akin to being concerned over bipedalism. Or being viviparous.

    Steady on. Preference change, utilities change. That the figures show the revealed preferences of the status quo ante doesn’t make it a law of nature.

  7. Kim Kardashian made $52M for what?

    Maria Sharapova made “only” $29M playing tennis, and I should feel sorry for her?

    I’ve got an idea. Ask Maria if she will play Roger Federer ($67M), or even Rafael Nadal ($32M), for $29M, winner take all.

    But that’s not where the economics lies. Celebrities make money by appealing to people. I guess we are pigs because we find golfers who can hit a driver 325 yards more appealing to golfers who can hit a driver 275 yards. We bad.

  8. Tennis is a particularly good example, because it’s not just about the physical prowess of the players, but the structure of the game itself. The fact is that there is much more room for drama in a 5-set match than a 3. Boris Becker used to almost specialise in going 2 sets down before winning. That structure simply leaves more scope for better entertainment.

    I have a lot of sympathy for the argument that women’s tennis, point by point, can be a lot more entertaining than men’s because their game hasn’t become dominated by giant serves in the same way. But 3-set matches are dull compared to 5-set matches.

    And, of course, if we’re going to work out hourly wages, 3-matches are quicker.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *