Feminist campaigns concerning feminization of poverty and comparable worth are analyzed in terms of their major policy goals and the arguments typically used to justify those goals. The differences between liberal and radical discourses on each issue are outlined and the implications for feminist practice discussed. It is concluded that situating the issues of women's poverty and pay equity in a liberal political discourse may strengthen important ideological and social underpinnings of women's subordination.

Comparable worth is a limited remedy for occupational segregation and the wage gap: It is compatible with meritocratic values, argued for in conventional labor market terms, and may increase tensions among men and women workers. But, while it relies on liberal political discourse, it has also improved the wages of women workers, broadened public thinking about discrimination, and stimulated cross gender wage comparisons unthinkable even a few years ago. This comment explains the limitations of comparable worth, not in terms of (...) the discourse proponents relied upon, but in relation to a specific political agenda and to a historical and political struggle over the control of the debate over comparable worth. As social science advocates for a more radical political agenda, it is our obligation to think more realistically about how we build a radical politics to accompany our discourse. (shrink)