Harrell gave a good answer, but it's pretty ridiculous to say he has a "commanding lead" on an issue because of one response at a debate to a question that McGinn and Murray weren't even given a chance to answer.

@1

Every candidate was asked about this at the North Seattle Mayoral Forum. McGinn certainly was this uppity about the issue then.

Actually, a woman wrote a book about this in the past year, and it pretty much boils down to (besides misogyny) women simply not negotiating, not asking, and accepting lower standards.

And yet within the City of Seattle, McGinn's own Race and Social Justice Initiative ( . . .to "Advance Opportunity and Achieve Equity") apparently doesn't recognize any gender inequity.

@3 wow. is this sarcasm or stupidity.

Why do men have such a hard time accepting that they are not in fact, superior to women? This has nothing to do with negotiating, no matter what ONE PRIVILEGED WOMAN'S opinion in a very controversial book says. We negotiate, we strive, we struggle and we're knocked back repeatedly. Its only a matter of time but we WILL get our damned equal pay. Keep on with these bullshit arguments about how its all our fault. When you stay this clueless, you make it that much easier to strategize around your stagnant views.

@3 In the same book she talks about how women are punished for negotiating for raises.

What both @2 and @3 said.

Look, the easy solution is to publicly publish people's actual wages and compensation at all levels, including stock options.

And then apply social and economic pressure on the "deciderers".

This study does not appear to show what McGinn claims it shows. I can't access the study itself (paywall), but according to the summary, it found that, "On average, women with MBAs were paid $4,600 less in their first job than men." For the reading impaired, that is "women with MBA's." Not, as McGinn claims, "men and women with similar levels of experience, education and ambition..."

Pretty big difference, wouldn't you say? This is par for the course for these types of discussions. Activists trying to show a gender gap due to discrimination will start off with something like, "women earn only $.77 for every dollar men earn. Even controlling for experience, education, hours worked, etc., a gap remains." Only when you dig into the numbers do you find out that the "gap that remains" is only 3-5%, not the 23% they started with.

You have to look at *exactly* what words they use, and watch for weasel words, to get the truth. If Catalyst (who did the study) had been able to write in their summary, "On average women with MBA's, yadda yadda, even controlling for experience, etc." I am sure they would have. They didn't, so I assume that their study doesn't support that conclusion. If anyone has access to the study and can prove otherwise, I'd be interested to see it.

Really, it is amazing how easily this stuff falls apart. It took me far longer to write this comment than to find the attempted deception. Krugman wrote, "Basically, every time the Bushies came out with a report, you knew that it was going to involve some kind of fraud, and the only question was which kind and where." Feminists, same.

See here for the correct, 3-5% figure. http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/p…

@11:

When you readily admit you haven't read the study ("(paywall)"...what kind of piss-poor excuse is that), and then go on to read the tea leaves of the wordings of the summary in order to make a shaky, most likely irrelevant point, AND then lecture us about how one must always "look at 'exactly' what words they use...to get the truth..." wow. Aren't you ashamed? Usually people with brains just refrain from commenting on the details of anything they've not had a chance to access.

How do you live with yourself: one who reads only the abstract yet wants to criticize the details of the study you have not seen? And preach the importance of getting to the bottom when you're too cheap to even crack the surface?!