PressEthic

Jessica at Feministing asked a question on Tuesday:

“Why do reputable news services continue to quote known wacko Warren Farrell on the pay gap? (Apparently women want to earn less.) WHY?!”

The links, original to her entry, lead to an article at SeattlePI.com and a previous Feministing article, respectively.

In the SeattlePI article, Mara Lee discusses the gender pay gap, first explaining:

In 1960, women who worked full-time made about 61 percent of what full-time male workers made. In 2004, it was 76 percent.

To think of that in terms of annual pay, the median income, where half of workers make more and half make less, was $31,374 for full-time working women -- and $41,194 for full-time working men.

The less education the worker has, the bigger the gender pay gap.

For high-school graduates older than 25, men's median salary is $31,183; women's is $19,821.

The “wacko” Jessica refers to, Warren Farrell, is referred to in the SeattlePI.com article, pointing out:

Women frequently have years where they cut back to part-time work, or stay home with their kids, so even when they are working full-time, they may not have as much seniority as men their age.

Farrell believes that 70 percent of the gap is caused by women's choices to balance work and child-rearing.

The Feministing article Jessica tracks back to, by Lauryn, was written in February of this year. Lauryn cites a New York Times article by Claudia H. Deutsch on Farrell.

The article has been archived, and Lauryn did not use the Times ‘s trackback feature, so here is the passage she quoted:

"Women, he believes, methodically engineer their own paltry pay. They choose psychically fulfilling jobs, like librarian or art historian, that attract enough applicants for the law of supply and demand to kick in and depress pay. They avoid well-paid but presumably risky work - hence, the paucity of women flying planes. And they tend to put in fewer hours than men - no small point, he says, because people who work 44 hours a week make almost twice as much as those who work 34 and are more likely to be promoted."

She rebuts this position, saying:

Ummmm, yeah. But where is the analysis on how women are pushed out of partnerships and senior level positions when they become pregnant. Or how women are still left tending to the majority of childcare and house work. And how no matter how many hours we put in, we will still never be eligible for the boys club. I don't care how you spin it, it is just plain wrong to blame women for their lower pay. (sigh).[Emphasis hers]

She concludes by asking: “[ C]ould the Times really not find anything better to publish than this propaganda?”

These two questions hearken back to Laurent’s post, and his question of who should be given a voice. The writers at Feministing call Farrell a “wacko” and his points “propaganda.” I can understand their dismay, and to an extent I agree with it. However, what makes a “wacko?” At what point is a person’s position so outrageous that its most newsworthy aspect is its oddity? And who should determine this outrageousness? Is it up to the reporter? The news media as a whole? The readership?

Feminists and the pay gap, conspiracy theorists and 9/11, even believers in intellectual design and high school science classes -- we must consider all these examples and be careful to define the lines between insane, incorrect, and merely dissenting. Otherwise, everyone is crazy but you.