Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Is Rachel Maddow sincere? [View all]WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)20. You've been here four years
and you don't know well enough not to give hfojvt the whole 'Concern Troll' treatment?
Ugh.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
94 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
if she cared about unvarnished truth, she wouldn't have quoted the clip selectively.
HiPointDem
May 2012
#3
Then why not say "Women doing the same work/hours with the same qualifications, experience, on
HiPointDem
May 2012
#49
just to be clear, then, we're no longer talking about maddow getting it wrong in any way.
unblock
May 2012
#60
There may indeed be some form of discrimination going on beneath that 18%, but it's nothing
HiPointDem
May 2012
#65
no, she's under no obligation to present a full picture, but in that case, how is what she does
HiPointDem
May 2012
#74
i don't think we have enough information to say how much of it is due to discrimination
unblock
May 2012
#82
"discriminated against" = systematic lower pay for women v. men for doing the same work with the
HiPointDem
May 2012
#23
"At a lot of companies" = more true for the top 20% than the bottom 80%. Yes, at the top
HiPointDem
May 2012
#52
no, it's a big deal to some in the top 20%. like maddow. personally, i could care that she gets
HiPointDem
May 2012
#58
I'm also female. I'm not "miffed" that men have lost ground, I'm angry, outraged, that the entire
HiPointDem
May 2012
#62
And let me state *this* plainly. No one is disputing the principle of equal pay for equal work,
HiPointDem
May 2012
#66
statistical adjustments. it *is* partly a mathematical problem, even if you don't understand it.
HiPointDem
May 2012
#72
the real issue is that once you adjust for differences in women's employment patterns, the
HiPointDem
May 2012
#17
The burden of bearing children still falls on women. Right now, only women can have babies. And
LiberalLoner
May 2012
#21
Agreed. But that's a different issue than some kind of systematic discrimination by employers
HiPointDem
May 2012
#25
"It happens" does not a pattern make. And what happens to upper-tier corporate workers
HiPointDem
May 2012
#53
and the fact that you've never held such a position speaks to a difference in our class positions.
HiPointDem
May 2012
#67
the issue so far as the maddow report goes is that most of that difference can be explained
HiPointDem
May 2012
#47
The studies in question did not look at "assistant A" and "assistant B". They aggregated data
HiPointDem
May 2012
#54
no, they averaged the wages of thousands of people in a broad job category. Like "manager".
HiPointDem
May 2012
#68
good. i didn't realize that *me* changing *my* position was the only possible reason to discuss
HiPointDem
May 2012
#73
Dude doesn't understand why the supreme court forbids mandatory school prayer, for one.
Warren DeMontague
May 2012
#32
If you are concerned, bring it to her attention. When she makes a mistake, she admits it. She
mfcorey1
May 2012
#27
Rachel Maddow is one of the smartest and most sincere people of all the political shows.
Tennessee Gal
May 2012
#85
your blanket statement is not factual. and that's not even what maddow said.
HiPointDem
May 2012
#91