how some people use a general ratio without nuance has no bearing whatsover in this case - particularly when Shag has clearly shown that she understands both the general ratio (which, I believe, is more than 75 cents these days) and its specific patterns of occupation instantiation.
you might not know it, given your apparent gender politics, but Shag knows her shit and doesn't intervene (at least not seriously) where she doesn't.
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 4:38 PM, John Wesley <godisamethodist at yahoo.com>wrote:
> Hi Shag,
>
> Yes, I may be a "fuckwit", but I do firmly believe that the .59/$1. ratio
> is
> generally used to convey the implication that this inequity applies across
> the
> board in the workforce.
>
> At a local campus, to commemorate Mar. 8, I've seen various student groups
> holding bake sales where "XY"'s pay $1. for an item, while the "XX"'s pay
> only
> $.50 ! The implication is quite obvious, I believe.
>
> That would be quite a bargain for women radiologists (we all know that most
> MD's are notorious cheapskates, irrespective of gender!)
>
> How about using as a ratio the income of a woman radiology tech. (maybe 40K
> annually) to that of a women radiologist (as much as 600-800K)?
> That is really the critical type of inequity which must be addressed and
> the one
> that explains why we'll probably never have universal single-payer health
> coverage in the "land of the free" (lol)
>
> Fuckwit
>
>
>