Is Rachel Maddow sincere?

[unblock]

71. the 77% figure may still be relevant if we want to rectify past wrongs,

or if we want otherwise to end ongoing differences in the way women are treated vs. men.

let's assume for the moment that the 5% figure that represents direct sex discrimination actually were zero. absolutely no direct discrimination. but there was still an 18% gap in pay due to past discrimination, or due to social/marital pressures on women, which may push them to be less available for longer hours or travel due to home life choices, etc.

that's still an issue that society may want to address as it feeds ongoing stereotypes and may lead to future direct discrimination. and it may be a form of discrimination in and of itself -- why might compensation structures be set up to reward the things women might be under pressure not to do, etc.



by the way, maddow is under no obligation to be unbiased or to present both or all sides of the story. she shouldn't lie or even be wrong, but even if the 23% figure, properly explained, is somehow biased, that's an editorial decisions well within her charter and it's hardly appropriate for somerby to call her out for it. somerby normally calls journalists out for getting it WRONG, not for presenting a view or focusing --accurately -- on a statistic that packs more punch even if that statistic doesn't explain everything that's going on. pundits and editorialists and opinion makers would have quite a time squeezing a show in if that were the requirement.