General Discussion

EC

(12,287 posts)

9. She went through charts

Fri May 4, 2012, 03:34 PM

May 2012

showing different occupations and comparisons of wages etc. too. She didn't just rely on the 77 % figure. She did show other percentages and how they were arrived at. Of all the figures the averages came to be about 72% to 77%, so the result wasn't that much different. I do notice though that the right has a way of picking out one figure and sticking with that to prove women are being dishonest in saying they are paid less, because there are other percentages, that THEY CLAIM ARE NOT BEING REPORTED, when in fact they are. (It's a method that Scientology uses to discredit people and arguements) Rachael DID report and show different percentages, she just settled on the 77% as the average, since it was the AVERAGE. She shows research to support her statements. So, no, I don't think she is being dishonest. Maybe the right doesn't know what average means?

But I do think slanting (spinning)her reporting is dishonest.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

94 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Is Rachel Maddow sincere? [View all] hfojvt May 2012 OP

she gets things wrong sometimes Enrique May 2012 #1

I believe she cares about relaying the unvarnished truth. AtomicKitten May 2012 #2

if she cared about unvarnished truth, she wouldn't have quoted the clip selectively. HiPointDem May 2012 #3

Her point - that a gap exists - seems to be lost on the pickers of nits AtomicKitten May 2012 #8

23% v. 5% = not a nit. It's a huge difference. HiPointDem May 2012 #11

mathematically, sure. but politically, morally, and otherwise, no. unblock May 2012 #44

Then why not say "Women doing the same work/hours with the same qualifications, experience, on HiPointDem May 2012 #49

just to be clear, then, we're no longer talking about maddow getting it wrong in any way. unblock May 2012 #60

There may indeed be some form of discrimination going on beneath that 18%, but it's nothing HiPointDem May 2012 #65

the 77% figure may still be relevant if we want to rectify past wrongs, unblock May 2012 #71

no, she's under no obligation to present a full picture, but in that case, how is what she does HiPointDem May 2012 #74

foxnews is different in at least 2 respects: unblock May 2012 #79

it's not "comparable work" though. It is just an aggregate. hfojvt May 2012 #80

i don't think we have enough information to say how much of it is due to discrimination unblock May 2012 #82

For the longest time I didn't know what a nit was. LiberalLoner May 2012 #26

It won't work. She is the Queen of the Undead. Ruby the Liberal May 2012 #35

Lesbian vampire?! AtomicKitten May 2012 #41

I remember when that aired. Ruby the Liberal May 2012 #45

HORROR!!! AtomicKitten May 2012 #63

and people who only watch her show hfojvt May 2012 #12

I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt Aerows May 2012 #37

sometimes it's somerby who commits the howler unblock May 2012 #4

yeah that's what the first commenter thought too hfojvt May 2012 #15

well i think there's direct discrimination and indirect discrimination unblock May 2012 #46

All TV talking heads are limited in their "honesty" just1voice May 2012 #5

Maddow did mention these other studies DearAbby May 2012 #6

"discriminated against" = systematic lower pay for women v. men for doing the same work with the HiPointDem May 2012 #23

At a lot of companies Aerows May 2012 #38

"At a lot of companies" = more true for the top 20% than the bottom 80%. Yes, at the top HiPointDem May 2012 #52

It still is a big deal Aerows May 2012 #56

no, it's a big deal to some in the top 20%. like maddow. personally, i could care that she gets HiPointDem May 2012 #58

I'm female Aerows May 2012 #61

I'm also female. I'm not "miffed" that men have lost ground, I'm angry, outraged, that the entire HiPointDem May 2012 #62

Let me state this plainly Aerows May 2012 #64

And let me state *this* plainly. No one is disputing the principle of equal pay for equal work, HiPointDem May 2012 #66

Why do you talk adjustments? DearAbby May 2012 #69

statistical adjustments. it *is* partly a mathematical problem, even if you don't understand it. HiPointDem May 2012 #72

Just sounds like a way to justify paying women less than men. DearAbby May 2012 #88

sorry it's so difficult for you. HiPointDem May 2012 #90

because some adjustments are logical hfojvt May 2012 #81

Just more reasons to justify paying women less than men. DearAbby May 2012 #89

just to be clear then hfojvt May 2012 #92

You know she was being dishonest joeglow3 May 2012 #55

Bob Somersby is a PUMA One of the 99 May 2012 #7

interesting theory hfojvt May 2012 #16

It's not a theory One of the 99 May 2012 #48

She went through charts EC May 2012 #9

I read your link and then watched the half hour segment of Rachel's show... Spazito May 2012 #10

the real issue is that once you adjust for differences in women's employment patterns, the HiPointDem May 2012 #17

The burden of bearing children still falls on women. Right now, only women can have babies. And LiberalLoner May 2012 #21

Agreed. But that's a different issue than some kind of systematic discrimination by employers HiPointDem May 2012 #25

It certainly happens Aerows May 2012 #39

"It happens" does not a pattern make. And what happens to upper-tier corporate workers HiPointDem May 2012 #53

Well Aerows May 2012 #59

and the fact that you've never held such a position speaks to a difference in our class positions. HiPointDem May 2012 #67

No, I disagree... Spazito May 2012 #28

the issue so far as the maddow report goes is that most of that difference can be explained HiPointDem May 2012 #47

You are dismissing the equal pay for equal work.... Spazito May 2012 #51

The studies in question did not look at "assistant A" and "assistant B". They aggregated data HiPointDem May 2012 #54

In aggregate, they did.... Spazito May 2012 #57

no, they averaged the wages of thousands of people in a broad job category. Like "manager". HiPointDem May 2012 #68

Having read your other posts in this thread... Spazito May 2012 #70

good. i didn't realize that *me* changing *my* position was the only possible reason to discuss HiPointDem May 2012 #73

"the gap is reduced to almost nothing." kiva May 2012 #76

I think 5% is very relevant hfojvt May 2012 #83

You should always take these cable news hosts with a grain of salt RZM May 2012 #13

Your concern for the left is duly noted. Pisces May 2012 #14

maddow = "the left"? HiPointDem May 2012 #19

You've been here four years WilliamPitt May 2012 #20

Dude doesn't understand why the supreme court forbids mandatory school prayer, for one. Warren DeMontague May 2012 #32

If you don't want to call him a concern troll today, Quantess May 2012 #50

I think he meant that I am worse hfojvt May 2012 #84

Wow - what a nasty attack screed. Ruby the Liberal May 2012 #18

That was nasty? WilliamPitt May 2012 #22

"Maddow is sold as a former Rhodes Scholar" Ruby the Liberal May 2012 #29

The Daily Howler still exists? Larkspur May 2012 #24

If you are concerned, bring it to her attention. When she makes a mistake, she admits it. She mfcorey1 May 2012 #27

Apparently, Joe Screed already covered that. Ruby the Liberal May 2012 #31

Here's the thing. hfojvt May 2012 #86

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2012 #30

Do I? hfojvt May 2012 #87

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2012 #93

The gap is real veganlush May 2012 #33

more sincere than this Somerby that you quote. WI_DEM May 2012 #34

Mr. Somerby belongs on Fox "News". Dawson Leery May 2012 #36

My wife would not think you were sincere. I know that for a fact. See ... JoePhilly May 2012 #40

If You Want To Trash Rachel, Take It To The Gun Control/RKBA Group. Paladin May 2012 #42

Sincere is not the important question. Rachel is a paid employee of CenaW May 2012 #43

Does the Pope wear a funny hat? Nt. Mc Mike May 2012 #75

I think there is legitimate debate to be had about the numbers Bjorn Against May 2012 #77

Your posts makes no sense. shcrane71 May 2012 #78

Rachel Maddow is one of the smartest and most sincere people of all the political shows. Tennessee Gal May 2012 #85

your blanket statement is not factual. and that's not even what maddow said. HiPointDem May 2012 #91

She fell into "show biz" accidently.. Take a look at the annabanana May 2012 #94