NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/soc/women/19897

Text File | 1992-11-18 | 3.2 KB | 69 lines

Newsgroups: soc.women
Path: sparky!uunet!ftpbox!mothost!lmpsbbs!areaplg2.corp.mot.com!bhv
From: [e-mail] (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: S. Faludi's __Backlash__
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:57:32 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Net News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: 137.23.47.37
Lines: 56

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
)
) Hi,
)   Our campus is hosting a systemwide conference on the status of women next
) Spring.  Susan Faludi--the Pulitzer prize winning author of __Backlash__--
) will be the keynote speaker.  Consequently book discussion groups are form-
) ing all over our campus.  (I've joined one, but am only into Chapt 5 so far).
)
)   I am very curious to know what the opinions are about:
) 1) the quality of Faludi's scholarship (the general accuracy of the data/
)    studies she cites, correctness of the conclusions she draws from them
)    and so forth.)
) and,
) 2) the general regard/opinions/ views for the thesis of this book.
)
)   If this was widely discussed a year ago, or a FAQ is available, I apol-
) ogize for reintroducing it.
)                                       Many thanks,  Chuck
)
) Addendum: So far I've been impressed by what I've read.  I'm a practit-
) ioner/student of survey research and think she's done a marvelous job
) of marshalling a lot of different data sources in a compelling way.

You will probably find a lot of disagreement on this topic!

My own opinion is that the statistics in 'Backlash' are highly selective.
I haven't seen any outright errors (doesn't mean there aren't any)  but I've
seen a lot of stuff that is misleading at best.

Take the classic $.59 per dollar issue, for instance.  The specific
statistics she quotes are true.  However, she will not point out statistics
that do not tend to reinforce her position - to whit the fact that single
women earn $.93 per dollar when compared to single men (Farrel, quoting
statistics from the same Census Bureau that Faludi uses).

She will mention that the ratio has been fairly constant at $.59 for a long
time, but not mention the fact that researchers such ad Edward Lazear
feel that there was a substantial narrowing of the wage differential
between YOUNG men and YOUNG women in the period stuidied (1968-1974),
or that researchers such as Andrea Beller point out that the increasing
participation of women in the job market means a shift towards younger
female workers who are unable to command 'top dollar' - and that Beller
estimates that the male/female earnigngs ratio would have *dropped*
by 7% due to the changing demographics if it were not for other effects
(such as enforcement of the title VII laws).

["Time of Change, 1983 Handbook on Women Workers", U.S. Dept of Labor
"Women in the Labor Market", Lloyd, Andrews, Gilroy (eds). (quoted by above)]

Nor will she point out the difference in the hours worked by so called
'full time' men and women workers.

If you look closely at Faludi, you will probably notice that she quotes a
lot of statistics (seletively, as I mentioned above) but that she implies a
lot more than she actually directly *says*.