[PEN-L:11352] Re: on CEO Pay

[MScoleman@xxxxxxx]

Nope. This is why ( as I pointed out) other types of debate are more
effective.  In fact, I think I mentioned that your book is good because it
puts those espousing mainstream economics on the defensive (feminist
economics has also done that to a large extent.  For instance, it wasn't
until marxist feminists in the late 60s early 70s began publishing work
attacking the traditional role assigned to women that Becker and other
Chicago schoolers built a "better" model incorporating their misogynist (sp?)
views).
>Yes, but will the Chicagoans listen? Will building a better model convince
>them of the error of their ways?

It may not have been phrased exactly this way, but what I say in the rest of
my initial message is that one of the primary feminist critiques is that
econometrics (models) are almost by definition inaccurate.  In other words,
they are parsimonious to the point where they can not possibly reflect social
issues (power, gender, race, sexual preference, etc.).  So even when power is
added to a model, the model inaccurately portrays the exercise of power
because the one dimensional nature of mathematics does not allow for the
variable degrees of the exercise of power.  Further, econometrics is only one
form of logic, generally associated with men, and its use as a legitimizing
force to the exclusion of all other types of logic (artistic, intuitive) is
in and of itself a form of bigotry.
>Or does model-building in itself reflect a
>certain set of prejudices (mathematizing the world drains it of conflict,
>power, ambiguity, etc. - sorry, Bill Mitchell), prejudices that will
>survive any formal assault?
>Doug
>Doug Henwood
>Left Business Observer
>250 W 85 St
>New York NY 10024-3217 USA
>+1-212-874-4020 voice  +1-212-874-3137 fax

maggie coleman mscoleman@xxxxxxx