4 ms·

> By some estimates, mothers make only 70 cents for every dollar fathers do. For an organisation that concerns itself a great deal about misinformation, it sur

> By some estimates, mothers make only 70 cents for every dollar fathers do. For an organisation that concerns itself a great deal about misinformation, it sure does like to spread it around when it fits its narrative.

FartyMcFarter 4y ago
I think superficially, that statement might be true. The caveat is that it's not an apples-to-apples comparison, and indeed the mistake a lot of people make is to imply (or outright say) that this means women are paid 30% less for the same work.
- tgv 4y ago
  But strictly literal, what you call "superficial", truth is bad in itself. If someone were to publish "X, who's been called a paedophile by some" or "of Y origin, an ethnic group some claim has a reduced IQ/less hygiene/eats foetuses for breakfast", would you shrug and say "yeah, some would say that"? In general, there's more to text than the literal meaning. Text suggests, and an institution like the BBC knows that.
- shapefrog 4y ago
  By some estimates, that statement might be true.
  - xwolfi 4y ago
    I dont know, people are paid what they ask weighted down by what can be given for the same work on the market. If women were accepting less pay, you d have entire corporations trying to get rid of men to make room for cheaper women. The reality must be that women and men gravitate towards different jobs and different hours per week. The good thing is that most men and women can unite and create a balance to average their revenue across a couple. My wife is paid more than me but she's doing a job I cant do and she wouldnt even consider doing mine... like, is that bad ? Hard to say, we just balance it out.
badcppdev 4y ago
I was about to say the writer doesn't seem to have been very careful with their words but then I checked the article and you have been very careless with your quoting because the entire next paragraph is very relevant the income of mothers. Did you not read that far or did you choose to not include it for a reason?
phpisthebest 4y ago
In "news" today the narrative is all that matters. Facts are not important.
- mcphage 4y ago
  This is not a new phenomenon. It wasn't even new in the 1800s when the term "yellow journalism" was coined.
matthewmacleod 4y ago
You deliberately selectively quoted this article in order to advance your own personal agenda. That is the problem that causes misinformation to spread – not this article, where the statement you quoted is immediately followed by further discussion of that estimate and what might affect it. This is a great example of why no article covering this topic can be discussed sensibly on this site – because of bad-faith comments like this.
- tgv 4y ago
  The paragraph directly following reinforces the statement, doesn't discuss it, and implicitly widens it to all women. The rest of the text repeats the "x cents to the dollar" meme. I don't think that was bad faith.
- monsecchris 4y ago
  The only personal agenda I have is pointing out staggering hypocrisy and when someone claims to be the arbiter of truth, it is my duty to hold them to it. I would act in exactly the same way if they were claiming the reason they perceive women to be paid less is because they are less intelligent "by some estimates"[1], but I have a strong suspicion they wouldn't do that. In my view, it is the same principle being broken in both examples and all I desire is treating them consistently. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates
dhruval 4y ago
I am out of the loop on this stuff, but I vaguely remember hearing / reading this number from multiple sources in the context of workplace sexism. What is the misinformation here ?

FartyMcFarter 4y ago

I think superficially, that statement might be true. The caveat is that it's not an apples-to-apples comparison, and indeed the mistake a lot of people make is to imply (or outright say) that this means women are paid 30% less for the same work.

tgv 4y ago
But strictly literal, what you call "superficial", truth is bad in itself. If someone were to publish "X, who's been called a paedophile by some" or "of Y origin, an ethnic group some claim has a reduced IQ/less hygiene/eats foetuses for breakfast", would you shrug and say "yeah, some would say that"? In general, there's more to text than the literal meaning. Text suggests, and an institution like the BBC knows that.
shapefrog 4y ago
By some estimates, that statement might be true.
- xwolfi 4y ago
  I dont know, people are paid what they ask weighted down by what can be given for the same work on the market. If women were accepting less pay, you d have entire corporations trying to get rid of men to make room for cheaper women. The reality must be that women and men gravitate towards different jobs and different hours per week. The good thing is that most men and women can unite and create a balance to average their revenue across a couple. My wife is paid more than me but she's doing a job I cant do and she wouldnt even consider doing mine... like, is that bad ? Hard to say, we just balance it out.

badcppdev 4y ago

I was about to say the writer doesn't seem to have been very careful with their words but then I checked the article and you have been very careless with your quoting because the entire next paragraph is very relevant the income of mothers. Did you not read that far or did you choose to not include it for a reason?

phpisthebest 4y ago

In "news" today the narrative is all that matters. Facts are not important.

mcphage 4y ago
This is not a new phenomenon. It wasn't even new in the 1800s when the term "yellow journalism" was coined.

matthewmacleod 4y ago

You deliberately selectively quoted this article in order to advance your own personal agenda. That is the problem that causes misinformation to spread – not this article, where the statement you quoted is immediately followed by further discussion of that estimate and what might affect it. This is a great example of why no article covering this topic can be discussed sensibly on this site – because of bad-faith comments like this.

tgv 4y ago
The paragraph directly following reinforces the statement, doesn't discuss it, and implicitly widens it to all women. The rest of the text repeats the "x cents to the dollar" meme. I don't think that was bad faith.
monsecchris 4y ago
The only personal agenda I have is pointing out staggering hypocrisy and when someone claims to be the arbiter of truth, it is my duty to hold them to it. I would act in exactly the same way if they were claiming the reason they perceive women to be paid less is because they are less intelligent "by some estimates"[1], but I have a strong suspicion they wouldn't do that. In my view, it is the same principle being broken in both examples and all I desire is treating them consistently. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates

dhruval 4y ago

I am out of the loop on this stuff, but I vaguely remember hearing / reading this number from multiple sources in the context of workplace sexism. What is the misinformation here ?