If you didn't catch "Meet the Press" yesterday, you missed a lively conversation about, among other things, women's votes in 2012 and the policy controversies that have put women's issues at the forefront of the political landscape.
As you'll see in this clip, around the 5:20 mark, Rachel noted the pay disparity between men and women in this country, which prompted some unexpected pushback (and incessant interruptions) from Republican strategist Alex Castellanos.
The angle to this to keep in mind is that the Republicans on the panel, Castellanos and Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), simply reject the available facts on the wage gap. Despite ample evidence that shows women make less than men for the same work, Castellanos chooses to believe his own version of reality in which that's not the case.
As Rachel responded, "Wow. OK. Well, we're working from different facts." She added that this parallel perspective is critically important:
"The interruption is important, I think, because now we know, at least from both of your [Castellanos and McMorris Rodgers] perspectives, that women are not faring worst than men in the economy, that women aren't getting paid less for equal work. I think that's a serious difference in factual understanding of the world. But given that, some of us believe that women are getting paid less than men for doing the same work, there's something called the Fair Pay Act. There was a court ruling that said the statute of limitations, if you're getting paid less than a man, if you're subject to discrimination, starts before you know that discrimination is happening, effectively cutting off your recourse to the courts. You didn't know you were being discriminated against, you can't go.
"The first law passed by this administration is the Fair Pay Act to remedy that court ruling. The Mitt Romney campaign put you [McMorris Rodgers] out as a surrogate to talk -- to shore up people's feelings about this issue after they could not say whether or not Mitt Romney would've signed that bill. You're supposed to make us feel better about it. You voted against the Fair Pay Act. It's not about whether or not you have a female surrogate. It's about policy and whether or not you want to fix some of the structural discrimination that women really do face that Republicans don't believe is happening."
There's simply no shared foundation of reality, which in turn shapes the policy debate in unproductive ways. The left sees gender-based pay disparity and looks for mechanisms to address the problem; the right rejects the existence of the disparity and sees no use for the solutions because, to them, there is no problem.
For his part, Castellanos tried to move the conversation away from the substance, evidence, and fact-based policies, and instead told Rachel, "I love how passionate you are. I wish you were as right about what you're saying as you are passionate about it. I really do."
Rachel noted that his comments were condescending, adding, "My passion on this issue is actually me making a factual argument on it."
Because the conservatives on the panel are "working from different facts," the factual arguments didn't seem to matter.
Leave a Comment:
Republicans in state legislatures have been happy to put forward legislation banning same-sex marriage which is already illegal in those states. They're willing to double-ban it, and then to double, extra, super-ban it.
They think women are not getting paid less then men for the same work, but they don't want a law to require that. Why wouldn't they want to double, extra, super-ban it if they don't think it's happening, given that they double, extra, super-ban same-sex marriage which isn't happening (in their states, anyway)?
Could we get them to say that it would be bad IF it happened, even though they say it's not happening?
Ya know, I love Rachel Maddow. But I have to ask her - because MSNBC will never answer - why they claim to be so progressive, so critical of big oil, big pharma, and corporations yet almost *every* commercial on their shows or ads on their websites are for these very companies! Even in this article there's an ad for Exxon, one of the biggest beneficiaries of government corporate welfare and one of the most egregious destroyers of the environment! Incredibly hypocritical of MSNBC. I'd love to know what Rachel has to say about it. Somehow, I doubt we'll ever find out.
Rachel has discussed this issue a few times. She and the staff at TRMS and the people who work at the news division of MSNBC do not control what is or isn't advertised on the network (including online). That is controlled exclusively by the marketing department of MSNBC/NBC. On the one hand Maddow describes this as being good because it helps to segregate the news division from the influence of the corporate system that otherwise has a monopoly on our news. On the other hand it certainly shows how contrary to the American people the objectives of news (in a general way) has become. The way Maddow encourages people to think about it is that Exxon and all these other oil companies are wasting their money trying to advertise to people who will never buy into their ads. It's probably also worthwhile to point out that the entire time they air these ads, when contrasted to the factual information out there (as presented often by MSNBC), creates a schism where you, the American voter, can see exactly how it is that you're being lied to and manipulated by big oil. In an inadvertent way the advertising by Exxon and all these other companies works counter-intuitively to their goals and works intuitively for the progressive agenda.
It is annoying- don't get me wrong here I'm not at all attempting to defend these obnoxious advertisements. It's just one of those situations where I'm not honestly sure that anything can be gained by attacking TRMS for it or MSNBC news directly. You can try, however, complaining to MSNBC marketing or to their corporate division. Those people have control over the issue. So at the very least if you're looking for whom to yell at that's your starting point.
You could choose to see it as a magnificent con. Yeah, MSNBC takes their ad dollars, but those dollars aren't buying editorial control.
But if you really can't stand the commercials, you can mute the sound during broadcast, or fast-forward through commercials if you've recorded the show, or download the ad-free podcasts. And there are ad-blocking, script-blocking and cookie-blocking extensions for most browsers. It's not like you're helpless against the onslaught of online ads and tracking.
How do republicans convince america they respect the women's voice?? they smirk and roll their eyes behind her back when she is speaking.. how cute she is... I mean 'passionate'... ik.
The woman across the desk was looking at her like a child...which is exactly how she was acting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States
the wage gap goes down considerably when you take into consideration other influencing factors:
"Economist June O'Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found an unexplained pay gap of 8% after controlling for experience, education, and number of years on the job. Furthermore, O'Neil found that among young people who have never had a child, women's earnings approach 98 percent of men's"
And again I ask- what is the point here? So now it's OK for women to be paid 98% of what men make? Or that it's OK for women in general to make less than men in general? These are things that we should aim for?
Even more obviously - if there is no pay gap, then what does it matter if women are allowed to sue for a lack of pay equity due to their gender? There just won't be any cases right?
Picking out a little detail here and there doesn't make income disparity go away. This has been explained. Gender-based pay disparity is an accepted fact because, taking the data all together, it is a well-substantiated and documented thing.
But I'm wasting my time, I know, because for "conservatives" it's the little blips of data that are more important than the overall trends. I suppose that's the inevitable result of being unable to pay attention to more than one thing at a time.
Hi Rachel,
You are always great on Meet the Press! Please invite Alex on your show so you will have time to beat him down. In that way you will have time to get into a real discussion. He cannot stand the fact that you know what you are talking about!
Come to Michigan for a book signing. We will love to have you here. Thanks for the great coverage.
Rachel accusing someone else of being condescending is hilarious. Watch her show! Every time she opens her mouth she is condescending...am I right? Thats her style on that show. Not surprising how fast Rachel can point out what she does so quickly in others.
No, you are wrong. You are simply projecting. And you are confusing a firm command of facts and data with condescension. I suppose that it's natural for someone who doesn't understand the value of facts to feel threatened by people who have an overwhelming advantage in that respect.
And I can't help but notice that you just registered for Newsvine and that every comment you've ever made is in this topic. So you clearly have a compelling interest in this and only this subject, and you have only one thing to say about it although you say it repeatedly. Paid by the word, then?
David Greggory is such a stupid @!$%#. Hillary apologized 100 million times already and in my opinion shouldn't have apologized even once. For him to cater to the stupid @!$%#s out there that think Hillary's comments were an "issue" or "offensive", what a @!$%#ing TOOL. She said NOTHING offensive. She stated a fact. Ann has never WORKED a day in her life, and the context it was used was purely economical. And unless i missed the memo, staying home to take care of kids DOESN'T COME WITH A PAYCHECK. She didn't say, stay at home mom's are lazy and less then women who work in the workforce.
And what she said was true. Ann wouldn't have the slightest clue what ECONOMIC struggles working women go though cause guess what...her husband is richer then God! Not once did she have to pick what bills to pay and what to let go.
That said, I honestly don't believe Republicans and Democrats can work together anymore. I honestly believe it would be better for the country to split into two separate nations. Because after watching this panel and other recent ones, it's clear as day that Republicans and Democrats just don't see the world the same. A Democrat could hold a blue ball in front of a Republican and say "This is a blue ball" and the Republican would go to it's grave denying this.
Let the Republicans have their @!$%#ed up backwards views, their states and their morons that vote for them. And watch their country alienate themselves from the rest of the worlds nations, impoverish their people, and enforce their BULL@!$%# christian beliefs on everyone they rule. While the rest of us stick to our democratic states and move on without them.
WORKING is a technical term for making money and bringing it home to pay for stuff. You are correct, Ann Romney doesn't WORK. I am on your side, here. Why can't people comprehend concepts before they blow several weeks of arguing on them. Obama supporters missed the real point to hit Romney on when he said "I like firing people." He was discussing this, because he was saying that we should be able to fire our insurance companies. Like hell! Since when? My family gives every spare dime to the company that provides our Individual Plan. We can't fire them, and that's the PROBLEM.
Instead of working with this idiotic statement in the context in which Romney meant it, we got off on the "I like to fire people" gig. What a stupid waste of time.
Romney was wrong on insurance companies and Hillary was right in what she said about Ann Romney. However, she was not saying it in order to attack the woman herself. She was talking about the fact that he seems unable to connect directly with women. Instead, indirectly, he is able to get a whiff of what women think by tapping his wife's perceptions.
Hillary right. Romney wrong.
And another thing, I absolutely hated that moron that kept interrupting Rachael. Made me want put a bag over his head. I'll be listening tonight. Hope Rachael will be on.
Just another example of the Republican determination to drag America, kicking and screaming, into the 19th century
I disagree. They're aiming for the 16th century, I'm sure, so they bring back burning witches and other undesirables at the stake.
Wow.
Blame the President for the increased price in gas when the Oil companies are backing Reps?
Wow.
Wow, I thought it was just me but after reading other posts I'm glad to see that others too, believe that David Gregory has lost his nerve. I thought he was the moderator? To me, he had no control over the panel and in fact, tried to cut Rachel off in mid-sentence.
These republican shils disgust me to no end. They have no honor, no integrity and care nothing for truth or facts. It had become impossible to debate these liars because they have no shame. But for the gop, lying is just another name for conversation.
These people disgust me. GG Rachel
Discovered this clip via Charlie Pierce, who has some choice words regarding Gregory and Castellanos.
Notice how Gregory digs idiotically into the Rosen pseudo-scandal at the beginning of the show ... what a ****. Oh wait, I can't use that kind of language here. (But Charlie Pierce has no such scruples.)
Given the constraints of a show like Meet the Press, Doc Maddow was great. But the question I'd like to see addressed (and I know it can't be addressed in a full-spin zone like MTP) is: why the gender-pay gap? The Republicans are trying to explain it away; they think it'll be convincing to most people to say simply that women aren't as committed to their jobs due to children, etc., etc. But what are the real reasons? Employers can't openly have separate pay scales for men and women employees -- so how does it happen?
Frank, there IS no gender pay gap. Like the 'war on women,' this is one of those contrived issues that feminists have paraded around for decades.
EVERY woman I know earns the same as a man with all things being equal (level of education, comparable skills, etc.).
It's an election year - and the left knows it's in the fight of its life - so they have to blow the dust off this stupid issue.
Rachel Maddow earns $2,000,000 a year (!) at MSNBC - for looking at a camera and spouting leftist propaganda for an hour five nights a week. Somehow, I kinda think Rachel doesn't have an accurate pulse on the struggles that EVERYBODY (not just women) are having in this Obama economy...
I just listed a handful of sources on the other page that prove that there is a pay gap. But even if there is no pay gap then why be against the Lilly Ledbetter bill? Where do you think it benefits you to say that because this is a non-issue that bill shouldn't exist? It allows women (and ftr it would also allow men) to sue if their pay is being docked on the basis of gender. What is wrong w/ that? And where do you think it benefits you or the Republican Party to argue that the pay discrimination doesn't exist? Do you think that women who are being discriminated against in their pay agree? Should we just ignore those women who are being discriminated against in their pay? This is what I cannot understand- I think you're so ready to defend your position you're not even realizing how silly your counter argument is. You are essentially justifying the behavior. I realize that you're not trying to, but this is what ends up happening when you make scapegoat arguments. We've been over this before, john.
Because sane people are sick of this kind of legislation. It's no surprise that trial lawyers LOVE leftist politicians and are in the pockets of the Democrats.
If a person (male or female) isn't happy with what they're earning, either ask for a raise - or go find another job. Life can truly be that simple. Employers don't want to lose good people - and they CERTAINLY won't want to hire a person who they believe is a threat to sue them.
When nonsensical legislation like this is passed, what will an employer do? Do you think they will hire MORE women if they believe any of them can threaten them with a frivolous lawsuit? If any employer hires a man, believes he is honestly is doing a better job than, say, a woman he just hired with comparable skills - is the female now going to sue him because she's now earning less than her male counterpart? Why is the left so unbelievably sue-happy?
It's THIS kind of nonsense going on in our country that has people in poll after poll, upwards of 80%, indicating that they believe we're on the wrong track. People are sick, sick, sick of a mindless litigious society.
Just so everyone is clear here John just stated that he is perfectly OK w/ businesses paying women less on the basis of gender and that women should NOT have a means by which to seek legal recourse if they are paid less
Do you understand how lawsuits like this work? Taking someone to court does not mean that they are proven guilty. Taking someone to court means that you are levying an accusation that must be proven upon trial. It is incumbent upon the person making the accusation to provide the evidence in court. Additionally the person filing the complaint (the plaintiff) pays all fees if it's found out that the employer (the defendant) did not discriminate on the basis of gender. Additionally in order to bring the lawsuit forward the plaintiff must have some evidence suggesting that their claim is true. Otherwise current law prevents the suit from going to court. You are aware of this, yes? If the employer doesn't want to be sued then he/she simply shouldn't discriminate on the basis of gender. It's that simple.
What makes it nonsensical? The fact that you have arbitrarily deemed it to be so or the fact that you believe women should be paid less and therefore shouldn't be allowed to sue for compensation? Remember that this law works both for men and women. So, by your logic, the employer wouldn't want to hire anyone since either men or women can sue on the basis of gender discrimination. And no I don't think they would stop hiring because a. this law has been in place since the 70's and that has not really barred employment (unless you've data to show otherwise) and b. this law protects businesses who aren't discriminating based on pay. Businesses have more protections under the Lilly Ledbetter law, not less
If the employer hires a man to do job X and that man has, let's say, 5 years worth of experience and 2 years working for the company then that man will be paid Y on the basis of those details. If the company goes and hires a female as a new employee presumably she would be paid less because she hasn't worked for the company for the same time. If, however, the company has a female ex who is also doing job X, has 5 years worth of experience, and 2 years w/ the company and she is making less than her male counterpart then yes this is completely suspicious. If she can find evidence (such as other women in her sector w/ similar backgrounds being paid less) that suggests she is being paid less on the basis of her gender then she gets to sue. Why does the right want people to be discriminated against?
This is an ad populum argument and is a logical fallacy. What people think is or isn't right does not equate to what is actually right or wrong. Additionally if you want to bring in polling upwards of 90% of the population support equal pay laws and laws like the ledbetter act. So whatever point you were trying to make here is made moot.
The Mouzer -- You're obviously not going to get a rational response from johnlorican. Arguing with him is tilting at windmills.
Personally I was just wondering how johnlorican knows with certainty that all the women in his life are paid equally to their male colleagues. Does he have full access to the payroll records of the organizations they work for?
But then, why would he even care enough to obtain this information (assuming he had the power to do so)? After all, he's deeply convinced as a matter of principle that employers have a moral right to discriminate against women systematically.
What people like jl and all the other wingers don't get is that this isn't about framing or the political process or ideology. We are saying that there is a pay gap and that women's rights are under threat because we can see these things with our own eyes and feel it in our own lives. Things are happening in the real world, and nonpolitical and nonideological people are pointing to that and saying, "Hey! Those things are happening!"
In a way, I'm happy for the wingers to remain oblivious to real-world events and the consequences to their own actions. As long as they remain so blind, they will stumble and fall. They'll do a lot of damage as they flail around, but that will only draw more attention to what is really going on in politics and policy on the right.
The first step to self-destruction is to deny that you have a problem, and the right are steaming toward an iceberg of denial.
I think I would have found his interruptions and arguments less offensive (although, of course, no less wrong) if they hadn't been so incredibly obviously buying into and promoting the sexist frame of women as overly emotional and therefore not capable of being rational. In fact, this is the essence of the entire Republican framing of this debate - there is no substantive war on women, it's just that the women are letting themselves get all worked up and 'passionate' over what the men (in this case, the Democratic men) are telling them.
I am really glad that Rachel called him on his condescension, even if (as I do think is possible) he didn't mean it that way - he doesn't have to be conscious of his complicity in this misogynistic attack to be culpable. The reason I love Rachel (and thank you to the above poster for referring to her as Dr. Maddow - interesting how so many people ignore her title) so much is because she is always based in the facts - the real, peer-reviewed ones - and bases her reactions on those facts, rather than the other way around.
What about rachel interrupting him...he couldnt get a word in edgewise without her flying out of her chair...go back and watch the tape. She got more time to speak on there than anyone...significantly more. It doesnt appear that you caught that. She was permitted to blabber.
Two answers: in the clip linked to here, she is asked to speak first and he begins to interrupt during her portion - is it any wonder she interrupts to be able to speak when she is supposed to be speaking in the first place? My second thought is that the interruptions actually don't bother me a whole lot on either side. It's an argument, there should be some back and forth. It was the content much more than the form of his interruptions that bothered me.
Right, she was 'permitted to blabber' if by that you mean that she kept trying to complete her sentences and answer the question Gregory had asked her instead of shutting up and letting the old straight white man take over. Some people just don't know their place, do they? The ingratitude!
Blabber?!!! Seriously Blabber?!! Psst your misogyny is showing.
I live in McMorris-Rogers district ! What can I do to help get rid of her. I am 64 and blind. It needs to be more than just voting!
That man reminds me of Dabney Coleman in "9 to 5", totally slick, sexist, scum.
Leave it to NBC to believe that they have the pulse on 'women's issues' by featuring Hilary 'Ann's never worked a day in her life' Rosen and Rachel '$2 million/year' Maddow on the show....
...what a complete joke.
What an absurd network.
NBC? pulse on "womens issues" How did you draw this conclusion? Just because they are actually talking about it? The fact that women get paid less for doing the same job is a FACT. Pretending the elephant isn't in the room, as the Republicans are choosing to do, is unfair to half the population of this country. Acknowledging that half the population is being ignored is good policy and will draw an audience, which is their economic goal as it will draw advertisers.
As for Dr. Maddows pay..... perhaps she deserves at least 77% of the 28 million that Mr. (not Dr.) Limbaugh makes.....
The republicans find it difficult to debate facts. The GOP are such hypocrites about everything, but their hypocrisy is especially glaring when it comes to women. So, staying home with the kids is hard work and a good thing to do if you are middle class and higher income. If you are a poor woman and stay home with your kids then you are lazy per the GOP and need to go to work to set a good example.
I live in McMorris Rogers district. Can you think of a creative way to get her out of Congress? Besides voting. I am blind, so have some limitations. Maybe she could be Romneys Vice President. Another Sarah?
I saw you ask this twice and thought I might be able to help with an answer. I'm no expert, but I think the best thing you can do is to talk to people. Tell them about her voting record, show then this clip and explain why she was wrong and Rachel and Hilary were right. You could also get involved with your local democratic party and the campaign of her opponent. I don't know the situation in your district, but if there are any demonstrations against her or petitions to sign, you can do that, too. I'm only just starting to get politically involved, but these are some of the things I've done so far.
Finally some clarity on how differently so many on the right see the world. Like a blind spot, many just cannot see women as equal.
Castellanos losing sponsors/supporters in 3...2...1... that's what happens when you show off what you learned at the Rush Limbaugh College of Charm and Tact.
I was kinda hoping she was going to bitch slap that smirk off his face. I wished she was going jack him back again for condescending her the 2nd time. He just thought he was too cute.
Thank you for including the PDF attachment on this post. Before viewing the data I thought it was conceivable that Castellanos' assertion could be true because most statistics presented on this matter in common conversation only address the average women's earnings as a whole. This document, compiled from the BLS, accounts for 56% of all full-time female workers; more than enough to establish a trend of discrimination in the workplace. I am a little embarrassed that I did not get around to looking at the raw data sooner and carried this myth around in my head for so long.
Don't be embarrassed. Before you saw the data it was conceivable that he might have been correct. In the absence of data, anyone might be.
But if you had examined the data and then refused to change your thinking, that would have been an embarrassment.
Rachel is playing the same game as Castellanos - that is, she created the straw man argument that she was indignant to his response, instead of providing the facts that she was talking about. And in reality, there is no argument about the facts - women do make less, but you can't infer that that necessarily implies discrimination. For instance, the demographic with the highest income is Asian males. So is there discrimination against white males in favor of Asian males? Also, women tend to choose professions that don't pay as well, just like white men as compared to Asian men. Asian men are overrepresented in fields like medicine and engineering, which are higher paying professions, just as women don't choose to go into high paying professions like engineering. Maddow's logic is severely flawed.
Open the PDF attached to the post and look at the data. It has listed the twenty most common jobs held by women and the twenty most common jobs held by men. These two lists accounts for 56% of all full-time female workers. In almost all of those jobs, women are paid less by a substantial margin. This proves that this difference in income has nothing to do with career choice.
Um, no. Her logic isn't flawed. You simply don't understand the point she was making. Women are paid less after controlling for career choice, level of education, hours worked per week, etc. If Asian men make more because they tend to become engineers and white men tend to become janitors, that raises some interesting sociological questions but doesn't amount to pay discrimination. The problem here is that women are paid less than men for the same work.
Rachel was the one who interrupted and was quite condescending herself. She also finds it difficult like most liberals to debate without getting angry and insulting. She is the female Keith Olberman, who never had a person on his show that disagreed with him...MSNBC wouldnt allow it.
Im curious as to when and if Rachel ever set the record straight on the different facts that have come out on the trayvon martin case. You know the cut that she said was never there on the back of the head, the racial slur that never was, the editing out of the 911 operator who asked specifically what race the person was. Did you set the record straight or did you just leave it hanging out there. Also curious as to why this story doesnt headline your show anymore...it sure did before some of the facts less appealing for Trayvon came out. This is why I cant watch your show...you play on the ignorance of people and you are dishonest. Yes you are a female making less than your male competition because you dont have the ratings that are in the same ball park...is that your real complaint here? You should make as much as Hannity with a 1/4 of his ratings? I have worked along side women my whole life...grocery stores, restaurants, unions, military, finance. There is not one instance that I was paid more or hired for more than a woman doing the same job. Not one...there was no hourly wage scale for a male cashier vs female cashier...you need to give specific examples. Such as total hours worked, actual hourly wage with equal comparisons. To my knowledge gender discrimination is not permitted or allowed legally in any business.
Examples are in a PDF attached to this post. I feel like I'm going to post this on every single comment because no one has read the whole thing.
Of course they didn't Sam. People are responding the way that they are responding because those who are defending Castellanos are primarily men who perceive this as an attack against men. No one is attacking men or stating that men have not earned the pay that they are given. What people are saying is that women should also be given a fair shot. There is this mentality that rights are somehow a finite resource and if you put women on par w/ men this will somehow equate to men being treated less equally. It's just absurd reasoning. Anyone who can make themselves breathe for six seconds will realize that this is NOT about men being bad or men not deserving their pay.
Who did Rachel interrupt? She was asked a question directly and then began answering that question. Castellanos interrupted her to present his counter-facts while she was in the middle of her argument. She then stated that he was being condescending to her because he stated that he wished she would be as right as she was passionate. Now whom was she being condescending towards? When did she get angry and when did she insult someone? But even so your argument here is that Rachel was also being condescending and insulting. So you're stating that it's OK Mr Castellanos did it....because Rachel did it as well? If liberals are so inferior then why do conservatives need to stoop to the levels they perceive to be liberal in order to make an argument?
She never argued this? She gave the report as it was given by the police department and stated that they let Zimmerman go because Zimmerman had defensive wounds and then went on to describe those wounds as given by the police. She never called this issue into question.
She never made this accusation
She never did this. When she and the rest of the evening cast played the tape they played it all the way through. The only person who did this edit was the morning show on NBC. One show's mistake does not suddenly equate to everyone else having to address the matter.
....no really not. She covered the Treyvon Martin case 3 times and never speculated about what happened between Zimmerman and Treyvon.
So you make all of these accusations of Rachel Maddow and then you openly admit that you don't watch her show. If you do not watch her show then how do you know what she does or does not cover or whether or not Maddow does or does not cover an issue? That is right you don't know this. You make assumptions on the basis of nothing. Additionally I should point out you scapegoated the conversation to deal w/ Martin/Zimmerman case (red herring) and then used that to justify an ad hominem. Both of these are logical fallacies. You complain about her pandering to ignorance and dishonesty....yet both of these arguments (the ones you just presented) depend entirely on both elements as a factor of their work.
And this is an ad populum argument which also requires that you pander to ignorance and dishonesty in order to make it. This is also a logical fallacy
Then read the information that the TRMS blog provided for you. The information specifically provides this so that you can do the research yourself. You cannot attack Maddow for failure to present information when the information is there and you are the one failing to research it. How would you know that you were being paid differently then women? You do realize this isn't something that would be advertised since it's illegal yes? And you do realize that this whole issue came up because of the Lilly Ledbetter law, yes? All this law does is allow women to sue if this happens. If you are telling the truth that discriminatory pay doesn't exist then this law will do absolutely nothing. So then why are you complaining?
Murder is not permitted. Rape is not permitted. Kidnapping is not permitted. I suppose that means that those things do not occur as well.
The CNN report was just as funny. Notice how they didnt give the different jobs being performed. If you arent going to break it down by job, then lets just assume that women should go after better paying jobs. Last I checked the full time heavy machine operator working full time makes more than the full time female cashier at the grocery store...see what I mean? Rachel cannot be trusted.
Click on the text in bold and read the PDF. If Rachel cannot be trusted, I'm sure the Bureau of Labor Statistics can.
Ummm it does break down salary by industry. That's why you should read the information provided to you instead of speculating on an appeal to ignorance
This is getting tiresome. As the two commenters above me have said, though more politely (and congratulations to them for their forbearance), you should ensure that you understand the argument before you think you've refuted it. This is just another version of the "why no specifics" trope you trotted out yesterday, as to which: http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/30/11469316-the-problem-of-working-from-different-facts#c65308857
(Sorry; as a new user, I'm not aloud to include hyperlinks)
Yeah, of course it's tiresome. This Tcrguitar guy is trying to wear everybody down with the constant repetition of his inane comments. He has got to be paid by the word.
"working from different facts" is much too respectful for my tastes.
If you watch the round tables from "This Week" and "Meet the Press" all the conservatives did the same thing.
They denied reality.
They are in a state of denial. On "This Week" they complained about the government involvement in the rescue of GM. Really. As if that was a bad thing.
On "Meet the Press" they denied women make less than men for doing the same job. It's true.
Hopefully somebody will put this together and run on the "Not Insane" platform.
Think about the reaction to Mitt reacting positively to a statement that women really don't make any less money than men. It's priceless.
He's already on tape being against the GM intervention. That's golden.
So I would just hope that the Dems will refer to the Repubs as crazy. REALLY crazy.
Rachel Maddow is a sloppy journalist when it suits her
biases. On the “Meet the Press” show, Alex Castellanos interrupted her and was,
I thought, condescending, but he did NOT say the average of all male workers
equaled all female workers. Rather he tried to explain WHY there is the
differential. She is like the medieval “doctors” applying leeches in a futile
attempt to cure the patient. She claims she is all for facts, and anyone who
disagrees with her is against facts. However, Maddow is very selective about
facts she likes, and is quite willing to rant and rave ad nauseum on a studious
denial of the relevant facts.
I support the Lilly Ledbetter Act, that one should get the
same pay for the same work. But gender discrimination does not explain the
overall averages. The average of all female pay versus all male pay hides many
significant variables. If one person has a
commitment to work until the job is done, is willing to work late when needed,
even nights and weekends, works on average 45-50 hours a week, will delay
vacations when needed, even to relocate to undesirable cities when the company
wants, that is NOT THE SAME JOB as someone who leaves at 5:00 no matter what is
going on, misses many days because they have to stay home with a sick child, works
on average 35 hours a week, and will not relocate for opportunities. And yet
these two jobs are counted by Rachel Maddow as the SAME WORK!!! This is sloppy
journalism, working for a cause but in denial of the facts.
According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
report GAO-04-35: “Women in
the workforce are also less likely to work a full-time schedule and are more
likely to leave the labor force for longer periods of time than men, further
suppressing women's wages. These differing work patterns lead to an even larger
earnings gap between men and women - suggesting that working women are
penalized for their dual roles as wage earners and those who disproportionately
care for home and family.” The GAO also documented that: “Women have fewer
years of work experience.”
In other words, women
often work fewer years and fewer hours per week, and as a result make on
average less per hour. But this does not prove discrimination. Rachel Maddow
ranted on and on about the irrelevant facts, while studiously avoiding the
relevant facts. This pattern of females, usually married women, making
different career choices leading to fewer years and fewer hours per week, may
be found in all occupations. Still this does not prove discrimination.
The salaries of
chemists may not be representative of workers as a whole, but this is one
source of data I can access. The American Chemical Society conducts annual
surveys. They report that the ratio of female to male salaries is in the range
of 90 to 102% for the same number of years worked, up through 39 years of
experience. This does not control for key factors such as hours worked per
week. Industrial chemists salaries by experience and gender: http://cen.acs.org/articles/89/i50/Employment-Salary-Survey.html
When I was part of a
breeding pair, we discussed and decided that I (who happens to be a male) would
specialize in income-producing work, while my partner (a female) would
specialize in child-rearing work. It was also true that prior to our becoming a
breeding pair, I had worked much harder to maximize my income, so at the start
of our agreement, I could make more money. Should we forget my earning a Bachelor’s
degree in Chemistry, and working many years at a single employer? Or should a huge
variety of short-term jobs with a high school education earn the same in
Maddow-land? This is merely anecdotal, but illustrative of the reasoning behind
choices that lead to disparate incomes by gender. My emphasis here is on the
choice aspect. If you want to see victimhood eagerly claimed, just read
maddowblog comments: http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/30/11469316-the-problem-of-working-from-different-facts.
One question Maddow
and all the people so quick to claim this victimhood refuse to consider: if
businesses really could pay women 77% of men for the SAME WORK, then why would
they hire men at all? Why wouldn’t they just save the 23% and hire only women? Don’t
businesses seek to maximize profits, which can only come from, besides
maximizing revenue, the minimizing of expenses? It would defy economic
self-interest for businesses to hire men at all, if the simplistic Maddow claim
were true. Yet she has never engaged on this crucial question, no doubt because
it would undercut her argument for victimhood.
Maddow suffers from
confirmation bias: she has a theory and then looks for facts to support it. It
is very common, but still unacceptable. She can bleed her patient until she
dies, but she still has the wrong analytical model. 100 apples do not
equal 77 oranges.
This is a legitimate argument.
So your counter argument is that it's OK for women to be paid less because
-Women are not educated as well in the areas of science and math and therefore do not pursue these careers as frequently as men
-Male biases in certain fields lead companies to hire men over women on the basis of the first problem
-Women are more often expected to stay at home to raise children or to take sick time off to cover appointments and other requirements of the family as opposed to men
-Women are routinely by default put into lower paying salaries
Seriously what is it that you think you are arguing here? that these elements are OK to have in existence? So you're basically arguing that yeah women are paid less but that's OK because sexism exists in our society.
I do not think you thought your argument through. I also find this more annoying because you accuse maddow of having a confirmation bias when your entire counter argument is predicated on the fact that you are also engaging in confirmation bias
It's not confirmation bias when the facts are on your side.
Also, I can't help but notice that most of the people pushing the false belief that there is no gender pay imbalance are men. There's a reason for that: their sense of privilege is being threatened. (Not all men, just these particular men.)