Reader Mike Bertolone sends word of NOW Anti-Roberts events that includes a “bake sale” that backfires:
Wednesday: “Demand Pay Equity” Visibility
Bring cookies, brownies, etc. for our mock bake sale! We’ll have a booth with signs “selling” goodies- $1 for men and 76 cents for women! And as always, bring signs!
I assume that NOW wants to highlight what it perceives to be continuing pay inequities between men and women, but what it does here is to endorse the idea of discrimination by charging men more than women for the same cookies.
In typical anti-affirmative action bake sales that have been sponsored by conservative groups on campuses across the country, minorities and are also charged less than white males, but their intent is satirical. They are mocking the preferences given to minorities and women, but it is impossible to believe NOW wants to endorse their satire. It is much easier to see NOW as confused and hitting the wrong note here.
Isn’t the 76 cents to the dollar figure essentially a fiction? I can’t find the reference I had to it at the moment, but I recall reading that it is misleading b/c it compares ALL professions, looks at the # of men and women in all professions and then averages their pay. Since MORE women are disproportionately in lower paying jobs (like education, nursing), their average pay is indeed less.
In reality, when comparing pay of men and women in same professions, the pay difference is actually only like 3-4%.
“. Since MORE women are disproportionately in lower paying jobs (like education, nursing), their average pay is indeed less.”
And why do women’s jobs pay less?
Well gee, let’s see — market determinations on position value, more education needed for higher paying jobs, personal choices….?
“Well gee, let’s see — market determinations on position value, more education needed for higher paying jobs, personal choices….?”
See, women are choosing to get paid less. How that makes 76/100 a fiction I don’t know.
It’s not a fiction. It’s just irrelevant. Men tend to work more unpleasant jobs, which have to be paid more highly because they’re unpleasant. Women are more likely to work part-time than full-time. Women are more likely to leave the workforce for extended periods, and then come back… time lost in advancing a career. Then there’s the issue of %age of women in science and engineering majors.
If one controls for occupation, hours worked, years of experience, etc. the gap goes away (and for some subgroups, the women’s average wage is higher than the men’s. Again, probably not due to any discrimination.)
“It’s just irrelevant.”
Well, I don’t think its irrelevant that womens work gets paid less.
“If one controls for occupation, hours worked, years of experience, etc. the gap goes away”
I know. I want to work on those imbalances. One way to ‘control’ for occupation is to help women enter the male fields, and vice versa.
Once again, actus the Marxist shows his true colors.
The primary factor in this is that women don’t want the government raising their kids. Most of them take years off to be at home, and choose to work at less demanding jobs in order to be there for their kids.
Short of public trials and executions, actus, I don’t think you’ll be able to change this.
Your blind devotion to ideology and completely inability to understand the reality of human nature is noted again.
“Short of public trials and executions, actus, I don’t think you’ll be able to change this.”
You’d be surprised how much economic change can be accomplished with some simple industrial policy of tax benefits and subsidies. Happens all the time.
Well, no, you’re wrong. Wrong not only in theory, but in motive.
It’s a good thing that women want to be at home in their children’s formative years. The change you propose is a negative, destructive change that appeals to you for ideological reasons. You want everybody to be wards of the state. The Israelis tried it and it failed. The Kibbutz movement couldn’t force women to leave the rearing of their child to the collective. The women refused to allow it.
So, no, the change you want to promote is evil. Evil really does exist. I don’t want to live in the world you want… a world in which children are indoctrinated wards of the state.
I gather this change also appeals to you because, as a dedicated Marxist, you are devoted to eradicating the differences between men and women. You will fail here. Once again, this is not a positive, well-intentioned desire on your part. The change you want to promote is evil personified. Evil does exist.
And, on a practical scale, nobody wants what you want. My company has hired woman after woman for certain executive positions, granted them generous maternity leave, and watched as most of them use up that maternity leave and then announce that they are quitting.
You missed the entire morality play that was the 20th century, or else you are incapable of understanding it… well, or else you are just so blindly devoted to ideology that nothing can penetrate.
“And, on a practical scale, nobody wants what you want. My company has hired woman after woman for certain executive positions, granted them generous maternity leave, and watched as most of them use up that maternity leave and then announce that they are quitting.”
Does that bother you? they’re doing what you want?
What about women that don’t want children, or that want their husbands to raise their children.
Actus, your last point is exactly why current anti-discrimination law, that is universal in approach and not preferential, is both good and appropriate, and all that is necessary. Women who don’t want children, men who want to raise children, or women that want to go into engineering or science are all free to make those choices and if they are discriminated against they have legal recourse. The number as actually show that those women are making a penny or two more than their male counterparts. So why do women need preferences?
Stephen, Actus is correct about one thing. Quoting Actus: “You’d be surprised how much economic change can be accomplished with some simple industrial policy of tax benefits and subsidies. Happens all the time.”
Yes, industrial policy does cause economic “change.” It prevents or retards growth from the direction that mere ordinary mortals wouuld have chosen – and government rarely makes “better” choices than individuals. Marxism isn’t about optimum choices though (or even choice at all) or economic growth – its about elite control.
“Yes, industrial policy does cause economic “change.” It prevents or retards growth from the direction that mere ordinary mortals wouuld have chosen – and government rarely makes “better” choices than individuals.”
Yes. Like the reconstruction effort is going to prevent and retard ordinary mortals from ordinarily choosing to become a shiftless diaspora community.
… “a shiftless diaspora community.”
Huh?
Ideologues don’t really talk English.
But I think I understand. Yes, blacks in New Orleans are responsible for their own problems, and those problems won’t get resolved until said blacks decide to do something for themselves. Good old fashioned religion would do them a log more good than Marxism.
And I don’t think the diaspora is to blame. The ruthless corruption and view of government as a source for personal enrichment that characterizes New Orleans look an awful lot like the status quo in black Africa. Maybe the problem is one blacks brought with them.
Maybe a change in attitude is in order. For you, too, actus.
“The ruthless corruption and view of government as a source for personal enrichment that characterizes New Orleans look an awful lot like the status quo in black Africa.”
Frankly I think they just need to get some reconstruction contracts.