Like you, Miss Herzog, I often read editorials with the honest intention of not interfering with the author's views (though often erroneous and misguided). In fact, I did it again yesterday as I read your take on the crazy feminist gender pay gap theory. Alas, here I am responding once more.
Your startling realization that people actually took Equal Pay Day seriously can be easily explained. You see, when people (read: men AND women) work hard at an occupation with the hope of having the means to support oneself and family, it is both unmerited and unjust to be exploited and taken advantage of.
But more importantly, you got your facts wrong (again). It seemed you forgot to read the report before writing your piece when you said, the 77 cents to the dollar figure is calculated by comparing the salaries of ALL men to ALL women. It does not account for occupation
education the number of hours worked.
The first paragraph of the study clearly states that it was only on college-educated men and women who were working full time. Furthermore, Catherine Hill, the director of research where the study was conducted, said that the gap couldn't be explained simply by factors that are known to affect wages, like gender field preferences or the responsibility of child-raising. She said that approximately one quarter of the difference in pay remains even when comparing men and women with similar occupations and family circumstances.
Employers assume that young women are going to leave the workforce when they have children and
therefore
don't promote them
Hill said.
Did you really think the scientists would just forget about those factors? Or that your feminist readers wouldn't have read the report? I wish you (and the reputation of The Post) better research in the future.
Erin Rose Pfeifer is a sophomore journalism major.
17
Archives
Letter to the Editor
