From: julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Date: 11 Nov 92 00:32:01 GMT
	<BxIpLn.Gox@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil>
Organization: The Cultural Elite

perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:

[discussion about Warren Farrell's comment on the famous $.59 statistic]

>>stevenra@feserve.cc.purdue.edu (Alex Stevens) writes:

>>> to say about the opposite of what you inferred.  It's basically
>>> something to the effect of "if women make half of what guys make, why
>>> don't they all hire women, and cut salary costs in half???"

>The way this statistic is commonly presented attempts to imply that a
>woman working the same job as a man can expect to make only 59% as much.
>This is what the quote under discussion tries to refute.

It's usually presented simplistically, certainly, but I don't remember
hearing anyone saying that it applied to a woman "working the same job"
as a man (on average).  Rather, I've seen it presented in the context
you give here:

>If I recall correctly, it is a comparison of the average pay of a working
>woman versus that of a working man. It actually says nothing at all about
>whether individual working women are being shafted, because men and women
>often *are* working different types of jobs.

Exactly.  The argument I've seen is that women are often directed (by direct
discrimination, by discrimination in early training (e.g. being shunted
into secretarial courses in school or discouraged from taking math), or
by societal expectations) into "pink collar" jobs -- jobs traditionally
held by women -- which are low-paying.  The people who use this statistic
generally argue that in a non-discriminatory workforce (and educational
system), one would expect to see women and men exhibit less of a tendency
to clump like that, and the average pay for each group would be much more
similar.  They also argue that women _are_, in fact, being shafted by the
system we have now, otherwise men and women would end up in jobs that pay
about the same.  (One problem I have with this is that it seems to make
the usual stupid economist's assumption that money is everything, and
that quality of life is directly and absolutely proportional to salary.)

Personally, I think the $.59/$1.00 statistic _is_ pretty useless, for many
reasons, most of which have been brought up by others on this group.  After
all, the statistic is basically a side effect; pointing it out doesn't give
us any idea what to do except to encourage us to bitch and moan.  It's only
when we get to more specific statistics that we get some idea of where the
problems lie and what we can do to solve them.  But I don't think the
$.59 stat is used quite as stupidly as you (and Farrell? his quote may
be out of context) imply.  If you can find some use of it referring to 
an average man and woman who "work the same job", I'd be surprised.

---Julie
-- 
* loris, n.     Any of several small, nocturnal, arboreal primates of the *
* genera _Loris_ and _Nycticebus_, of tropical Asia, having dense, woolly *
* fur, large eyes, and a vestigial tail.  [French, probably from obsolete *
* Dutch _loeris_, simpleton, clown.]    ---- American Heritage Dictionary *
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men