Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Pay Inequality Additional Burden For Women of the 99%
Gloria Steinem inspired by Occupy protests
For Gloria Steinem, the international conversation that the Occupy Wall Street protests sparked about economic inequality is, at its heart, about gender.
Gloria Steinem says the issue of pay inequity is still all about gender. (Dan Steinberg / AP)
Start with the thousands of dollars in student loans that saddle the average U.S. college graduate. Women "are paid unequally - so they are going to have a harder time paying back that debt," said Steinem, the 77-year-old feminist who helped start the women's rights movement with the publication of Ms. magazine nearly 40 years ago. "It's outrageous because they are kind of indentured when they graduate."
Steinem's comments echo a common lament among young women in the Occupy movement, which began on Sept. 17 as a demonstration against the widening wealth gap and an economic system that protesters say favors the rich.
The unemployment rate for college graduates ages 20 to 24 rose to 9.1 percent last year from 8.7 percent in 2009, the highest on record for that demographic, according to the Project on Student Debt. Add to that the burdens of student loans, and young Americans say they don't stand much chance.
Graduates owed an average $25,250 in 2010, estimates the Project on Student Debt, a nonprofit research organization in Oakland. Women entering the workforce with that liability are at a disadvantage: They earned 81 cents for every dollar their male counterparts did, on average, in 2010, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Worldwide protest
The Occupy Wall Street protests that began in New York spread to cities on four continents, including London, Sydney, Rome and Tokyo.
The demonstrators refer to themselves as "the 99 percent," a reference to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz's study showing the richest 1 percent control 40 percent of U.S. wealth.
Steinem said the Occupy protests have inspired her, and that they have enjoyed more support than the U.S. civil rights and antiwar movements in the 1960s that took longer to reach a broad audience. "It's much more immediately international," said Steinem, who participated in the earlier causes.
The movement's success in bringing attention to income inequality may help narrow the gender-wage gap, said Mary Gatta, a senior scholar at the Washington-based nonprofit Wider Opportunities for Women. The more people, and especially young women, talk about it, the more likely society is to reject the notion that it's irreversible, she said.
"Seeing the pay gap as part of this larger economic inequality that's being talked about by Occupy Wall Street, I think, is very promising," Gatta said. "Awareness and education are really important."
Women made some progress between 2007 and 2010, as the wage gap narrowed in 35 states, Bureau of Labor Statistics data show. It was smallest in Washington D.C., where women made 89 cents for every $1 a man did, and greatest in Wyoming, at 65 cents.
Among industries, the disparity is often greater in the finance sector, with female financial analysts making 70 cents on the male dollar, the census data show.
After the worst economic downturn in nearly a century, men continue to earn more than women in 361 metropolitan areas in the country, an annual survey by the Census Bureau found.
If current trends continue, it will take 45 years for women's salaries to equal that of men's, research by the Institute for Women's Policy Research shows.
Unequal pay
According to Steinem, U.S. women earn an average of $2 million less over the course of their lifetimes than men. It isn't because they stop working sooner, she said. "It's because they are paid unequally."
Steinem is the subject of an HBO documentary released in August, "Gloria: In Her Own Words," and is working on a book about her more than 30 years as a feminist organizer.
"Sometimes people say to me, at my age, well aren't you interested in something other than women's issues?" she said. "And I say 'show me one. Show me one that isn't transformed by including both halves of the population.' "
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
75 Comments so far
Show AllBad sign if Steinem wants to get involved with the Occupy movement. She was a willing stooge in the "divide and conquer" aspect of '70s identity politics, letting CIA, among others, fund MS magazine, a corporate co-opting of feminism if there ever was one.
Stay away from this lady, kids. Single-issue politics are one way the PTB keep us divided.
MS Mag itself represented the corporate co-opting of feminism, as did NOW after they booted the dykes whose labor created it. Just like Move On - someone is always going to try to make an unwholesome profit by conning the many who've been taught that they can get a lot of social benefits by just buying the tshirt, no actual commitment or effort required.
I'm sorry, Clovis, but this is the issue where a lot of otherwise intelligent men view the world like their barbarian ancestors. When only HALF of the earth's people have been allowed a voice, or capacity to exert influence, then society becomes lopsided. JUST because some women NOW have entered the ranks, and as is often the case, do so largely because they have agreed NOT to rock the boat (and thus remain loyal both to their paymasters AND the status quo), does NOT change the fundamental calculus. -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your post reflects a level of sexism that almost as sickening to me as the endless wars, the bankster bailouts, and the lack of meaningful action towards climate change. Nor are you alone. When men in this forum dismiss feminism--or the status of half the world's citizens--as some peripheral identity politics issue, it's more than disconcerting. Please consider reading, "The Chalice & The Blade," and then perhaps we can discuss this.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glaring for its lack of insight is the general recitation of a history that only goes back a few thousand years as if that speaks for all and defines the full spectrum of human nature. You guys REALLY need some consciousness raising. (Now I fully expect one of two the armed warrior women who so like to aim their weapons at me, to show up to try to suggest that women like to play war, too. Narrow in their vision, they fail to understand that by stating as much, they prove my point... that women who identify with the institutions that patriarchy has built have lost any claim to speaking for the other half of the gender equation.)
Nice job defending Steinham, an obvious CIA stooge.
You constantly accuse others of being in the employ of the Company; maybe that's just meant to distract from your own allegiances. Maybe you are the mole.
If men cannot claim to speak authoritatively to issues of feminism then you cannot claim to authoritatively address issues of class as you are a property owner and a landlord to boot. What do you know of classism? All you know are your own parochial interests.
I never do address issues of class. That's YOUR paid tag line, pal. I am no expert on socialism, communism, or capitalism, but I have a conscience and dedication to Spiritual Truth... and that zone of observation can be used as a lens through which to determine the justice, or lack of same, in any present or past condition or current event. I see your pal, Two Americas, circulated the meme that I am a "landlord." Let me tell you something about this "job," you pompous windbag... as there is a significant difference between owning two properties with a net worth under $100,000 and being of the "rentier" class. --------------------------------------------------------- I am far more of a social worker than a landlord, but when I saw the RAPE of our economy by the bankster class, I figured that at least real estate is REAL. So I spent every penny I had, and a LOT of my time, shopping around consignment shops to make each of these little homes into a comfortable place that I would happy to live in. I used to buy the first set of towels, put sheets on the beds, even provide shower curtains and bath mats, and in some instances, kitchen utensils & tableware. In other words I created dollhouses and charge the same rent that everyone else charges, which is $500 for a 2 bedroom place, with yard, private driveway, and a large shed-carpentry area.------------------------------------------------------------ It's hard to say how much is this economy, and how much that people too often behave like insensitive animals. The point is, my properties have been largely vandalized, and not once, but several times over the course of the past 2 years. Under ideal conditions I might pull in $10,000 profit (after taxes & insurance). Do you know how much I made over the past 2 years? About $1800. That's right. I am well BELOW the poverty line.------------------------------------------------------- Worse than the losses to the property is the sense that people can be so cavalier in destroying what is not theirs to destroy. I've spent entire days cleaning up the filth they've left behind, etc. And it seems all too clear that low income people, or about 70% of those I've come in contact with, do not know how to take care of anything. I have had to clean up animal excrement from new carpets; and that's when there were no cigarette burns senselessly put into them. One guy pushed his girlfriend through 6 wall panels, another couple broke a bathtub! And a couch. Someone's drunken father broke a pipe that led to a $1200 repair! The list is long. ----------------------------------------- I challenge ANYONE in this forum to produce MY track record when it comes to basic fairness & decency. In addition, dear Joe "hope," can you honestly tell me that you would commit yourself to writing book after book, spending your $500 to get each one formatted, then perhaps another $300 on corrections, before you are even in a position to buy your own copies at 30% discount off cover price? And I give most away. -------------------------------------------------------I am a FIRM believer in "pay it forward," so pardom my skepticism for your 100% inaccurate sketch of my "parochial interests." Not only do you do not know me, apart from your own long-term participation in a gang of on-line assassins who relentlessly seek to paint me as something glaringly opposed to the truth of who I am, you are a callous oaf who is NO position to judge. Not me, or anyone else. Nothing you've ever posted shows the slightest sense of decency, humanity, integrity, compassion, or LOVE. You are an empty soul, a walkind DEAD carcass of a human being.----------------------------------------- And one more thing in my writing career, which has spanned more than 3 decades (and been hurt by the Internet's free content along with the consolidation of media which largely caters to a conservative audience... which clearly is not my ilk) I used to be paid ONE DOLLAR per word, and generally $2000 per column. I would estimate that I've submitted somewhere in the ballpark of 8000 posts to this site. That constitutes the literary equivalent of a tithe into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. So anyone who'd like to paint me as anything but a caring, spiritual messenger (who also has basic bills to cover) reveals themselves for the arrogant, hate-filled asses that they are. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To suggest that Steinem is a stooge and/or CIA is grotesque for its ignorance. Of all the closet misogynists in this forum, none more qualifies than yourself. Even if this were merely a matter of human chemistry, that you and I can't stand one another, that alone could never explain why it is that you continually seek to engage me when I've asked you countless times to leave ME alone. I sincerely hope that some woman puts you in your place, presuming any woman would either date you, or get within 20 feet of you. I suppose your virtual reality porn partners can't deliver the necessary "education." Pity.
There is no "suggestion" of Steinham's CIA involvement. it is an established historical fact that she admitted to in the New York Times. Furthermore, RedStockings collective, a radical feminist publishing house, was the organization that revealed Steinham's continuing association with CIA connected individuals.
I don't expect you to take my word for it. Go do 20 minutes of online research.
As far as your opinion of me, I could care less, except to say that your obscene grotesque and sexualized insults reveal you to be a real scumbag.
I consider your version of shrewish feminism to be a major reason for the decline of the Left in the US.
So beyond a lot of back and forth personal insults, there is still the question of whether Steinham was CIA. You prefer to deal with this question by posing further insults and alleging sexism for the millionth time. To me this is the epitome of what is wrong with feminism in the US. It's heavy on ideology and accusations and intentionally refuses to engage in fact oriented debate.
Anyway here's a start for your "education"
"In May 1975, Redstockings, a radical feminist group, raised the question of whether Steinem had continuing ties with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).[19][20] Though she admitted to having worked for a CIA-financed foundation in the late 1950s and early 1960s, Steinem denied any continuing involvement."
fr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Steinem
There is more, but that's a start, if you have the integrity and courage to face the facts.
Thanks, joehill, for doing the "documentary footwork." Indeed Steinem's compromised position with respect to any enlightened political vision of the future is well-documented for anyone who cares to know. And Sioux, I would suggest simply that you try to view my post from something other than an emotionally charged point of view. If you look at what I said, brief as it was, you will see that in describing Steinem I used the words "a corporate co-opting of feminism," which, if you consider them thoughtfully, you will see imply ANOTHER feminism beyond such co-optation. I will forgive you the likening of my observation to two millennia of warmongering. I think we actually agree on most things, in fact. I will simply say that Steinem's "jumping into the fray" of the Occupy movement at this stage, only to say that they somehow don't address "women's issues" and "the salary gap" is either intentionally divisive or so ideologically blindered as not to see how it could be so. Even at the start of her career she seemed geared to a specific bourgeois capitalist take on feminism, which set the tone for the next few decades and gave us such gems of enlightment as Hillary Clinton, who shares far more of the blood-on-the-hands of phallocratic militarism than far humbler souls such as myself. The fact that Steinem could accept CIA funding at a time when the agency and the establishment's hands were so bloodied with the male crimes of Vietnam and Cointelpro, which you so rightfully deplore, should give you pause, especially as the corporate slant of MS magazine was evident from the very start. Thus you are, in defending Steinem, defending a gategeeper of the worst sort, one who has quite successfully succeeded in obscuring the real issues at stake in our culture and society --life vs death, eros vs thanatos, Venus vs Mars, the nurturing vs the destructive impluse -- by reducing the question simply to women's access to corporate power.
That said, I want you to know that I agree with ALL of your critiques of our present dire circumstancs and ALL of your prescriptions as to the metaphysical paths to awakening and enlightenment, ESPECIALLY the valorization of the feminine principle.
This is why I feel a little dismayed to see you led so astray by such an obvious red herring as this. But that's OK. We all make mistakes. Namaste.
"And it seems all too clear that low income people, or about 70% of those I've come in contact with, do not know how to take care of anything."
This is rank classism and stereotyping.
I've heard the noble landlord blues before.
All those nasty tenants and their uncultured messes.
Well f-ck you and the horse you rode in on. Your classism, and your filthy sexualized insults towards any men who cross you are vile and sickening.
You are also a spiritual bigot, insulting the characters and souls of your critics from up on your imaginary new age pulpit.
And what do you know of the company anyway, little white witch. You need to study.before you embrace a vile creature of the company, Like the mafia, they don't let go..
.
Not to mention any of Obama's ambition to reform (gut) Social Security impacts primarily women. And yet, I don't hear a thing from this crowd that jumps aboard once they determine they can use any issue as a vehicle to promote themselves .
The unifying nature of Occupy must avoid divisive gender issues. We are facing threats far greater than gender and must be unified to succeed.
Very true. Identity politics has had its innings but must be renounced in favor of a more inclusive and harmonious reform movement.
I'm glad that Occupy is modeling a system which includes the concerns of those who deal with increased inequality due to gender, race, orientation, etc. When a group is sensitized to such concerns, the actions it undertakes will feel inviting to a greater number of people, and thus can have wider appeal.
No matter what the main focus may be -- occupying foreclosed homes, financial inequality, wall street -- it's a good practice to ask which groups of people are getting preferential treatment, and which groups are getting further excluded.
And finally, women earning far less then men actually is an important issue when you consider the number of single parent female headed households, worldwide. It's not the only issue, but when you talk about economic inequality (a major point of OWS), you leave out an important piece of the puzzle if you fail to take into account race, class and gender...
Thank you, Esabi. Those who wish to sweep The Gender Matter under the rug remind me of the way Obama executed a similar move in his alleging we need not look back, as per the unlawful actions of the Bush-Cheney gang. Note, too, that this failure to address the past roots of a current problem allows the problem to continue, if under the radar. Sorry gang, until the lopsided hierarchy of society and the way Western nations, particularly the U.S. identify with the "Dominator Model" is properly addressed, not getting to the ROOT of the problem (which predates capitalism by centuries) means NO healing will result. It is true that Occupy looks at MANY issues and therefore holds up a wide net. It's also true that minorities and women (if I understood this correctly) get to speak first... I'd like to see Indigenous speakers granted access, too. The old ways will become the new ways as human beings will have to leave so many machines behind to adapt directly to Mother Earth again. The climate changes will warrant as much... had leaders invested in alternative energy (and related infrastructure) some years ago, The Transition would have been made all the smoother. However, as we all know, the vast majority did not.
This is the kind of crap I see all of the time on Common Dreams and within the Occupy movement that simply is not true. Gender issues and economic issues are not separate -that's what this article brought up. It is an economic reality that women on average make less money than men. In fact, in the category of recent college graduates, women make 13k less per year than men in the same category. This is an economic problem.
There is no hierarchy of oppression. No one form of oppression is a "greater threat" than any other because they are all connected. It is this kind of thinking that is oppressive to women and is oppressive to anyone who seeks economic justice.
Furthermore, if we avoid these "divisive" issues, we will not address the root forms of oppression that have shaped our society. Our society has divided us. We cannot pretend to be "past that" in order to save each others' lives. We have to confront these realities head on. We have to confront our nation's history that has oppressed people of color, women, people with disabilities, queer people, and trans people. We need to realize that these issues are real and are connected and move past them. Not pretend they don't exist.
Shudda read your post before doing mine! Well said.
I agree. I hadn't read it, either, and then noted we'd both said a lot of the same things. Synchronicity Happens!
"There is no hierarchy of oppression. No one form of oppression is a "greater threat" than any other because they are all connected."
That's a lot of ideological bullshit.
Which would you rather be a poor man or a rich woman?
"No one form of oppression is a "greater threat" than any other because they are all connected. It is this kind of thinking that is oppressive to women and is oppressive to anyone who seeks economic justice"
More bullshit. . I've spent many years organizing unions and fighting for the principle of equal pay for equal work. Particularly, I've fought for better pay in fields that are populated mostly by women. I've also helped to taeach activist strategies and tactics to many women and men who have gone on to be leaders of union and activist organization, far surpassing my achievements.
But because I don't share the current new age "all is one,,worship the goddess" bullshit, I'm reviled by the faux feminist spiritualists who plague this site.
Well I say to you what I say to the bosses, FUCK OFF. You don't know shit and all that you new age spiritualists have is a lot of words and very little organizing ability. For the most part you new age types are posers who come from well off families,
This new age bullshit is exactly what is bringing down the Occupy movement, as the naive "we're all one" approach can't seem to deal with the junkies and leaches that attach themselves to any counter cultural movement.
BTW, let's see the cite for the study you reference. It's the only factual assertion in a comment otherwise stuffed with the usual faux ideological bullshit.
This is a real feminist and Marxist analysis at this link--Engels and the Origins of Women's Oppression - International ...
http://www.isreview.org/issues/02/engles_family.shtml -
Ask this question. What does this analysis show about which came first oppression and class or sexism and when did any kind of oppression take place? It wasn't always there. The class and hierarchy model takes into account which came first.
The analysis above cites many backing her up as well. Do remember Gloria Steinem was a Goldwater Republican. Has she changed? Various disciplines have shown no oppressin existed 10 or 12 millennia ago and that this was an egalitarian world for all. Nothing so far has shown that to be false.
Thanks I will check out this link. Undoubtedly a synthesis of feminism and radical socialism would be a very positive development.
I was a supporter of radical feminism in the 80's, but it never realized it's revolutionary potential. If I thought for one minute that feminism could overthrow the capitalist
order and bring in a new day not spiraling to destruction., I would support it completely. As it stands, feminism is a divisive issue that undermines class solidarity in many ways.
I blame the bourgeoisie feminist types like Steinem for this development, because .the vast billions of women are working class, the vast billions of men are working class, I think maybe even the majority of "white" people are working class, and definitely the vast majority of every other "race." is working class, and never forget that race as espoused in the West is a recent construct.and is at the very core of its definition interlocked with imperialism, slavery, lynching, capitalist rampages, international intrigue and horrific genocidal warfare.
But the trump card is always the class card, and why do I have to keep reminding everybody of this?
I do not think you create unity by ignoring inequality. You just perpetuate inequality. It is not fair, and it takes some of the light and soul out of what you do. The trick is to come up with correctives and non-divisive approaches around which a consensus can be built. Takes good will and creativity, both of which are abundant in OWS participants. Of course narcissistists and grandstanders and others even more destructive will take any opportunity to use an issue to sidetrack and divert a discussion. But I hope we can recognize this when it happens, and get back on track.
I'm hoping the Occupy movement marks the beginning of a long overdue social upheaval that would only be strengthened by aggressively addressing the inequity with which women are treated. However, that strength must come from demonstration of participant consensus.
No good can come from identifying the movement with putative leaders because they are too easily manipulated in the public perception. For example, look at the first two comments in this thread that attack Ms. Steinem and her magazine while ignoring the topic of the article. Her personal history and reputation are immaterial to the subject - her facts (which I believe are accurate) are the only legitimate point for identifying the oppression.
Since establishment politics in this society has been reduced to the "last butthead left standing in the mud fight", reform must be driven by the people, from the street. Then those who would lead must first learn to follow. That's what scares the buttheads and their owners; loss of control. Don't get sucked into their rigged games.
" Her personal history and reputation are immaterial to the subject "
You are engaging in oversimplification. Steinham's history as a divider in the pay of the elite liberal foundations and the CIA is very relevant here. What is Steinham trying to accomplish? Is she trying to legitimately address a problem or is she sewing division by taking the focus off the huge class disparities that transcend gender, and instead harping on a very potentially divisive issue?
Classism trumps sexism as the foremost oppressive ism. Steinham's failure to acknowledge that fact is extremely divisive and a an attempt to divide the 99%.
Finally, Steinham has, by her own admission, a history as a CIA asset and she has never apologized for that involvement. There is considerable evidence that she remains a CIA asset. If you don't think that's relevant, then you are a stooge.
Mr. Hill, you write: >> "Classism trumps sexism as the foremost oppressive ism. Steinham's failure to acknowledge that fact is extremely divisive and a an attempt to divide the 99%." <<
I understand your term "class-ism" to mean an aggregate of conditions that span a broad spectrum of quantified and verified economic inequities that affect many elements of our society including labor, health... and gender, to name a few.
It is, in fact, that total aggregation that validates the Occupy movement's assertion that 99% of us are victims of inequity.
If however, you attempt to discredit the concerns of any of those component elements, you must accept the fact that you are no longer speaking for the 99%. Depending upon the demographics of the elements against whom you discriminate, your chosen constituency may be reduced to just another noisy but ineffective fragment.
So I would ask... who is being divisive here... whose side are you really on... and why?
I'm on the side of the masses, gender is irrelevant o me as far as that is concerned.
I do take insult from your "whose side are you really on...and why"? That question reflects a lot of arrogant presumptions and I wonder just how committed you are to the class struggle, skeptimist.
Not so much I'd guess. My speculation is that you are more interested in identity politics and cultural issues. Many occupiers are rather new to the idea of class struggle and embrace it merely as a means of getting mass support for their particular pet issue.
I have supported many causes and actions championed by working class women, and some of the most effective activists that I have worked with have been women.
The original divisiveness resides with Ms Steinem. Her attempt to turn the focus towards "women's issues" and away from class solidarity is her standard Company MO.
It's easy enough to emphasize "equal pay for equal work" without trying to turn the entire focus of the movement in a divisive direction oriented towards one half of the gender balance.
This kind of discriminatory approach is evident among those like Hillary who emphasized proviing healthcare for "women and children" as if men somehow are less deserving or less in need of healthcare. (In, fact men represent tye majority of the uninsured). This bourgeoisie approach is designed to be divisive and has been very effective in that regard.
Are women really paid unequally for the same work? From cbsnews.com: Why the Gender Pay Gap is a Complete Myth
1. Men are far more likely to choose careers that are more dangerous, so they naturally pay more. Top 10 most dangerous jobs (from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics): Fishers, loggers, aircraft pilots, farmers and ranchers, roofers, iron and steel workers, refuse and recyclable material collectors, industrial machinery installation and repair, truck drivers, construction laborers. They're all male-dominated jobs. 2. Men are far more likely to work in higher-paying fields and occupations (by choice). According to the White House report, "In 2009, only 7 percent of female professionals were employed in the relatively high paying computer and engineering fields, compared with 38 percent of male professionals." Professional women, on the other hand, are far more prevalent "in the relatively low-paying education and health care occupations." 3. Men are far more likely to take work in uncomfortable, isolated, and undesirable locations that pay more. 4. Men work longer hours than women do. The average fulltime working man works 6 hours per week or 15 percent longer than the average fulltime working woman. Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-28246928/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/
Sorry, but your arguments are the same ones we heard 40 years ago. They were crap then, they're crap now, and they'll still be crap 40 years in the future, if we have that long a future. The pay gap shows up in comparisons controlled for those dissimilar factors.
They're not "my arguments." Consider, among many similar reports, "An Analysis of Reasons for the Disparity in Wages Between Men and Women" prepared, under contract, for the U.S. Department of Labor in 1/09: "This study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers."
You embrace them, so they're yours. And they're crap. Look at any study with solid methodology. Hell, look at this Time article. Time is hardly a radical rag.
I didn't just fall off the rutabaga wagon on the way into town. I ran an engineering department for a few years at a Really Big Corporation, and I *watched* the game being rigged.
I'll see you one corporate rag and raise you another: "There Is No Male-Female Wage Gap," by Carrie Lukas, WSJ http://tinyurl.com/3fxtcmy
Have you ever heard of the legal concept of "statement against interest"?
It comes from the idea that statements and claims that go against one's personal or political interests are much more credible than those that support such interests. I invite you to think about which article - Time or WSJ - is more against-interest.
Warren Farrell, former head of the NY Chapter of NOW, is one of those who contends the wage gap is a myth. He spent over 20 years as a leader in the American feminist movement. Statement-against-interest here would suggest prima facie that Farrell's argument has merit. Statement-against-interest is but one criterion to consider when weighing the worthiness of arguments. A claim that is self-serving may actually be valid, while one ostensibly contrary to one's interests may be invalid or false.
So you worked for the corporadoes? So what?
If anything that is discrediting.
What a totally hysterical fact free reply.
Is that the best you can do, assert your opinion as fact and castigate those who disagree? Standard MO for 90% of the feminist crowd.
Fact:
At every level of education, women have lower incomes than men. This is FACT, from the census
And it is hilarious that you rant about Mairead's argument being factless, when RLDT's arguments are just a bunch of opinions.
You're quoting stats that compare professions rather than gender inequities within the same profession. There are many other reports that document women being paid less and receiving fewer opportunities for advancement than men in the same job, same company, same department. As a male manager I have personally witnessed this and the attitudes that supported it in several different companies. While legal requirements have forced some improvements over the years and fewer men harbor and act on a visceral fear of competing with women, the inequities still persist. Some of this is still an economic issue that, I believe, would best be addressed by a resurgence in collective bargaining. And some of it is cultural which, like racial nonsense, will only fade over generations of social evolution.
" Some of this is still an economic issue that, I believe, would best be addressed by a resurgence in collective bargaining.'
Now you're onto something. I have worked over the years to promote higher wages in typically female professions (teachers & child care workers). But many find it's easier to cry and moan and sew divisiveness by making statements that castigate men in general.
I don't appreciate lectures about sexism from bourgeoisie sellouts and CIA assets, like Steinham and many other strident "feminists".
"Now you're onto something. I have worked over the years to promote higher wages in typically female professions (teachers & child care workers). But many find it's easier to cry and moan and sew divisiveness by making statements that castigate men in general. "
Nope. Stating that income inequality, ie facts, is not castigating men.
"I don't appreciate lectures about sexism from bourgeoisie sellouts and CIA assets, like Steinham and many other strident "feminists". "
Steinem is a pet of the establishment, sure. But what makes you this great champion of the working class? Because you self-appoint yourself so?
So because i consistently espouse the cause of the workers and the poor, I'm a "self appointed" champion of the working class?
That little comment says more about your classism than it does about me.
Yes you are. Hint, despite your delusions of grandeur, all of us only speak for ourselves.
Despite your delusions of grandeur, you do not speak for workers or the poor. You speak for yourself. No one else.
RD:
AS per this comment of yours:
"3. Men are far more likely to take work in uncomfortable, isolated, and undesirable locations that pay more."---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you clean lots of babies' behinds and change their diapers? Would you do likewise for the elderly residents in rest homes? Or how about being a chamber maid, cleaning up the filth people leave behind in motel rooms, banos included?---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is considered "women's work" is by NATURE paid less. Why are macho athletes paid a million bucks for football games, while teachers are lucky to get $35,000 annually?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PRIORITIES that society rewards reflect the values that angry white protestant males, preferably warriors or X warriors (or designers of war) prefer. Just as when I studied screenwriting, we were told that the average film produced in America is written for a horney teenage male who wants to get laid on a Friday night. THAT is the level of Amerika's cultural "sensibility," and all values preceding herewith from that point! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope, if there's a woman in your life, she locks the bedroom door for 6 months.
"Would you clean lots of babies' behinds and change their diapers? Would you do likewise for the elderly residents in rest homes? Or how about being a chamber maid, cleaning up the filth people leave behind in motel rooms, banos included?" No, I wouldn't. Point taken. "What is considered "women's work" is by NATURE paid less. Why are macho athletes paid a million bucks for football games, while teachers are lucky to get $35,000 annually." Some of those teachers happen to be men, and many multimillionaires happen to be young beautiful women showing off their face & figure for corporations and trash magazines (e.g., Megan Fox, Kim Kardashian). "The PRIORITIES that society rewards reflect the values that angry white protestant males..." And women, too. You don't really want to defend a manichaean line of reasoning here, do you (women=saints, men=bastards)? I can think of a lot of good and honorable people who are white, male, and rich (e.g., Ralph Nader, Noam Chomsky, and on most days, Michael Moore), and a lot of women, rich or not so rich, who are mean and despicable (Hillary Clinton, Sara Palin, Casey Anthony, Ann Coulter, Condoleeza Rice, to name a few). "I hope, if there's a woman in your life, she locks the bedroom door for 6 months." You were doing okay up to that point -- I'd give you a B minus -- but then you stooped to taking a dig at me. If you (and others here) must know, I come from a large family and learned feminism firsthand by seeing how my mother was treated as she brought my siblings and me up; I learned about feminism long before I read de Beauvoir, Friedan, Pollitt, Dworkin, and many others. And FYI: women know me to be a very nice and respectful (though contrarian) guy.
RDLT: If you really read the books you indicated, I'm amazed that you can post what you have. The entire MODEL of "civilization" has been drawn up by males. ONLY males head the Catholic church, and up until recently, no female ministers were ordained by Protestant sects. Since church and State were unifed in Europe, and most of US culture derives from there, the complete masculine bias deeply informs Western thought, and all of the branches of academe. Earlier societies predated the Hebrew & Christian & Roman eras, and these were arranged on the basis of more egalitarian, matriarchal-leaning values. In other words, with female input, the entire societal order was OTHER than what we've seen down the bloody centuries that compose most of written HIS story. --------------------------------------------------------------------
To use a Kardashian as an example of a high paid woman does nothing to counter the narrative that what is rewarded by our society is what appeals to white men. Sure, advertising has learned to corner all sorts of markets, and advertising is the propaganda arm to to the corporate war on citizens' values. Why waste the potential profit advantages of ANY demographic? --------------------------------------------------------
I was amazed when I finally took the advice of several in the forum, especially GW NORTH who is one male who really gets it (as does Jclientelle, Justice Arcs, and.... hard to think of another off-hand) and began reading "The Chalice and the Blade." Its author, Riane Eisler is a far more committed researcher (to articles of antiquity) than I am, yet I found that her argument about the current DOMINATOR society 100% consistent with my points frequently made to this forum, that the archetype of Mars runs our culture. I don't think there's any way to dispute this IF the facts are known. However, they are not. And as Reisler points out, it's generally more important to academe to maintain its status quo orthodoxy than to let the matter of facts get in the way of the old story. The same apparatus shows up when a really cutitng edge medical doctor finds a better, more natural approach to an illness. Current treatment programs become like sanctified rituals, not to mention well-rewarded. Anyone who bucks The Old Way is considered a virtual heretic and punished accordingly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Rudolph Steiner, the preeminent mystic living during Hitler's time stated that "science is mostly a consensus among mediocre minds." And it's due to that conformity thing. The type of lock-step Mars rules male baboon hierarchy that has half the State Department going along with bogus info so that Bush, the warrior wannabe can declare war and wipe out a million people. But then, oh, I forget, "We don't do body counts." And I've seen men I otherwise admire in this forum, pull up the TIRED CANARD that Hillary Clinton, Condi Rice, Sarah Palin, Margaret Thatcher, and Madeleine Albright were all pro-war, warrior women, as if the case is settled because a few women ego-driven enough to rise high up the U.S. ranks of power adapted to the make-war state. (By the same token, I know a few men who are far more whole, balanced, and Yin-leaning than some intense women I also know.)-------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would take VOLUMES to properly address this issue, and since you allege to have read some of the material I might have quoted, I have to wonder how it is that you're taking the libertarian/sexist/right wing view of matters here? Of course if you're a Capricorn and/or have a strong Saturn placement in your chart, boatloads of data won't undercut your own innate conservativism. There's an almost full moon out, it's far warmer than it should be, and I promised my dog a bike ride. As Dana Carvey would say, as Church lady on SNL, "Discuss it amongst yourselves." I want to BE with the night sky and let the stars speak to my soul.
SR: I read your reply, nodding in agreement with most of it, and then was disheartened to see -- once again -- the lapse into labeling and name-calling. I happen to be a Nader voter who is sceptical of most received wisdom (including that on the subject of pay parity), and I'm an Aries, not a Capricorn, not that I think it matters a whit. You take pains to tell me that males have dominated history without acknowledging that in certain respects it has been a GOOD thing. Name a field of inquiry, name an art or intellectual endeavor: men have bestowed them all on civilization. Hippocrates, Euclid and Pythagoras were men; so too were Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, and Dante, Shakespeare, and Milton; and Galileo, Newton, and Einstein. Some of the most peaceful and loving people the world has ever known were men: e.g., the Buddha, Jesus, Francis of Assisi, Gandhi. Music? We have Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Tchaikovsky. Art? Michaelangelo, Rembrandt, Raphael, Da Vinci. There is no humanity or intellectualism without men, but do you (and others of your "persuasion") ever acknowledge this? Hell no. You only know men as conquerors, villains, pillagers, rapists. I've read all the feminists I mentioned before, and many other ones in addition, but believe it or not I can still say that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in their philosophy.
P.S. Since you think YOU are in a position to give MY post a grade, I'll return the favor. You get an A- for diction, and a D for content: insincere. I, too, have been a teacher... and consider it a Calling that is retained for life.
Insincere? Not knowing me, how can you say that? Why can't somebody simply have a different point of view, even on a subject dear to your heart, without having his character questioned? That doesn't sound very charitable or open-minded to me.
"That doesn't sound very charitable or open-minded to me. .."
That's true. Just benaeth the surface of scumbagrose's faux new age benevolence is a mean spirit and a closed mind.
She likes to moan and whine and castigate men, but what has she done to actually address the issues of gender inequality.
I have coordinated successful campaigns to increase pay and benefits for child care workers and adjunct teachers, two very heavily female occupations, but because I disagree with scumbagrose's hysterical anti-male "spirituality," she labels me a serial killer! What a pathetic POS.
Scumbag Rose! Do something to help women in undrpaid fields! But your probabaly too busy being a landlord and labeling men as evil martians.
I agree that the "serial killer" reference was way out line. Nor can I understand the anti-male ethos of certain self-identified "feminists." The dread word "patriarchy" flies out of their mouth, but they never acknowledge the immense historical contributions of men in all realms -- religious and spirital, aristic and intellectual, in government, law, medicine, and across the professions.
My advisor in grad school remarked to her advisees one day that what every woman professional needs more than anything else is a wife. Because the men who made these "immense historical contributions" were able to do so only because they didn't need to worry about the minutiae of everyday life: they had wives and/or other servants. We all thought about that and had to agree based on our own experiences in trying to juggle the demands of work and home.
Many of the men who made these immense historical contributions were either gay (e.g., Plato, Bacon, Michelangelo, Proust, Wilde, to name a few) or lifelong bachelors (e.g., Kant, Newton, Nietzsche, Tesla).I have no doubt that your advisor and other professional women consider men to be a terrible burden and pine for a cute and cuddly housewife instead.
I know you're just trolling for argument, but you're doing it very politely. So I've no intention of lodging an official complaint. But I'm not going to put much energy into responding to you, either. I think that if you check the historical record, you'll find that the men you name had female servants to see that they were fed, had clean clothing, etc. They didn't do for themselves.