Community >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Sat Feb 25, 2017
In Reply To

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Subj: Re: The Gender Wage Gap Is Not Due To Sexism. It's An Earnings Gap! I Think That This Is Important To Share.
Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 at 09:56:18 pm EDT (Viewed 815 times)
Reply Subj: Re: The Gender Wage Gap Is Not Due To Sexism. It's An Earnings Gap! I Think That This Is Important To Share.
Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 at 06:17:13 pm EDT (Viewed 884 times)

    Yeah, of course a very conservative think tank is going to propagate this spiel.

This is funny to me. The stories posted by Comicguy1 and yourself are so very similar. They both state the "77 cents to a dollar" claim is fiction. They both state that any remaining pay difference has many other factors other than sexism. And they both state that corrective action may not be required. But because the first story came from a site which leans conservative (I'm not familiar with AEI, but I will take your word for it), the article is, according to you "propagating this spiel". The AEI story says the same thing as the story from Polifact. How is one article propagating spiel, but the other is acceptable? You could almost switch articles between the two sites, they are so similar.

    Yes, the gender wage gape can be misleading and there is a gender earnings gap, but there remains a gender wage gap as well. It's complicated and people can misuse the statistics easily, but this encapsulates the situation pretty well:


    Basically studies show when factors are the same for both genders, women tend to still lag behind and on average get paid about 93%-95% of what men do. Women have done a lot of catching up with men, but there are a lot of industries in which women are paid less than men for doing the same work or just aren't hired. Take the film industry, which is largely run by men. Only about 10% of feature film directors are women. Or you get Mark Wahlberg getting paid $1.5 million for reshoots and Michelle Williams getting paid $1,000 for the same thing. Women are catching up, but they aren't quite there yet.

To attribute the Mark Wahlberg/Michelle Williams story to sexism, and to link it to "Women are catching up, but they aren't quite there yet" just shows your complete lack of knowledge regarding the details of the situation. It's also shows your lack of effort to understand other reasons behind pay differences. You're stuck on the old women-being-held-down-by-men story, that you're ignoring simple facts.

It was in Mark Wahlberg's contract that he would not do re-shoots without getting paid. Michelle Williams had a different contract. Not because of sexism, but because that is what she agreed to. Mark Wahlberg is a mega star in Hollywood. He has the clout to demand that type of clause in his contract. While Michelle Williams is best known for that Dawson's Creek tv show from 20 years ago. Either she doesn't have the same clout, or she has a management team not as smart as Wahlberg's (possibly both). There is zero evidence the pay difference had anything to do with one being a man, and the other a woman. Absolutely none. But you include this in the discussion. Why? Why to you is this such an obvious example of a sexual pay discrimination that you used it for your example?

Imagine a movie staring Meryl Streep needed as big of a re-shoot as All The Money In The World. Now imagine the movie also included the blonde guy from Dawson's Creek. Who do you think would be likely to get more money for a re-shoot? Meryl Streep or Dawson? I'm asking for an answer. Who do you think would get paid more for re-shoots?

I'd guess Meryl Streep. Not because of sexism, but because she is a bigger star, who can demand more money.

Posted with Google Chrome 65.0.3325.181 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software