Equal Pay Commercial
What do you think?
I kind of love the parallel: because the wage gap is like a big fuck you to women.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Equal Pay Commercial.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10968
Um, yeah that is kinda what it feels like.
I like the advert.
Wow, that was great in terms of getting the point across about how volatile and hostile a work environment can be. As well as dealing with equal pay and getting treated less than.
Although I don't watch TV it would be great for others to see something like this on TV in the USA.
What country was this made in?
Hey Cecilia,
The video is subtitled in Flemish, and the actors have a Flemish accent, so my educated guess is Belgium. I haven't googled the organistions that sponored its making, but I haven't heard of them, so they are definitely not from Holland where I live.
I'm not sure how it would be received in Holland either, by the way...
Without being too much of an asshole, Flemish isn't really a language. Flemish may refer to Dutch or a Flemish dialect of Dutch (e.g. Belgian Dutch). Both Belgium and the Netherlands are more progressive than the US and while I don't know what the pay gap is in either country, I think it would be received just fine in both.
Hey Devin,
First of all, Glauke didn't say Flemish is a language, did she? She just said the subtitles and accent are Flemish. And the video is subtitled in Flemish and not in Dutch, and the accents are Flemish and not Dutch (opinions differ on whether or not Flemish is a different language). Using the word Flemish instead of Dutch is a good choice in this situation because the video is made in Belgium which is not Holland. Telling someone from the Netherlands about the Flemish/Dutch language is patronizing and your tone is as well. I am Dutch and I understand the language spoken in the commercial just fine, but I would call it Flemish and not Dutch.
Also, the wage gap over here is 3-7% (http://www.loonwijzer.nl) and there is enough sexism around to question how the video would be received. Holland is more progressive but that doesn't say things are perfect here.
Hi Eva,
You interpreted my language-interpretation correctly. I wanted to distinguish between Belgium/Flanders and Holland.
Devin, didn't mean to confuse you. I expect it makes sense now.
Here's some good news. I thought this was an interesting study. What do you guys think?
'Women at the top of business outearn men'
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08348/934974-28.stm
That's great!
For the like .0000001% of women it applies to. The rest of us can enjoy our much lower pay.
Genius.
And I agree with Cecelia's underlying point: You'd neeeever see something like this on U.S. network TV.
This is really funny in a sad way.
Wonderful commercial. Show it 24/7 on fox, please.
I love it, mainly because it's really arresting, and every time I hear the stats about how much women are paid I DO feel like someone is giving me the finger and calling me a bitch.
too bad sexist equal pay discrimination isn't that blatantly obvious.
clever.
I like the idea of the ad but I still just don't get it.
I believe there is a pay gap but to say "women make 76% of the pay for the same work" isn't even with the dol or any other report purports to say. Women, as a group, make 76% of what men, as a group, make. Its not talking about people in the exact same job, with the exact same years of experience, education, training, etc. Even if you control for hours worked per week, years exxperience and other things women are still paid a little less as a group and that is a huge problem in and of itself. I just dont get why when we demand accuracy and fair representation in everything else, we dont do so in this case.
Wumpscuts link is interesting, as is the numbers for women in my age group in urban centers or black women vs black men, all run counter to the prevailing "76 cents for the same job/work" but they are still just steps in the right direction. The problem is there, why repeat, and I guess exaggerate, the problem by misappropriating and misusing the 76% statistic? I just dont get it.
Yes Virginia, there is a wage gap. Check out these links if you're looking for stats. The wage gap isn't created out of thin air and it isn't about women working part time or taking time off to have kids. From WaPo: "The pay-gap figure measures only women and men who work full time, for a full year."
Yes there is a wage gap, I said there was in my post. What I was talking about is the misrepresentation of the 76% statistic. Even in the posts you linked is shows a 5% after one year or 12% after a longer term gap controlling for all factors. These do no jive with portraying the department of labor stat to mean women earn 76% doing the exact same work with the same experience etc. Do you dispute that?
I'm all for closing the gap in any way possible, I just dont see the gain in a ton of sources, here and the MSM portraying the main dol statistic as something its not.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/21/commentary/everyday/sahadi/
Is this what you're saying?
Isn't it a bit deceptive to say there is a 25% to 30% "Wage Gap" when if you "control for all factors" including "educational and occupational choices, as well as demographic and personal characteristics" the gap is only 5%?
I mean when I'm told that statistically I earn 25% more than my female colleagues I would feel terrible, but when I'm told that given we're mostly controlled for all those factors mentioned the difference is only 5% - that's a very different story.
I'm not sure how they're getting that 5% either. Are they hired on at the same rate and advance differently in promotions? I know that it's a big problem for alot of women to have the confidence to make her employer consider giving her a raise: I see it in the racks of books at Chapters for self help business women.
The "choice" theory is mostly B.S., as you have to consider a lot of contributing factors that go into those choices.
For instance, you must take the 'feminization of jobs' into account. This refers to the fields that used to pay better, but once they were taken over by women the prestige/wages went down. (i.e. secretaries, teachers,telephone operators)
Then there's horizontal and vertical segregation, the glass ceiling, the valuing of typically 'male' traits over typically 'female' ones (which means that jobs that revolve around nurturing, support, child care, etc are usually lower paying), and tons of other factors to consider as well.
Love this awareness ad!
http://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/main.htm
http://stats.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2007.pdf
Those are also interesting links. I dont have much experience with the aauw organization cited in the first link you gave. But again I do believe the wage gap is there and its one of the topics I spend most of my time on as I can easily understand it and it seems to touch on so very many other issues. I just dont understand the reasoning behind trumpeting the 76 or 77% number and not correcting people when they make the wrong assumption about what that number means or again anyone ever using that atat for specific people. Thats all.
Something to consider is that you are looking at stats that are U.S. specific and this ad was not made in the U.S. nor for a U.S. audience.
I know the pay gap stats I have (sadly, at home, and I can't think of the group I got them for) sections off things like women in unions (they make 92% of what men make), and divides things out by race a great deal (worst here in Canada is First Nations women).
I'm not sure about your statistics, because they seem to sort of flip flop back and forth:
"When comparing the median weekly earnings of persons aged 16 to 24, young women earned 92% of what young men earned ($409 and $443, respectively).
"
They never noted what the actual amount of "fulltime" is; is it full time 40 hours a week on the dot or is it full time as in over 32 hours a week of work? If you could clarify this for me that'd be great, thanks.
The F-you concept is great, but I think it has one big flaw: it seemed as though many of the men giving her the figurative (well, and literal) finger were colleagues, not superiors.
I think it's inaccurate to suggest that women's coworkers who are making more money are the source of the affrontery and injustice. Many men, like many Euro-Americans, go through life happily reaping the benefits of institutional privilege without necessarily knowing they are doing so (and at the expense of women and ethnic minorities. That's why it's "privilege" as opposed to say, conscious oppression.
The ad-makers could have made clear it was bosses and CEOs and other frontpeople for the Institution that are the ones telling her to go to hell.
I think it would also be better in that the institutionalism and systematic nature of patriarchy is a much bigger fish to fry (pardon the flesh-eating privilege) than individual men, anyway.
Hmm.
On the one hand, I think it works for those who are already aware of the wage gap. On the other hand, I'm kind of worried people who need convincing (read: sexist people) might think the ad is funny. You can find the same sort of dialogue, toned down, in too many comedies.
i just saw myself arriving at work...
wish i could just sent to the co-workers as a "happy x-mas" attachment...
The commercial is clever and attention grabbing but my only problem with it is that some people may see it as putting the responsibility of the situation on individual men (the co-workers) rather than the system set up to benefit them. The people who most need to be reached when it comes to issues of sexism (or other -isms) may react defensively or take this as an accusation rather than an eye-opener to inequality. For example, as a white person living in modern times I may not have had anything to do with the historical circumstances that lead to the oppression of various racial minorities. However, I was born into a system that is designed to benefit people with my particular skin color so I need to always remember that there are certain privileges I'm given simply due to my race. A commercial that had white people calling minorities by racial slurs to highlight inequality might make some people defensive or dismissive because they are not complete racists and don't see themselves as directly oppressing minorities. However, a commercial that allows white people to see the ways in which the path of their life has been impacted by their race may help open their eyes to how the system creates obstacles for minorities.
But to be fair, I don't think the commercial was trying to make the statement that it IS the fault of individual co-workers. They were trying to say that being in a work environment that rewards men more than women is LIKE being insulted at work. I'm just suggesting one way that it could be read in to.
The "24% wage gap" is a really misleading stat. Most of the wage gap for women vs men, as it is for whites vs blacks, has to do with group trends vs individual ones. So if you were to compare a male marketing VP to a female marketing VP with equivalent experinece, you'd find a much smaller wage gap. Not that we should be satisfied at that gap.
The 24% wage gap emerges because female VPs are greatly outnumbered by male VPs. Well that's a horse of a different color, with a different solution as well. To solve this problem you have to get more women into top MBA programs where they typically only make up about 30% of the population.
Yes, that is a much clearer way of saying what I was getting at. I'd really like to see the numbers right now, with the job losses currently being most heavy in sectors dominated by men and gains in fields dominated by women. The wage gap is there, it exists but the 76% thing bothers me, it distracts me from listening to anything else a person has to say about the subject if they keep repeating it or try and make it mean something it doesnt.
Similar to a lot of my conservative coworkers who take stats they see on the bottom of fox news about union workers and try and use them to justify their arguments. There are indeed issues with the unions but they are just using the wrong metrics to make their case. I try and give them more info and such and that usually helps.
I believe the 76% number is indicative of a lot of things that no labor survey could ever hope to contain and touches on almost every other feminist issue out there I just dont get why the stat is used incorrectly and never corrected in a comments thread and such. Like in this ad does it not make it seem as if this specific woman is being paid 24% less than her male counterparts even though she is an exec? It seems to be using the 76% stat for a specific woman which makes no sense.
last comment was in response to terrarist
I like the commercial, but (as with most YouTube videos that address any kind of feminist or anti-feminist issues), the comments are appalling.