Although the Equal Pay Act has existed for more than fifty years now, women are still paid less than their male counterparts in every single industry within the United States (Anderson). Lori Andrus discusses the cause of this continuing discrimination, while encouraging her female counterparts in advocating for equal pay by suing, in her piece “Level the playing field.”Anderson stresses her points by dissecting The Equal Pay Act and statistics, to show the main cause of the pay gap and to encourage women to sue for unequal pay. Meanwhile, Emily Peck mainly focuses on the causes of the gender pay gap with little discussion on possible solutions to narrow the gap in by means of her article “The Real Reason Women Still Make Less Than Men.”
…show more content…
Considering, that majority of Trial’s audience is interested in law, Andrus’s technique of presenting The Equal Pay Act in order to encourage and show in detail the process of suing under the act, is very appropriate since most individuals would be interested the detail of the process. Considering, her goal is to encourage women to sue under the act, Andrus’s article is particularly targeting women. Meanwhile, The Huffington Post is online blog and aggregator with article covering a variety of topics including culture, politics and business. Peck’s article would appeal to women more since it discusses the struggle of unequal pay for women. But, The Huffington Post being a well know online news site, has a much larger audience than that of Andrus’s magazine, Trial, which is geared towards a smaller legal interested …show more content…
Unlike Andrus who overly simples the pay gap issue by entirely blaming it on the employer, Peck manages to show how lifestyle of women make it hard to work certain hours as demonstrated with her statement, “There’s nothing more killing for parents or women in particular than having a child that gets out of school at 2:30 (Peck).” Andrus in attempting to demonstrate the process of suing under the Equal Pay Act to her audience ironically shows how complicated and time consuming it would be to sue under the act, as well as exposing the challenges that the plaintiff would have in proving discrimination in pay at work (Andrus). Due to such flaws in Andrus’s piece, Peck’s piece appears as more effective in reaching her audience when compared to Andrus’s
Considering, that majority of Trial’s audience is interested in law, Andrus’s technique of presenting The Equal Pay Act in order to encourage and show in detail the process of suing under the act, is very appropriate since most individuals would be interested the detail of the process. Considering, her goal is to encourage women to sue under the act, Andrus’s article is particularly targeting women. Meanwhile, The Huffington Post is online blog and aggregator with article covering a variety of topics including culture, politics and business. Peck’s article would appeal to women more since it discusses the struggle of unequal pay for women. But, The Huffington Post being a well know online news site, has a much larger audience than that of Andrus’s magazine, Trial, which is geared towards a smaller legal interested …show more content…
Unlike Andrus who overly simples the pay gap issue by entirely blaming it on the employer, Peck manages to show how lifestyle of women make it hard to work certain hours as demonstrated with her statement, “There’s nothing more killing for parents or women in particular than having a child that gets out of school at 2:30 (Peck).” Andrus in attempting to demonstrate the process of suing under the Equal Pay Act to her audience ironically shows how complicated and time consuming it would be to sue under the act, as well as exposing the challenges that the plaintiff would have in proving discrimination in pay at work (Andrus). Due to such flaws in Andrus’s piece, Peck’s piece appears as more effective in reaching her audience when compared to Andrus’s