regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (02/26/85)
------------------------partial text of article---------------- >>***** inmet:net.politics / ttidcc!regard / 10:38 am Feb 16, 1985 >>While "market value" is generally a good concept for pay scales, it has >>been shown that in the case of women "market value" does _not_ govern the >>wages. In San Jose, the pay scale of nurses. . . Other studies have been >>done to show that "market value" does not function in this context. >The table you give has two interesting points: first, male and female >nurses are reported as having approximately the same salaries, which >certainly seems to undermine ttidcc!regard's notion that nursing >represents some sort of special hotbed of prejudice against women, >although I concede that the forces of evil may underpay nurses >as a way of getting at the 99% who are women, and ignore the >problem of the 1% who are men. ------------------------------------------------------------------ I often end up wondering if anybody really pays attention to what is actually posted, rather than reading their own prejudices/slants into everybody elses articles. The first article posted referred to the nurse vs. truck driver commentary, disagreeing with the argument that "free market" will sort out the actual "worth" of any particular job (held by men or women). The second refers to the posting on relative salaries of men and women in same industries. No mention was made of nursing being a special hotbed of prejudice against women. The point, that the free market system does _not_ regulate the "worthiness" of many jobs, was completely ignored. --------------------partial text of article------------------ >>(Always presuming that children are raised with similar expectations, >>which, of course, they aren't. You can't dress your daughter >>in pink and lace for her whole life, and reward only nurturing behaviour, >>then expect her to "freely" choose to become a truck driver). >I think it's a little rough of you to ask the taxpayers to fund agencies >to determine the "comparable worth" of all jobs, and at the same time >ask them to raise children YOUR way, otherwise this agency will continue >to do its work (and control everyone's salary) until children ARE raised >the way you want. Perhaps you could try to convince people of this >WITHOUT suggesting that government FORCE them to do it? --------------------------------------------------------------- Another example, *sigh*. I didn't recommend agencies, or task forces. Nor did I even recommend other people raise their kids the way I raise mine. I certainly have my own opinions, and practice them, and even discuss a few of them in net.kids, but I don't suggest the government force anybody to use my methods. So what is this? Do I assume that somebody had a bad day, or do I assume somebody can't read? Think I'll get a cup of coffee and forget it. A. Regard " i'd rather learn from one bird how to sing than teach 10,000 stars how not to dance " e.e. cummings