Who-Stole-Feminism.-How-Women-Have-Betrayed-Women

240 WHO STOLE FEMINISM?The sources Faludi cites do not sustain her figure. The actual figure for1988 is 68 cents, both for all women and for women with a collegediploma. This is substantially higher, not lower, than it was five yearsearlier. The most recent figures, for 1992, are considerably higher yet, thehighest they have ever been: 71 cents for all women and 73 cents forwomen with a college diploma. 43The figure of 59 cents may be a useful rallying cry for gender feministactivists, but like many such slogans it is highly misleading and nowegregiously out of date. The following diagram shows the dramatic rise ofthe female-to-male, year-round, full-time earnings ratio, from about 59cents throughout the 1970s to 71 cents in 1992. 4475 -|Female-to-Male YRFT Earnings Ratio70 -65 -60 -55 -50 I I I I I J I I—I—r—]—I—I—I—|—I—|—i—i—i—i—I I l I I I1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-60.Evidently the 59 cent figure is chosen for its propaganda value ratherthan for true insights into any remaining discrimination.What of the remaining gap between male and female earnings? For thegender feminists, the answer is simple: the wage gap is the result ofdiscrimination against women. But in fact, serious economics scholarswho are trained to interpret these data (including many eminent femaleeconomists) point out that most of the differences in earnings reflect suchprosaic matters as shorter work weeks and lesser workplace experience.For example, the average work week for full-time, year-round females is