Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
7 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Highly Recommended!, 12 April 2005
Men's movement guru Warren Farrell says don't blame discrimination for the gap between men's and women's salaries. As he teaches women (and men, we suppose) tactics for bagging bigger bucks, he says that men earn more because women have a tendency - or perhaps a biological instinct - to prioritize family over career. Thus, Farrell maintains, women work shorter hours, take more parental leave, and are less productive, less well trained and less committed. If you are a male who has prioritized hearth and home, perhaps you have made some of the same choices that Farrell says cost women higher salaries. The book is full of footnotes, charts, graphs and sidebars, as Farrell cites U.S. Census and Bureau of Labor Statistics data (as well as, occasionally, himself). However, his analysis of the numbers usually hinges more on single studies or interviews, personal experiences, newspaper articles and conversations than on historic, social or economic trends that offer deeper explanations. Farrell outlines some real factors - danger, discomfort, late hours and heavy lifting - which increase the pay for certain jobs. He tells women that they can earn more by entering nontraditional fields. We recommend this book primarily for readers at the start of their careers or in the midst of transitions where lifestyle and financial considerations compete. Though the information about salary-based job searching is practical, if you see the world through egalitarian or feminist lenses, you may find yourself getting a little testy.
|
|
|
2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Very good for thinking outside the box, 22 April 2007
I found this book an interesting read because it questions the prevailing view that women earn 80 % of what men do because of gender inequality.
Let me say that I am a female and not from the USA - so I became rather more interested in what the corresponding statistics would be likely to show in my country, than in the statistics Mr Farrell describes, or their validity. While there is some evidence that earning ratios might be the same in my country, the job choices in my country might not be exactly as Mr Farrell described (woman works in tidy safe warm office, man works outdoors on the cold hazardous construction site). Besides, for instance nursing is not necessarily a clean or safe occupation, either.
What I did enjoy was the mindset of the book, that you can make your choices and earn more money, if you want to, and be empowered by the choices you make. What the feminist movement might have missed is, be aware of how your job choice can reflect on your pay packet.
An issue not covered by the scope this book is the impact of "family" choices in the sense that if Mom and Dad decide it is a good safe choice for the family to live in the suburbs, while Dad commutes to town and works long hours, then Mom does not necessarily a lot of career options left. In other words, I expect many people make the traditional choices without thinking about the long-term results too much. This book does not tackle the sociological side too much, apart from pointing out that Dad can look after the children, too.
The last part of the book ("The Genetic Celebrity Pay Gap", which explains some of the ways women actually earn more than men) I found less convincing. If the author considers that people can select their jobs based on "market" conditions, then it is ok in principle to pay high fees to a top model. We also pay high fees to NHL hockey players for instance. Both to my mind are a kind of "genetic" instances anyhow which do not apply to most people.
Same goes for any kind of "favors" that especially pretty girls get which the author describes, as they are not part of a formal salary system. With the same kind of logic, the book should have included comparison of all kinds of informal perks all workers receive such as housewife offering visiting plumber or workman a cup of coffee.
Those remarks aside, I do think this is a contribution for thinking outside the "women are victims of oppression" box.
|
|
|
|