ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

swdowning said 08/17, 05:48 AM
This claim is untrue and is based on a fallacious interpretation of the available data. It is, however, necessary to support the feminists' continued claim that women are victims. If women's rights activists would acknowledge the gains made by women over the past 35 years, they would have to recognize that equality has largely been achieved. The next day, of course, they would be out of a job. It is the leadership of the women's rights movement who are motivated to keep women being perceived as victims. They are the ones who are really oppressing women - and only for political gain. The "70 (or so)-cents-to-the-dollar" myth can be debunked by drilling down through the governmental report upon which the myth is based, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (USBLS) quarterly report.

Yes, it says that full-time female workers earn 70 (something) cents to the dollar that full-time male workers earn. But it also says that a full-time employee (FTE) is anyone who works more than 32 hours per week, and more than 26 weeks per year. Anyone who works more than 40 hrs. per wk, is still one FTE. Adjusting for this along M/F lines takes care of most of the discrepancy.

swdowning said 08/19, 12:11 AM
Great points, Mark. And if my original argument had been "sexism no longer exists in our society" then I would have to cede the argument to you. But that wasn't my original argument. I will stipulate that I could better have phrased my point; so let me do so in a way that actually makes your argument easier: "Pay differences between men and women do not reflect or prove systemic sexism, but are based on numerous non-sex-based factors." I think this is more the point you are trying to refute. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Using USBLS data, if we adjust for hours worked / wk, and wks worked / year, the difference in pay jumps from 70+ cents to the $1.00 to 97 cents to the $1.00. If we factor in college major, time worked with a company, time worked in the specific industry, and marital status, there is virtually no difference in pay. In fact, never-married women earn $1.01 to every $1.00 that never-married men earn. That's what I meant by "for the most part." Would you consider this to be sexism against men? It meets your criterion; but my argument isn't that sexism doesn't exist. Of course it does, but we can't prove it by comparing paychecks between men and women.

swdowning said 08/21, 03:02 AM
I never said that there was no inequality in pay. I said that the 70-something cents-to-the-dollar figure is no longer accurate; I went on to say that pay disparity is not a valid index of sexism. There are two issues here. First: you seem to be trying to tie "70-something cents" to any pay disparity. I never said that there's no pay disparity. In fact I gave an example of pay disparity in which women earn more than men. You have yet to address that. "Unequal pay" doesn't require a specific disparity. By the same token, any disparity doesn't disprove my thesis, which I restated to better address your concerns. Second: is the degree to which pay differences are valid indices of sexism.

My point is that we can't cite pay disparity as proof of sexism. Unequal pay exists for a number of non-sexist reasons, some of which I mentioned.

Some women earn less than men, some earn more. Women are more apt to work 32 hrs./wk. and 26 wks./yr.; men are more apt to work 40+ hrs./wk. and 50+ wks./yr. Men earn more because they work more. That's not sexism, it's fair.

The bottom line is you can't refute my point by simply proving a pay difference.