Due to popular demand, I’ve done my best to boil the wage gap down to one post on Feministe. Check it out - I expect a lively comment thread, as always.

I’m still guest blogging at Feministe. It’s great fun - Feministe is a much higher traffic site than my own, and the intellectual level of comments has been very high. If you haven’t already, check out my introduction, a post about women and the US soon-to-be recession, a few definitions of economics, and from today, a slightly off-topic post about ShopInPrivate.com.

Turns out my calendar was incorrect, and my Feministe guest posts start  today. That means blogging over here will be light for the next two weeks, but I will throw up some teasers to lure you to Feministe. From the questions and suggestions that have been posted so far, I may be covering some familiar ground, but I’ll also dig up some more original material for you, loyal readers.

My next post will collect a few (hopefully witty) definitions of economics. If you leave a particularly clever one in comments, I’ll include it with attribution and secure your legacy in the feminist blogosphere.

Now, for something completely different: Instead of getting a head start on those posts, or any of the other half-dozen things I have due in the next two weeks, I spent the afternoon configuring an old laptop as a second monitor. Dual monitors are said to increase your productivity by 20 to 30 per cent, and while I’m sceptical about that precise number, it’s sure giving this laptop user more room to think. Perhaps now I’ll be able to post more frequently…

I’m currently preparing for a guest posting stint over at Feministe, which will start in about a week. I’m planning to make a series of posts about why women, and feminists, should care about economics. I’ve got lots of ideas of my own, but since this blog’s audience is often pretty skewed towards the econ side, I thought I’d ask for suggestions.

Economists, feminist economists, feminists who care about economics - what do you wish your fellow feminists knew about economics? Is there a particular concept that is often misunderstood? A branch of research they should pay more attention to?

If you make a suggestion that I haven’t thought up myself already, and I use it, I’ll be happy to credit you for the idea by name, link, or both. Of course, you’ll just have to trust me on that one.

This is probably a good moment to point out that I have finally secured myself a blog email address. It is: economicwoman AT gmail DOT com. Please send along your comments and criticism, unless you’re going to tell me to post more often. It’s on my list, right below “register for GREs” and “make sure you pass statistics”.

…to inform me that “Firefox has blocked two pop-ups”, am I the only one who reaches absently for a “thank you” button?

Economic Woman has gone (mostly) quiet in honour of midterms, which will wrap up on Wednesday.

Pride in Toronto is a pretty big deal, spread out over more than a week and apparently involving a million people. Today I marched, and checked out Mariko Tamaki, the fabulous Ember Swift, uh huh her and The Hidden Cameras.

The organizing committee brings in great entertainment, and it’s all free. A lot of straight folks have caught on, and they come for the concerts as well as the usual have-your-picture-taken-with-a-drag-queen novelty. I think it’s good for the community, because while the straight public might come to see Melanie C. for free, they’re also exposed to us at our most outrageous.

Also, I’ve noticed an interesting thing about food prices at Pride. Usually special events involve very high prices for food, drink, etc., but Pride doesn’t seem to clamp down on street vendor competition the way so many festivals do. All the convenience stores, hot dog stands and take-out restaurants in the gaybourhood do well during Pride, and there are some pretty good deals to be had - today I noticed one restaurant advertising sushi, spring rolls and a pop for $4.99.

Of course, within the official beer gardens, drinks are ridiculous, and the most popular restaurants on Church street bring in special “Pride menus” and enforce a $10 per person minimum, as a sort of rent for on sought-after tables.

Feministe has a link round up on women and work. The Times has a number of recent articles on similar topics: here are some strangely context-free statistics on the wage gap. I think it was supposed to be a sidebar for this article, about a the Equalities Bill. I’m no expert, but that Bill seems sort of hastily patched together. Take this stab at affirmative action:

The section likely to prove the most controversial encourages companies to favour female and ethnic minorities candidates if there is tiebreak for a job vacancy. Critics say that this will discriminate against white men - supporters of the measure say that the balance is already tipped in white men’s favour.

That criticism is daft, of course, but maybe I can make a couple from the other end. How do we define a “tiebreak” in something as amorphous and instinct-driven as hiring? Even if we can, what if, god forbid, there is more than one “minority” (a stupid and inaccurate label, by the way) tied? This sort of vague policy will just never be implemented. Maybe affirmative action is called for, but it needs to be better thought out…

Finally, another Times article speculates that new programs to help mothers stay in the workplace may be cut in the current “economic turmoil.” (An aside - it’s funny how the media has to talk itself in spirals describing this maybe-it’s-a-recession, especially in Canada where it’s barely shown up in our economic indicators at all.)

And with that, I am bored of writing women in the corporate world. Help me out, dear readers: what would you like to learn about next?

Jessica Wakeman writes about women on Wall Street as two high-profile female executives are fired. Despite the negative headline, it’s kind of a good news/bad news story. The bad:

They may make up 46% of the workforce, but women held only 15.4% of Fortune 500 corporate officer positions in 2007… According to Gail Evans, former executive vice president of CNN (TWC) and author of the book Play Like a Man, Win Like a Woman. “There’s so few women [that] when one of them gets fired [from an executive position], the percentage drops 10 percent.”

What’s the good news? The consensus is that these two executives deserved to be let go for straightforward professional reasons. And as far as I can tell, Wakeman is relieved that the coverage of the demotions wasn’t sexist:

The headlines were all about the Lehman firings, not about the “lady executive” getting the axe.

(Hat tip to Feministing.)

In case you’ve missed it, Kathy of The G Spot has a post up on The American Prospect’s Tapped about the economics of paid family leave. I haven’t had a chance to go over it in detail, but it looks exhaustive and interesting. 

This is my third post in response to a single post from weeks ago, but bear with me - I have three unrelated thoughts. In a reaction to this blog and feminist economics generally, Peter Boettke articulates a common reaction to identity politics:

Women, like men, let alone minorities, should not accept any artificial barriers to pursuing their goals.  If people get in your way, don’t let them — either side-step them or run them over.  Don’t ever let others define you, you define yourself; you are in control of your own destiny.  The cream always rises, is what my father always taught us.

I think this is something we need to believe on some level in order to function. Certainly, as I work towards my goals it helps to imagine that I am in control of my own destiny, that my “cream” will rise if I work hard enough. But the social scientist in me also sees barriers, institutional and otherwise, which put others like me (women, queer women) at a disadvantage.

I’d suggest that, broadly, people on the left are more likely to experience this disconnect. That got me to wondering if this is why conservatives are happier than leftists. Lo and behold, that study’s authors argued something similar.