Talk to any shark-jumping feminist for long enough, and he or she will eventually mention women only make “77 cents on the dollar” of what men make.The figure comes from the 2004 Census Bureau.The median full-time female worker makes 77 percent of what the median full-time male worker makes. This means we’re comparing NFL players with elementary school teachers — about a nickel on the dollar — not male engineers with female engineers, which would be closer to parity.For reasons not related to wage discrimination, men are more likely to seek jobs with more travel, longer hours, a scientific focus and risk of life and limb. These jobs also pay well, so the statistic is inherently skewed.For the sake of argument, pretend the lousiness of the statistic accounts for only 10 percent of the difference. It’s almost certainly higher, but let’s pessimistically speculate women make on average 80 percent of what men make within the same field.There are two possible explanations for the remaining 20 cents. Either the average woman is less productive than the average man or employers are paying women less merely because they are women.If it’s the first scenario, then a difference in pay is a just symptom of a possibly unjust, deeper cause. If it’s the second, then we have genuine discrimination, and women are being treated unfairly.The explanation need not fall on either extreme. Both possibilities have an entire spectrum of combinations. For the sake of argument, let’s pretend 5 cents is because of the former — perhaps from women losing out on potential experience for maternity leave — and 15 cents is because of the latter — genuine discrimination.All told, we’re estimating businesses pay women an average of 85 cents to a man’s dollar for contributing an equal amount of value.If you believe American employers pay women less simply because they are women, do not tell anyone about it. Do not write letters to your congressmen.And — for the love of reason — don’t write a Daily Reveille column about it.Instead, start a new business and pay all of your employees — whether man or woman — 90 cents on the dollar. If our assumptions are correct, women will gladly flock to their new raise, and you’ll purchase a dollar worth of services for only 90 cents.The competition’s discrimination is your opportunity.You don’t even have to care about feminism. You just have to care about money. Because most businesses make just a few percentage points of profit out of their revenue, cutting wages by 10 percent can easily double your profit!What’s more, you can do this without the moral blackmailing of guilt, the explicit threat of prison or convincing 150 million and one voters to agree with you.It will also make you rich.Unfortunately, if you live in a laissez-faire economy full of greedy, dirty capitalists, other companies will compete for female workers and soon offer 95 cents on the dollar for the same reason you offered 90. Eventually, the competition will close that gap, and women will benefit from the natural demand for their human capital.Because we live in a country full of selfish entrepreneurs, there’s a high chance that competition has already happened.If you want fair pay for women — or minorities, for that matter — the prescription is an unregulated labor market and selfish employers.Too often, feminists will — rather than waiting for the market to punish the prejudiced — seek to level the playing field through government regulations.In other words, women are strong, intelligent and capable enough to petition for a bunch of men with guns to bully their bosses into giving them a higher salary — a claim as hypocritical as it is insulting.Discrimination is a problem wherever it might exist, but to fight it with nothing but empty complaints and political action is to waste your life.The next time you hear the stereotypical feminist cite the 77 cents statistic and beg for the government to blindly steamroll over any alleged inequalities, feel free to step her through this logic. If she still supports federal action, you are probably dealing with emotional projection and psychological defenses.Despite her rhetoric, she emotionally needs a strong male in her life, and she fantasizes about a government to fill the gap. She might outwardly praise feminine independence, but she is subconsciously screaming her deep-seated dread of a world without masters.Love that unambitious, cowardly harpy like a caveman, and she’ll slice a fresh tomato for your sandwich.—-Contact Daniel Morgan at [email protected] is a 21-year-old economics junior from Baton Rouge.