A lesson in economics and I’ll lead it into a conclusion that will piss off your friends.
You can’t pay groups of people less than they are worth in a decentralized market economy. I’ll show a hypothetical about why this is true.
Purple people are a group that are discriminated against. Due to this fact, the going rate for their labor is only 60% of what everyone else’s is. For this scenario we will assume all people are equally productive.
You own a factory. In order to cut down the costs for your product, and take market share away from your competitors you opt to only hire purple people. In order to get the amount you need, you opt to pay them slightly higher than the going rate for purple people labor. You pay them 66%. Since labor accounts for 30% of production costs, you are able to create the same product as your competitors for 10% cheaper. You sell the product 5% cheaper than your competitors and not only do you make much better profits, but you also start taking market share from all of your competitors.
Your competitors aren’t going to go down without a fight. They’ve figured out your secret. They start hiring exclusively purple people. However, since demand is starting to go up for purple people labor, they need to pay escalating rates for labor. Now it costs 70% to hire purple people. As other industries hear about the amazing benefits of purple people labor, demand skyrockets and the rate get bigger and higher until there is no added benefit in hiring purple people. Purple people now make 100% of what other people make.
In a decentralized market economy, businesses benefit greatly by discovering opportunities. Unequal distribution in the costs of equivalent labor is an amazing market opportunity that businesses regularly search for. The only way to stop this practice is by centralizing regulation of these businesses and having political structures ban competition within this realm. The natural force in business is to seek profit, and bigotry turns out to be incredibly unprofitable. When you do see wage disparities in the market, there will always be other explanations for this not related to bigotry.
Now for the really controversial part.
Sexual work environments favor women, and businesses naturally will try to kill it.
Women who don’t wish to use sexuality to get benefits in a job will be paid (on average) for the standard going rate for their labor. These women are in the same boat as men. However, women who desire to use their sexuality to get jobs, promotions, and raises are able to exploit unprofitable decisions by their employers for their own benefit. By using sex or flirting to provide additional value to a boss, these women have more tools to their disposal that men don’t have.
Men who allow company resources to be allocated by what makes their dick hard will naturally hurt company profits, since the choice was not based off of the person who provides the greatest value to the company. The natural interest of the company is to eliminate any sexualized work environment in order to harvest a culture of productivity and eliminate money allocation based on things other than productivity.
This is why sexual harassment and perverted bosses favor women in general. Women who don’t desire to put up with it are still able to collect their market rate for their labor (as a whole), while women who are fine with it will be able to exploit these inefficiencies to their own benefit.
It might seem distasteful, but we predominantly hurt women by punishing sexual harassment. Our society tolerates this because women generally dislike women who use their sexuality to get benefits when it isn’t themselves.