He could at least get the math right. It would be $1.23, not $1.19.

Except it's more than just language, it's a historical comparison.

Men have long worked and made a wage. Women have attempted to break into male dominated fields. Therefore, women are the minority and the newcomers, and the male pay should be considered the norm.

In the few female-dominant fields, I *would* expect the language to be reversed, as the norm is what women are paid, and what pay men receive would be considered the outlier.

Finally, I think this reversal changes the implied goal of the comparison. It makes it sound as if "Men are paid too much" rather than "Women are paid too little." I don't expect this advocacy would find much support if its goal was to achieve equality by reducing the pay of men! Everyone would be worse off in that situation.

Men are people and women are special, in these sorts of comparisons, because we have a long philosophical tradition of the "rights of men." The goal has always been to extend those rights to everyone. It would not be a step forward for people in general if we achieved equality by making everyone be mistreated as women have been.

Perhaps the fair way to express it is to center $1, and compare 90¢ for the woman to $1.11 for the man. Or to look at the properly weighted average (based on numbers in the appropriate workforce) and talk about % difference from the average.

The wage gap as sociologists know it is a myth. In fact, women like Lisa are why the wage gap exists. The language isn't going to change a thing about the wage gap, instead we need encourage more math and engineering in woman instead of the social sciences.

Here is a video that actually explains what the wage gap truly is :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwogDPh-Sow

"in addition to working in such hostile environments, men have consistently been paid more..."

This version is more structurally ambiguous; it places men as the subject, and implies that men are the ones working in "such hostile environments." Presumably, the original version meant to say that work environments are particularly hostile to women; that point is completely lost in the second version.

Additionally, as far as the power of persuasion goes, I think the first version has more impact in highlighting the injustice of unequal pay. Saying that women earn less than their male peers demands that we empathize with women and imagine ourselves earning 81 cents to a peer's dollar. Saying that men earn more than their female peers puts us into the shoes of the men - a harder position to advocate from.

If $1 represents the standard by which inequality is measured, saying "women earn 81 cents to men's dollar" implies that women should be given a 19 cent raise. If instead you state that men earn $1.19 to a woman's dollar," you're inadvertently making a stronger case that men should take a 19 cent pay cut to promote equality. Which case do you think will convince more men to support closing the gender pay gap?

The problem with the inversion is that it suggests that male workers should be penalized for earning too much. Given that wages for many workers are quite low, we should be talking about raising women's wages. The first framing, which sets the male wage as normative, leads to the conclusion that women's wages should be raised.

Gender is becoming a secondary factor of concern. I have trouble finding American men OR women for high paying analytic positions. The math in this post is an unintentionally comic example of my frustration.

Can we PLEASE get moving on immigration reform?

So, having shifted the discussion, the apparent next step would be 'what can we do to make men's wages lower!"

But since that' obviously a really bad framing for the next stage of the discussion, lets leave it with the original discussion.

It is always helpful to consult the economic studies on this issues as well. The gender pay gap within professions is largely due to differences in experience and education.

Why does no one mention the racial component to the wage gap considering white women earn more than minority women? This could be yet another example of white feminists looking out for their own interests.

The wage gap due to discrimination has been refuted time and time again by economists yet liberals and feminists continue to cite unreliable data. God forbid someone fact checks such unreliable data and feminists cry war on women.

It's unfortunate that both statements are lies, debunked over and over. It's the word "peers," that implies they are doing the same work, for the same number of hours, that is the culprit here.

The Tardlr Third Wave Feminazi is strong with this one.