Yeah, I don't think "incendiary" is a word that even remotely applies to this interview. If anything it's a good example of how two people with totally divergent positions can have a constructive exchange where important ideas are actually discussed and explored (despite the occasions where the interviewer appeared to just be prodding rather than genuinely questioning).
I've always thought the pay gap stuff is hugely oversimplified in the public discourse and would welcome more information about the variables that lead to it. The interviewer's point that there are hardly any women at the top of major companies - for example - is an argument that always struck me as a red herring. The people at the top of major companies are old, mostly got there over the course of careers that unfolded over decades, and the disparity is in part going to be explained as the product of social barriers and mores that existed 40 years ago rather than today. The only way to fix that seems to be to artificially mandate that women replace some of the men at the top - a bit unfair to those men and to those companies I'd say.
When today's young professionals become the leaders of industry, women will be much better represented. In fields like law and medicine, they can expect to be dominant. Change doesn't happen overnight.
Anyway, it's an interesting debate in which the most persuasive voice - rather than the loudest - should be listened to.
|