reconciliation of subjectivity and politicalnorder. But Hegel fleshes out asnhistory what Rosen presents throughnprovisional, often paradoxically statednarguments. Unlike Hegel, he does notngo beyond abstract argument into recognitionnof the historically concrete,nparticularly the link between culturenand politics.nOn the positive side, Rosen makesnhis arguments with literary flair andnTHE COSTS OF GENDERnIn 1985, the State Appeals Court innWashington overturned what had beenncomparable worth’s biggest judicial victorynto date: a lower court had found thenstate guilty of underpaying its femalenstate employees. (The price of justice, innthis case, was somewhere between $400nand $848 million.) In recent years, withnthe exception of the well-publicized Yalenunion settlement, the issue has largelyndisappeared from the newspapers. But itnlives on, with a vengeance, in the sociologicalnjournals, and despite setbacks innthe courts and in federal government,npay equity has solid support at the statenlevel. Ten states have instituted comparablenworth policies, and another 18 havenconducted comparable worth studies.nThe issue is by no means dead, as EllennFrankel Paul shows in her overview,nEquity and Gender: The ComparablenWorth Debate (New Brunswick, NJ:nTransaction Publishers; 143 pp.).nThough a comparable worth critic,nPaul does try to give both sides of thendebate, devoting a chapter to the propaynequity arguments. She also drivesnhome the crucial point: that far fromnbeing just another kind of legislation tonrectify discrimination (such as Titlenerudition. His essays on Nietzsche,nFichte, Hegel, Plato, Aristofle, andnRichard Rorty indicate an impressivencommand of original sources^ includingnthose in Greek and Latin. Rosen’snstudy of Cartesian dualism is one of thenmost illuminating that I’ve seen. Henshows that the gap between thinkingnand the world of activity created bynDescartes’s method of inquiry contributednto the contradictory tendencies ofnREVISIONSnVII, or the Equal Pay Act), comparablenworth is the basis for a whole newneconomic scheme that would take keyndecisions on payscales and job classificationsnout of the hands of employers andngive them to outside, “objective” experts.nSetting aside this great specter ofnstate planning, anyone with commonnsense and a pocket calculator can shootnholes in the discrimination statistics.nThe most popular one is that womennworking full-time earn 60 cents to theirnmale counterparts’ dollar. June O’Neillnhas pointed out that, among other problemsnwith this statistic, “full-time” isndefined as 35 hours a week, shuntingnaside the fact that women workingnfull-time seem to work 9 to 10 percentnfewer hours than men. Add to this thenreality that working women havenworked 60 percent of their workingnlives, to men’s on-average 100 percent,nand that women’s education is typicallynmuch less job-related than men’s, andnyou have, according to O’Neill, explainednhalf of that wage gap. Othernresearchers, such as Paul Weiler at HarvardnLaw School, have brought the gapndown even lower, to 10 or 15 percent.nIf the comparable worth statistics arenbased on highly-subjective assumptions,nthe outsider job evaluations are evennnnidealism and materialism.nAt his best, Rosen embodies Hegel’snideal of modernity as the selfconsciousnessnof antiquity. Would thatn^thers achieved or even aspired to thensame!nPaul Gottfried teaches intellectualnhistory at Elizabethtown College innPennsylvania.nmore so. Richard Burr (in a study citednby Paul) found basic discrepancies innthe standards used by various states—nsuch as which factors in a job should benevaluated, and how much weight to giventhose factors. In New Mexico, half thenevaluators were unable to agree on thenclassification level for 824 of the 896njobs studied. This is the kind of “objectivity”nthat is supposed to replace thendiscriminatory “subjectivity” of ournpresent relatively-free market.nAs with so much protective legislation,nthe likely results will hurt thosenwho need help most: as many of thesenpay equity payscales give greater weightnto education than to physical danger ornnecessary strength, they are inherentlynanti-blue collar. And if employers arenforced to raise salaries, especially undernthe direction of outsiders with little ornno stake in the businesses, the result willnbe fewer jobs. With fewer jobs, it isnalways those on the lower end of thensocial ladder who get knocked off. Withnpay equity we are also certain to getnhigher taxes (just look at Washington)nand a flood of court cases. Nor will itnremain just a women’s issue: how longncan it be before Seattle’s garbage collectorsnsue the city because what they do isnjust as valuable as auditors’ work? (KD)nOCTOBER 1989/43n