« I'll get you Liddle | Main | God and mammon »

January 09, 2006


The Pedant-General

The "factually correct" line you quote from Browne was used by him as an example, an allegory - not a cast iron rule: if you listened to him on the Today programme, he gave exactly the same explanation as you: there probably still is some discrimination, but that it is a small part of the difference. He recognises that it is not a black and white (and yes I definitely am going to use that phrase in this context) issue.

The EOC on the other hand are quite happy to publish reports referencing a 40% pay gap.

It is the EOC you should be lambasting here.


MY wife wants to know if Cygan or Henri is the woman , trust her not to able to understand !


I'm sure I've read somewhere about a study comparing career earnings of women who had had no cildren, and men. Difference tiny. Has such a claim been later disproved?


TPG: I think it's about time to stop carrying Browne's water - in his latest magnum opus, he managed to claim that alternative comedians swept to power in 1997 and that Pauline Hanson was arrested for her views. (She was arrested, in fact, for pocketing party funds) He is now officially a resident of Gamma Quadrant Z and has a repeat prescription for crazy pills.

Amrish Patel

I thought the work I'm doing may be interesting for anyone interested in trying to quantify discrimination. Following the paper by Levitt, I've begun to analyse discrimination on the game show "Weakest Link" - see the link below, or my blog... Still work in progress, but should be an interesting read.


The Pedant-General


"He is now officially a resident of Gamma Quadrant Z and has a repeat prescription for crazy pills."

And in what way does that make the EOC's deliberately disingenuous claim of a 40% gap correct?

I'm not defending every single one of Browne's comments, but on this he has a point. Or don't you actually want to discuss that?

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad