[net.social] Discrimination against women and statistics

fagin@ucbvax.ARPA (Barry Steven Fagin) (06/15/85)

From Jennifer Roback, an economist at Yale, commenting on the "59c"
button popular among feminists during the 1984 election: (This
button was intended to symbolize the fact that women make 59 cents
for every dollar that men make).

"Actually, many of the factors that contribute to the earnings gap are the
result of personal choices made by women themselves, not decisions thrust
on them by bosses.  The most important example is marriage."

"These differences between married women and single women (and between
married women and men, for that matter) contribute dramatically to
reducing the earnings of married women.  Thus we find, in a comparison of
the earnings of never-married women and those of never-married men, that
the women's earnings in 1980 were 89 percent of men's.  This figure has
been essentially unchanged since the 1960 census.  So if one is looking
for a "culprit" for the earnings gap, it is far more plausible to pin the
blame on *marital status* than on *gender*."

"...so there are a number of differences between men and women for their
earnings differences.  Taken altogether, these very reasonable and
understandable factors cannot, it is true, account for the entire earnings
gap.  But when the gap *is* corrected for these factors, it is not 59%
but more like 66-87%, depending on the study."

"...common sense tells us that personality makes a huge difference to a
person's career success.  Ambition, aggressiveness, willingness to take
risks, ability to get along with and motivate others, commitment to the
job, willingness to assume responsibility--all of these factors contribute
to higher wages...But none of these factors can be measured, and the
residual earnings differences could just as easily be due to differences
in these factors as well as to discrimination.  The point is that we
cannot distinguish discrimination from these other, unmeasurable factors."

"...Clearly, neither feminist fund raisers nor the average well-informed
citizen knows this stunning fact: ONLY 40% OF THE EARNINGS OF WHITE MEN
CAN BE ACCOUNTED FOR BY MEASURABLE FACTORS.  That is, A FULL 60% OF THE
DIFFERENCES IN EARNINGS AMONG THEM CANNOT BE EXPLAINED BY ANYTHING WE CAN
MEASURE (emphasis mine)...This is why we cannot rule out the possibility
that the entire earnings gap between women and men is due to real personal
productivity differences that cannot be measured.  The upshot is that THE
PRESENCE OF DISCRIMINATION CAN NEITHER BE PROVEN OR DISPROVEN WITH
STATISTICAL TESTS."


"...so the 59c button ... is a symbol of the faith that much of the women's
movement places in government intervention as a solution to women's
problems.  Unfortunately for that faith, many women are liberating
themselves without the help of the law.  THeyy are finding their own path
through the maze of the world of work and devising their own way to
balance all of their financial, personal, and emotional needs.  And the
movement's loss is the individual's gain; for many of the problems that
some women face today will best be solved by the individuals themselves
and not by government action."


Thought I'd throw this in to the AA debate.

--Barry
-- 
Barry Fagin @ University of California, Berkeley

fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (06/17/85)

In article <ucbvax.8204> fagin@ucbvax.UUCP (Barry Steven Fagin) writes:
>From Jennifer Roback, an economist at Yale, commenting on the "59c"
>button popular among feminists during the 1984 election: (This
>button was intended to symbolize the fact that women make 59 cents
>for every dollar that men make).
>
>"Actually, many of the factors that contribute to the earnings gap are the
>result of personal choices made by women themselves, not decisions thrust
>on them by bosses.  The most important example is marriage."

One other factor is that women tend to choose occupations with greater
nonmonetary benefits which may compensate for the lower pay scales.  That is,
women more often choose occupations which center around helping other people
and cooperating with them (teacher, nurse, secretary, social worker).
The direct gratitude from the helpee satisfies some of the woman's social
needs.

Men more often find themselves in occupations which either isolate them
from other people, or pits them in anxiety-provoking competition.
Some of these higher paying "men's jobs" are dirty and dangerous as well.

The fallacy of the equal-pay-for-equal-work idea is that it compares
only the paychecks and level of skill and training required.  If we do not
also factor in the safety, pleasantness, and emotional effects of the job,
then this plan is likely to create more unfairness than it rectifies.

	Frank Silbermann

tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (06/18/85)

In article <8204@ucbvax.ARPA>, fagin@ucbvax.ARPA (Barry Steven Fagin) writes:
> From Jennifer Roback, an economist at Yale, commenting on the "59c"
> button popular among feminists during the 1984 election: (This
> button was intended to symbolize the fact that women make 59 cents
> for every dollar that men make).
> 

Jennifer Roback may be an economist at Yale (still), but her views are
well-known to be far from the mainstream.  She is the house libertarian
there (just as there is usually a house Marxist, and a house Straussian in
the polisci department, etc.).  Read the rest of what she says and you
will realize this for yourself.

> "Actually, many of the factors that contribute to the earnings gap are the
> result of personal choices made by women themselves, not decisions thrust
> on them by bosses.  The most important example is marriage."
> 

Men make the same choice of marriage, and it doesn't contribute to their
earnings gap.  Isn't that a difference we can call discriminatory, if
our goal is to make married partners share equally in the burdens of life?

> "These differences between married women and single women (and between
> married women and men, for that matter) contribute dramatically to
> reducing the earnings of married women.  Thus we find, in a comparison of
> the earnings of never-married women and those of never-married men, that
> the women's earnings in 1980 were 89 percent of men's.  This figure has
> been essentially unchanged since the 1960 census.  So if one is looking
> for a "culprit" for the earnings gap, it is far more plausible to pin the
> blame on *marital status* than on *gender*."
> 

The differences are between married women and single women, but is the
cause of those differences the choices women make or the job market that
chooses predicated on those choices?  Well, depends on your politics.  If
you believe that married and single people should be treated equally by
the job market, then you would blame the job market.  If you don't, then
maybe you will blame the choices and those women who made the wrong choice,
marriage.  The question of plausibility has to do with social and moral
goals, not with statistics.

> "...so there are a number of differences between men and women for their
> earnings differences.  Taken altogether, these very reasonable and
> understandable factors cannot, it is true, account for the entire earnings
> gap.  But when the gap *is* corrected for these factors, it is not 59%
> but more like 66-87%, depending on the study."
> 

Again, the decision to "correct" is not a statistical one, it is a moral
and political decision to ignore these differences as factors in
discrimination.  Genetic determinists "correct" for differences in
environmental "endowments" all of the time.

> "...common sense tells us that personality makes a huge difference to a
> person's career success.  Ambition, aggressiveness, willingness to take
> risks, ability to get along with and motivate others, commitment to the
> job, willingness to assume responsibility--all of these factors contribute
> to higher wages...But none of these factors can be measured, and the
> residual earnings differences could just as easily be due to differences
> in these factors as well as to discrimination.  The point is that we
> cannot distinguish discrimination from these other, unmeasurable factors."
> 

Which is why rougher indications like the differential impact of marriage
on men vs. women's incomes take on so much more importance.  Those
indications are much more solid than the "just as easily" speculations
with absolutely no empirical support that Ms. Roback refers to.

> "...Clearly, neither feminist fund raisers nor the average well-informed
> citizen knows this stunning fact: ONLY 40% OF THE EARNINGS OF WHITE MEN
> CAN BE ACCOUNTED FOR BY MEASURABLE FACTORS.  That is, A FULL 60% OF THE
> DIFFERENCES IN EARNINGS AMONG THEM CANNOT BE EXPLAINED BY ANYTHING WE CAN
> MEASURE (emphasis mine)...This is why we cannot rule out the possibility
> that the entire earnings gap between women and men is due to real personal
> productivity differences that cannot be measured.  The upshot is that THE
> PRESENCE OF DISCRIMINATION CAN NEITHER BE PROVEN OR DISPROVEN WITH
> STATISTICAL TESTS."
> 

Evidence required for social policy can be less than proof and still be
of great value.  Indicative rather than inferential statistics is often
all anyone has to determine any policy.  In fact, if the inferential
statistics denied the evidence of the indicative statistics, in many
cases one should still go with the indicative statistics and question
whether the assumptions behind the inferential statistics were as valid
as one thought they were.

> 
> "...so the 59c button ... is a symbol of the faith that much of the women's
> movement places in government intervention as a solution to women's
> problems.  Unfortunately for that faith, many women are liberating
> themselves without the help of the law.  THeyy are finding their own path
> through the maze of the world of work and devising their own way to
> balance all of their financial, personal, and emotional needs.  And the
> movement's loss is the individual's gain; for many of the problems that
> some women face today will best be solved by the individuals themselves
> and not by government action."

Note that the last two sentences are given no empirical support at all
by Ms. Roback.  Doubtless she has some microeconomic model to back her up
-- another inferential method whose assumptions should be questioned as
they apply to this world we live in.

> 
> Thought I'd throw this in to the AA debate.
> 
> --Barry
> -- 
> Barry Fagin @ University of California, Berkeley

Thanks.

Tony Wuersch
{amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw

robertp@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (06/18/85)

In article <212@ubvax.UUCP>, tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) writes:

> .... So if one is looking
> > for a "culprit" for the earnings gap, it is far more plausible to pin the
> > blame on *marital status* than on *gender*."
> > 
> 
> The differences are between married women and single women, but is the
> cause of those differences the choices women make or the job market that
> chooses predicated on those choices?  Well, depends on your politics.  If
> you believe that married and single people should be treated equally by
> the job market, then you would blame the job market.  If you don't, then
> maybe you will blame the choices and those women who made the wrong choice,
						   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> marriage.  The question of plausibility has to do with social and moral
  ^^^^^^^^
> goals, not with statistics.

Tsk, tsk.  Materialistic, aren't we?  Maybe we can tie all of these
"money uber alles" arguments with the ongoing Madonna controversy, and
the unsuitability of the "Material Girl" video to pliable Yuppie
minds.
-- 
		-- Robert Plamondon
		   {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robertp

sdo@u1100a.UUCP (Scott Orshan) (06/21/85)

>women more often choose occupations which center around helping other people
>and cooperating with them (teacher, nurse, secretary, social worker).
>The direct gratitude from the helpee satisfies some of the woman's social
>needs.
>
>Men more often find themselves in occupations which either isolate them
>from other people, or pits them in anxiety-provoking competition.
>Some of these higher paying "men's jobs" are dirty and dangerous as well.
>

What a waste my life has been.  My job involves facing irate users
carrying listings, the risk of dropping a terminal on my foot, and
the filthy job of running cables under the floor.

All this time I could have been cleanly and painlessly satisfying
my need to help others by teaching poor children carrying knives,
or changing people's bedpans, or counselling beaten families in
ghettos who are losing their benefits.  But forget being a secretary -
I would be risking coffee pot burns and pencil stabs.  And there's
no anxiety-provoking competition because we'd all be following the
same written rules and not be allowed to think on our own as I'm
occasionally forced to do on my job.

Thank you for showing me the light.


-- 

			Scott Orshan
			Bell Communications Research
			201-981-3064
			{ihnp4,allegra,bellcore,pyuxww}!u1100a!sdo

cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) (06/21/85)

For a more balanced view on how women stand in science and engineering than
Ms. Roback's Schlafly-emulation program output, read

Professional Women and Minorities--A Manpower Data Resource Service,
fifth edition (now who could pass up a fifth?)

by Betty M. Vetter and Elanor L. Babco

available from :

The Scientific Manpower Commission, 1776 Massachusetts Avenue, NW,
Washington, D.C. 20036.

                                Cheryl Stewart
-- 

"...a lot of people don't have much food on the table,

    but they got a lot of forks
                                  and knives,

                    and they gotta cut something."  --Bob Dylan

brian@digi-g.UUCP (Merlyn Leroy) (06/24/85)

Frank Silbermann writes:
>..women more often choose occupations which center around helping other people
>and cooperating with them (teacher, nurse, secretary, social worker)...
>Men more often find themselves in occupations which either isolate them
>from other people, or pits them in anxiety-provoking competition.
>
>The fallacy of the equal-pay-for-equal-work idea is that it compares
>only the paychecks and level of skill and training required.  If we do not
>also factor in the safety, pleasantness, and emotional effects of the job,
>then this plan is likely to create more unfairness than it rectifies.

This sounds fine, except nursing (and other health support occupations) are
HIGHEST on the work-anxiety scale.  Something about being around dying people.

Merlyn Leroy

edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (06/24/85)

> In article <ucbvax.8204> fagin@ucbvax.UUCP (Barry Steven Fagin) writes:
> >From Jennifer Roback, an economist at Yale, commenting on the "59c"
> >button popular among feminists during the 1984 election: (This
> >button was intended to symbolize the fact that women make 59 cents
> >for every dollar that men make).
> >
> >"Actually, many of the factors that contribute to the earnings gap are the
> >result of personal choices made by women themselves, not decisions thrust
> >on them by bosses.  The most important example is marriage."

Seems to me that just as many men would be affected by marriage as women.
I think what Ms. Roback must mean is *traditional* marriage, i.e., stay
at home and keep house and cook and have babies while Hubby goes to work
and makes the money.  In the past most women had damn few options other
than this; society is still pretty blatant in its channeling of women in
this direction.  Men benifit tremendously from marriage, both economically
and in terms of getting someone to take care of them.  Women benifit
far less, but if the other alternatives are restricted it won't seem as
bad.

> One other factor is that women tend to choose occupations with greater
> nonmonetary benefits which may compensate for the lower pay scales.  That is,
> women more often choose occupations which center around helping other people
> and cooperating with them (teacher, nurse, secretary, social worker).
> The direct gratitude from the helpee satisfies some of the woman's social
> needs.

This is pure bull, and you know it.  Aren't you grateful when a plumber
fixes a leaky pipe or a stopped drain?  Plumbing, and a whole lot of
other service jobs traditionally occupied by men, are extremely well-paid.
Why don't we just behave very grateful to them and pay them half as much?
Let's hear it for ``nonmonetary benifits''!

You've obviously not spent much time observing teachers, nurses, or
secretaries, or you'd see how much shit they have to put up with,
and how damn little gratitude they usually get.  How would you like
having to ``cooperate'' with every Tom, Sue, Dick, and Sally that
comes along, and *have no say in the matter*?  How would you like
being stuck helping people who are often hostile, and face getting
fired if you respond in a natural way?

``Tend to choose?''  Who are you kidding???  The tendency to propagandize,
train, and provide incentives for women to take these ``women's jobs,''
and the tendency to propagandize against, fail to train, and provide
disincentives for women to take ``men's jobs'' was never subtle in the
past, and often is blatant even now.

> Men more often find themselves in occupations which either isolate them
> from other people, or pits them in anxiety-provoking competition.
> Some of these higher paying "men's jobs" are dirty and dangerous as well.

...and provide a great deal of challenge and a feeling of accomplishment.
You think that being a nurse isn't often ``dirty and dangerous''?  Is
being exposed to the bodily wastes of people with highly infectuous
diseases something you'd call ``clean and safe''?  Or do you think that
there aren't a lot of anxiety-producing elements in being a social worker?
Or a teacher?  Would you rather deal with anxiety you can control the
source of, or anxiety you have no control over?  Is being at the mercy
of other people that much better than being isolated from them for a
few hours each day?

> The fallacy of the equal-pay-for-equal-work idea is that it compares
> only the paychecks and level of skill and training required.  If we do not
> also factor in the safety, pleasantness, and emotional effects of the job,
> then this plan is likely to create more unfairness than it rectifies.

Damn right!  And I suspect that if you really did a just job of ``factoring
in'' all these things, and factor in as well the contribution women make
to the social welfare in the often-unpleasant jobs of teaching, nursing,
social working, or being a secretary, women would end up being paid MORE
than men.

>         Frank Silbermann

		-Ed Hall
		decvax!randvax!edhall

cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/25/85)

> 
> >women more often choose occupations which center around helping other people
> >and cooperating with them (teacher, nurse, secretary, social worker).
> >The direct gratitude from the helpee satisfies some of the woman's social
> >needs.
> >
> >Men more often find themselves in occupations which either isolate them
> >from other people, or pits them in anxiety-provoking competition.
> >Some of these higher paying "men's jobs" are dirty and dangerous as well.
> >
> 
> What a waste my life has been.  My job involves facing irate users
> carrying listings, the risk of dropping a terminal on my foot, and
> the filthy job of running cables under the floor.
> 
> All this time I could have been cleanly and painlessly satisfying
> my need to help others by teaching poor children carrying knives,
> or changing people's bedpans, or counselling beaten families in
> ghettos who are losing their benefits.  But forget being a secretary -
> I would be risking coffee pot burns and pencil stabs.  And there's
> no anxiety-provoking competition because we'd all be following the
> same written rules and not be allowed to think on our own as I'm
> occasionally forced to do on my job.
> 
> Thank you for showing me the light.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 			Scott Orshan
> 			Bell Communications Research
> 			201-981-3064
> 			{ihnp4,allegra,bellcore,pyuxww}!u1100a!sdo

Until quite recently (sometime in the 1970s) most men's jobs in this
country were blue collar jobs involving dirt and risk.  My father used
to work on high steel, and the tales he told of industrial injuries
are pretty stomach turning.  I can see why few women would have gone into
his line of work (although I'm sure the macho bias of my father's 
co-workers would have prevented it anyway).  I suspect that the move 
away from blue collar jobs in America is part of the reason that women
are getting a fairer shake in the workplace.

jdh@mtung.UUCP (Julia Harper) (06/26/85)

>"Actually, many of the factors that contribute to the earnings gap are the
>result of personal choices made by women themselves, not decisions thrust
>on them by bosses.  The most important example is marriage."

>"These differences between married women and single women (and between
>married women and men, for that matter) contribute dramatically to
>reducing the earnings of married women.  Thus we find, in a comparison of
>the earnings of never-married women and those of never-married men, that
>the women's earnings in 1980 were 89 percent of men's.  This figure has
>been essentially unchanged since the 1960 census.  So if one is looking
>for a "culprit" for the earnings gap, it is far more plausible to pin the
>blame on *marital status* than on *gender*."

These statistics about women, income and marriage
certainly hit home with me!

I'd say it sounds like hanging around with men is bad for women's 
personal income health (and perhaps a few other kinds of health...
"they" say that unmarried women are happier than married women, 
and vice versa for men.)

Perhaps separatism has much more to offer than many women
realize....


-- 
Julia Harper
[ihnp4,ariel]!mtung!jdh

cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) (06/27/85)

In article <581@mtung.UUCP> jdh@mtung.UUCP (Julia Harper) writes:
>>"Actually, many of the factors that contribute to the earnings gap are the
>>result of personal choices made by women themselves, not decisions thrust
>>on them by bosses.  The most important example is marriage."
>
>>"These differences between married women and single women (and between
>>married women and men, for that matter) contribute dramatically to
>>reducing the earnings of married women.  Thus we find, in a comparison of
>>the earnings of never-married women and those of never-married men, that
>>the women's earnings in 1980 were 89 percent of men's.  This figure has
>>been essentially unchanged since the 1960 census.  So if one is looking
>>for a "culprit" for the earnings gap, it is far more plausible to pin the
>>blame on *marital status* than on *gender*."
>
>These statistics about women, income and marriage
>certainly hit home with me!
>"they" say that unmarried women are happier than married women, 
>and vice versa for men.)

1.  There is clearly a great asymmetry between male/female cost/benefit
    upon marraige.  Men gain autonomy, women lose it.  Men are given raises,
    women are fired, or "edged out", or get pregnant.

From my own experience, I can safely say that this phenomenon is not necessarily
due to "personal choices made by the women themselves".  I chose to get 
married under the explicitly stated conditions that my career (at that time,
not much of one--just a degree and some work experience--it took amazing GALL
to defend something that barely existed, but defend it I did) would continue
in the same way that it would have had I not married, and that we would forgo
having children until I was reasonably well-established.  Not only did the
EX chisel and wheedle on every aspect of the agreement after thedamage, I mean
marriage, had been done, but I felt like all my EX's colleagues wives, his
mother, my mother, and all manner of sisters, aunts and girlfriends had
gotten together in some sort of conspiracy to bring me down to their level
of unemployment, domestic enslavement, trivial pursuits, and going-to-seed.
Every time I turned around, some idiotic old biddy was patting me on the knee
telling me in oh-such-a-reassuring-tone that I wouldn't have to go to school
to occupy my time once I started having children, or that I really ought to
own a washing machine to make sure <dumbo's> shirts were clean (no thanks,
we send our shirts OUT), or that by joining the faculty wive's club and 
playing bridge with the old biddies that I could help <dumbo> get tenure.
And every christmas, it was "so, when are you going to have children", and
"oh, it must be so hard going to school and being married at the same time"
(wheras if I were male it would have been "guess things are easier with the
little woman around, huh?")  I mean, suddenly, I WAS NOTHING BUT THIS IDIOT'S
WIFE.  In everybody else's mind, anything I did for myself (going to school,
working, etc.) was somehow taking something away from him.  I had no idea
how insulting people could be, just to force their idea of what my relationship
with my SO should be like.  And if I hadn't been born such an argumentative,
contrary cuss, these idiots would have succeeded in sucking me into their
limited little world of bridge games and "my husband's smarter than yours"
(I swear, these idiot women have nothing better going for them than who it
is they happened to snag).  Repeatedly, I would get the little hint from
Barb, or the subtle insinuation from Betsy, or the "joking" comment from
<dumbo> himself that -> without <dumbo> I would be a nothing in society,
a mere student (gasp!) or discriminated-against-working-woman (shudder!),
that I had made the "right" decision, the decision that showed my humility,
the decision that showed that I considered "helping others [i.e. helping
dumbo get tenure at the big state U] more important than myself.  Not only
THAT, but people just ASSUMED that suddenly my china cabinet was more 
important to me than my studies, that making sure my career plans fit in
with my family plans was more important than making sure my family plans
fit in with my career plans.  I wish heartily that all of these people 
rot in hell.  The most offensive ones were the young, pseudo-feministic
ones who would say asinine things like "oh, you can still HAVE A JOB after
you get married"  and "Isn't it a shame that his career IS more important
than yours?"  (I'd look at them and say, "you know, you're one in a hundred.")

No, it's not "the personal decisions of the women themselves...marraige"
that can screw up a woman's career--it's the culture which interprets what
those decisions mean, and the subtle and not-so-subtle means by which 
that culture enforces itself at the expense of the individual.  <dumbo>
and I got married becuase we were "in love".  Everyone else thought it
was becuase I had decided to give up my education and career in order to 
go to seed.  Even if a few did try to put a thin feministic veneer on on
their assumptions.  I'll admit that the 53c issue is more complex than just
outright discrimination at the hiring level.  It is a statement about a 
whole culture that subordinates men to women on all levels, with men and
women reinforcing that culture with all the little things they say and do.
No wonder so many women just give up the fight...what's there to win,
the prospect of growing old alone with no grandchild or even childto 
shed a tear at your wake?  The knowlege that you've garnered the ill-
will of all around you, just to "accomplish something"?  No, better to
allow yourself to be pushed around by a bunch of stupid old women, so
you can be one yourself someday, and push around young brides the same
way you were pushed around.  


                "You're not getting older...you're getting bitter"


-- 

beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (06/27/85)

From: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann), Message-ID: <457@unc.UUCP>:
>In article <ucbvax.8204> fagin@ucbvax.UUCP (Barry Steven Fagin) writes:
>>"Actually, many of the factors that contribute to the earnings gap are the
>>result of personal choices made by women themselves, not decisions thrust
>>on them by bosses.  The most important example is marriage."
>
>One other factor is that women tend to choose occupations with greater
>nonmonetary benefits which may compensate for the lower pay scales.  That is,
>women more often choose occupations which center around helping other people
>and cooperating with them (teacher, nurse, secretary, social worker).
>The direct gratitude from the helpee satisfies some of the woman's social
>needs.
>
>Men more often find themselves in occupations which either isolate them
>from other people, or pits them in anxiety-provoking competition.
>Some of these higher paying "men's jobs" are dirty and dangerous as well.
>
>The fallacy of the equal-pay-for-equal-work idea is that it compares
>only the paychecks and level of skill and training required.  If we do not
>also factor in the safety, pleasantness, and emotional effects of the job,
>then this plan is likely to create more unfairness than it rectifies.
>
>	Frank Silbermann

Right.  We should pay nurses less because it's *so* much more pleasant and
rewarding to watch people in agony die than it is to do dirty and dangerous
work like resurfacing roads.  Earth to Frank, Earth to Frank - methinks
you're on the wrong planet.

I'm personally *certain* that teachers, nurses and social workers across
the nation consider the intangible benefits they get from being asked to
give of their very essence *all* the time to *more* than compensate for
being only barely able to support themselves and their kid(s).  I think
this pay scale thing is just hype from the idle rich who have nothing
better to do than stir up some fuss for their own amusement.

[Editor's note:  The above should be read with the heaviest sarcastic tone
 you can muster.]

Get real, Frank.

-- 

--JB                                 All we learn from history is that
                                       we learn nothing from history.

crs@lanl.ARPA (06/28/85)

> 
> Until quite recently (sometime in the 1970s) most men's jobs in this
> country were blue collar jobs involving dirt and risk.  My father used
> to work on high steel, and the tales he told of industrial injuries
> are pretty stomach turning.  I can see why few women would have gone into
> his line of work (although I'm sure the macho bias of my father's 
> co-workers would have prevented it anyway).  I suspect that the move 
> away from blue collar jobs in America is part of the reason that women
> are getting a fairer shake in the workplace.

Actually, that is a good point.  How many women would *want* that job
or one as a steel worker or a coal miner, etc?  For that matter how
many men?  Perhaps some thought should be directed in this direction
before we give *too* much credit to our all-benevolent government for
the progress that has been made.  And, lest we forget, progress *has*
been made.

-- 
Charlie Sorsby
...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs
crs@lanl.arpa

desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) (06/28/85)

For a Women's Studies course I took last semester, we read Michael
Gold's "Dialogue on Comparable Worth."  The book is in the form of
a debate between an advocate and critic of comparable worth (the 
arguments are very interesting, and although I don't think comparable
worth is practical as a way to determine salaries, I think that job
evaluation may be a useful tool for examining fairness of current 
salary scales).  What really bothered me is that the critic used
the same argument I use here -- that women choose to work in low-
paying jobs.  Why?  Well, a main reason is that these jobs have
higher mobility.  Mobility matters because your husband (working,
naturally, in a high-paying job) may have to relocate and you need
to follow him.  So why shouldn't the man follow his wife?  Well,
because he has a higher-paying job, naturally.  This is the kind of
circular reasoning that really makes me angry (in the past semester,
I've become much more militant about feminism just from seeing 
discrimination justified on the basis of discrimination like this).

	marie

desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) (06/28/85)

Oops, I made a mistake in the article I just posted.  I meant to say
'in the argument I see on the net', not 'the argument I use here.'

	marie

wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (06/28/85)

In article <2566@randvax.UUCP> edhall@rand-unix.UUCP (Ed Hall) writes:
>  Men benifit tremendously from marriage, both economically
>and in terms of getting someone to take care of them.  Women benifit
>far less, but if the other alternatives are restricted it won't seem as
>bad.
>
Well, I think that *my* wife has gotten a LOT of economic benefits from
our marriage. When we married, we both worked full time, at
professional-level Army jobs. Her marriage has allowed her to still live
comfortably, while at the same time:

a) Quitting her government job.

b) Withdrawing her accumulated retirement benefits, and using that plus
even a larger amount from my savings to open and furnish a retail
business, which lasted less than a year, but which satisfied a long-held
desire she had.

c) Living for at least a year without holding any job at all.

d) Choosing to then work as a temporary, so she can work or not as she
wishes.

e) Spending her income on her hobbies and a few groceries, while my
income goes to support the household, buys IRA's for both of us, buys
more of her (and mine, admittedly) hobby stuff, and all other expenses.

Sounds to me like she got a pretty good deal out of this...

Now, I accept that the only reason this situation is at all possible is
because we have chosen to have no children or automobiles, both of which
are infinite money sinks. But nobody is *forcing* any of the poor
downtrodden masses, or whoever else you are referring to, to behave
differently than we do -- they act differently because they choose to do
so. I think they are making the wrong choices, and we made the right
ones, and I think the evidence supports my correctness.

Will

phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (06/29/85)

In article <405@h-sc1.UUCP> desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) writes:
>Mobility matters because your husband (working,
>naturally, in a high-paying job) may have to relocate and you need
>to follow him.  So why shouldn't the man follow his wife?  Well,
>because he has a higher-paying job, naturally.

Does this mean you're willing to marry a man who makes less money than you?
That you're willing to "marry below your class"? I would suspect many women
are not. I'd be happy to hear if I'm wrong.
-- 

 Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720
 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
 ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA

cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) (06/30/85)

In article <1862@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes:
>In article <405@h-sc1.UUCP> desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) writes:
>>Mobility matters because your husband (working,
>>naturally, in a high-paying job) may have to relocate and you need
>>to follow him.  So why shouldn't the man follow his wife?  Well,
>>because he has a higher-paying job, naturally.
>
>Does this mean you're willing to marry a man who makes less money than you?
>That you're willing to "marry below your class"? I would suspect many women
>are not. I'd be happy to hear if I'm wrong.

What I want is a man of equal or higher class (preferably one who's parents are
loaded and are willing to pay for the wedding, the down-payment on the house,
the honeymoon, etc.) -- a man who is well-educated, thoughtful, witty ---
someone who will know instinctively *just* where to find that unique antique
umbrella-stand to spruce up the foyer, someone who will be conscientious 
about corresponding with my relatives and his at holiday time, someone who 
knows how to be firm but tactful with the servants, who can organize a 
reasonable social calendar for our family.  Of course, he won't want to
work, because I'll be the heir apparent to take over his mother's multi-
million dollar investment firm when she decides to retire.  It will be so
nice.  It's a shame his father failed to produce any daughters to take over
the family business.  Oh, well.  It's a big responsibility, but *someone*
has to take care of their business and their son for them.  

Have you heard of a rhetorical question?  Well, the above was a rhetorical
paragraph.  Look, if you want to find rich, lazy guys  just go to like
St. Tropez or Southampton or <the artist-musician colony of your choice>.
Pick him young, impressionable.  Your best bet is to get him to drop out
of college to follow you.  That way, he'll never have had a taste of what
it's like to earn his own money, and never having done it, he won't have the
confidence to start (after dropping out of school and being techically 
unemployed for a few years--what is he going to do, flip burgers while you
trade commodities?).  Make him FEEL his dependence on you while subtly
ridiculing any effort he makes to be less dependent.  That way you can
justify your RIGHT to expect that dinner be waiting for you when you
get home from work, that your shirts be ironed, that your children be
well-behaved.  

But first, you have to find the right one.  Of course all of your relatives
and his relatives will aid you in convincing him that his *real* calling in
life is to serve *you* (that is, assuming you can support him in the manner
to which he was born--better not go after them TOO rich!).  What you want
is someone *appropriate*, someone who will not clash with your colleagues'
husbands, socially that is.  Good luck!

                                           Cheryl Stewart

-- 

slk@mit-vax.UUCP (Ling Ku) (07/01/85)

In article <1862@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes:
>
>Does this mean you're willing to marry a man who makes less money than you?
>That you're willing to "marry below your class"? I would suspect many women
>are not. I'd be happy to hear if I'm wrong.
>-- 
>
> Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720
> UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
> ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA

First of all, earning ability has nothing to do with one's "class", if I may be
so wise to understand what you mean by "class".

If two men have have identical interest, temperament, looks ... in short, 
everything else being equal execpt how much they earn, I guess most women (for
that matter, most logical men given the reverse situation), would choose the 
one making more money.   BUT that doesn't mean I would not marry a man that 
earns less than me, as long as our combined income can meet my standard of 
living.

Some men I know (being from a conservative, immigrant Asian family) WANT
to marry a woman that earns less, has less education, less intelligent, ... 
than they are so that they can feel *SUPERIOR* to their wives.  Also, even 
though their wives work 8 hours a day, they (the wives) are expected to 
take care of their kids, cook, wash dishes, clean up the house, etc.  Why? 
Well, he will explain, because he is making most of the money, so it is just
fair that she does more house work.  And I think that is fair (nobody forced
the women to marry such a jerk to start with, besides, someone's got to do 
the house work).
(NOTE: 	I have nothing against Asian males,  I think they are great, so don't
flame me on that :-).

If the combined income from both husband and wife can sustain a standard of
living that is acceptable (to the individuals involved, of course),
I think most women (myself included) won't mind marrying a man that earns less
that she does provided that he would do as much house work as the women who
earn less that their husband does.  Now, honestly, I think it is HARDER to find
a man who is willing to do more house work, be humble in front of her wife 
(for those who thinks that money ==> class or prestige or inflated ego), etc
than it is to find a woman who is willing to marry "below her class".

I don't think men are the *sole* culprit in this phenomenon, I also know of
women who won't even consider marrying a man that earns less than she does.
(I'd subscribe 80% blame to men and 20% to women for being so spineless).
I think that men (since our society is male dominant for the last Nth years)
are responsible for fostering/imposing such attitude of male superiority/
female subordination and it is not fair to blame the women for succumbing to 
thousands of years of brain-washing.

				Siu-Ling  Ku

desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) (07/01/85)

> In article <405@h-sc1.UUCP> desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) writes:
> >Mobility matters because your husband (working,
> >naturally, in a high-paying job) may have to relocate and you need
> >to follow him.  So why shouldn't the man follow his wife?  Well,
> >because he has a higher-paying job, naturally.
> 
> Does this mean you're willing to marry a man who makes less money than you?
> That you're willing to "marry below your class"? I would suspect many women
> are not. I'd be happy to hear if I'm wrong.
> 
>  Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720

Yes, I would marry a man I loved, no matter how much or little money he
made.  (Chances are I would never marry a very low-salaried man, because
(a) I don't think I could have a good relationship with someone who wasn't
as educated as I am [what would we talk about if we couldn't talk about
computers? :-)] and (b) my husband wouldn't like it. :-)) In fact, I would 
guess there are a lot more men who are unwilling to marry a woman who 
makes more than them than there are women who won't marry a man who makes 
less than them.  In general, I think a woman who works would be secure 
enough that she really wouldn't care how much her husband made; a woman 
who doesn't work may feel differently, since she has no other means of 
support.  (I could make a separate social commentary on why there are 
so many women who can't support themselves, but I won't here.)

	marie

cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) (07/01/85)

In article <11357@brl-tgr.ARPA> wmartin@brl-bmd.UUCP writes:
>In article <2566@randvax.UUCP> edhall@rand-unix.UUCP (Ed Hall) writes:
>>  Men benifit tremendously from marriage, both economically
>>and in terms of getting someone to take care of them.  Women benifit
>>far less, but if the other alternatives are restricted it won't seem as
>>bad.
>>
>Well, I think that *my* wife has gotten a LOT of economic benefits from
>our marriage. When we married, we both worked full time, at
>professional-level Army jobs. Her marriage has allowed her to still live
>comfortably, while at the same time:
>
>a) Quitting her government job.
>b) Withdrawing her accumulated retirement benefits, and using that plus
>even a larger amount from my savings to open and furnish a retail
>business, which lasted less than a year, but which satisfied a long-held
>desire she had.
>c) Living for at least a year without holding any job at all.
>d) Choosing to then work as a temporary, so she can work or not as she
>wishes.
>e) Spending her income on her hobbies and a few groceries, while my
>income goes to support the household, buys IRA's for both of us, buys
>more of her (and mine, admittedly) hobby stuff, and all other expenses.
>
>Sounds to me like she got a pretty good deal out of this...
>

Until she wakes up one morning to realize that she could have achieved whatever
ambition or goal that led her into "professional-level" work in the first place,
and that your sickeningly patronizing attitude towards her unemployment and
hobbies has only served to trivialize her vast untapped potential for continued
service to her profession.  (Sometimes I wonder whether the etymology of the
word "woman" is actually derived from a contraction of the phrase "would-have-
been".)  
       A married professional woman is forever having to fight the aspect 
of our culture which expects her to slack off her duty, just because big daddy
is there to take care of her.  She often gets negative feedback from her parents
(who want grandchildren), from her husbands' colleagues' wives (who want bridge
partners and objects of gossip), and from her husband himself (who, after all
is willing to support her little hobbies anyway) -- all for being serious about 
her career, an attitude that would evoke a strong positive response from 
her parents, social group and spouse IF ONLY SHE HAD BEEN BORN MALE.
      "Women's culture" is as much of a trap as "ghetto culture".
Continuing to argue that *their* women don't *want* to get out of the ghetto
(because it's oh-such-a-gilded ghetto), the male chauvinist swine on this net
are only flaunting their role in reducing what should be a spiritual and 
personal relationship (marriage) to a mere economic decision, social agreement
and civil contract--sort of like legal, licensed prostitution, Will.

                                   Cheryl Stewart
-- 

cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw) (07/01/85)

In article <832@oddjob.UUCP> cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) writes:
>In article <11357@brl-tgr.ARPA> wmartin@brl-bmd.UUCP writes:
>>
>>Well, I think that *my* wife has gotten a LOT of economic benefits from
>>our marriage. When we married, we both worked full time, at
>>professional-level Army jobs. Her marriage has allowed her to still live
>>comfortably, while at the same time:
>> <list of stuff>
>>b) Withdrawing her accumulated retirement benefits, and using that plus
>>even a larger amount from my savings to open and furnish a retail
>>business, which lasted less than a year, but which satisfied a long-held
>>desire she had.
>>
>>Sounds to me like she got a pretty good deal out of this...
>>
>
>Until she wakes up one morning to realize that she could have achieved whatever
>ambition or goal that led her into "professional-level" work in the first 
>place, and that your sickeningly patronizing attitude towards her unemployment
>and hobbies has only served to trivialize her vast untapped potential for 
>continued service to her profession.


Well, for one thing Cheryl, she probably isn't you. You take (I guess from your 
postings) the same attitude to your field as I do. I tend to take "professional
-level computer stuff" very seriously. I have met few others in my undergrad
career who do likewise, male or female. Taking Will's posting at face value,
it seems she was more interested in opening a store than in working for the 
Army. Saying what her motivations are with no evidence of your own
is the height of arrogance on your part.

Admittedly, Will's posting is almost tailor-made for Cheryl's type of attack,
but extrapolating from one's own experience onto another's personal motivations
is foolish at best. Will's wife is a sort of unwilling martyr to the cause
of forsaken professionalism.

Also, Will's wife's year of "vacation"  would certainly not be for me. I would
be looking for something meaty to do within a week. This is perhaps an
indication that she might have "had a job" as opposed to "pursuing a career".

>She often gets negative feedback from her parents (who want grandchildren), 

Well, as he mentioned later, they don't have kids, so this has nothing to do
with it.

> --all for being serious about her career, an attitude that would evoke a 
>strong positive response from 
>her parents, social group and spouse IF ONLY SHE HAD BEEN BORN MALE.

Point well taken in general, but perhaps not in this case.

>      "Women's culture" is as much of a trap as "ghetto culture".
>Continuing to argue that *their* women don't *want* to get out of the ghetto, 
>the male chauvinist swine on this net are... reducing marriage to a mere 
>economic decision, social agreement...
>
>                                   Cheryl Stewart

Well, um, good point. But what to do about it? (Other than jumping on any fool
you see posting/saying/whatever the kind of material you abhor.)

Yours in vague confusion,

Chris Shaw    watmath!watmum!cdshaw  or  cdshaw@watmath
University of Waterloo
I was walking down the street one day, when suddenly... my baloney melted !

9234dwz@houxf.UUCP (The Rev. Peak) (07/01/85)

Boy are you bitter & twisted ! Get help soon !

jdh@mtung.UUCP (Julia Harper) (07/02/85)

>Does this mean you're willing to marry a man who makes less money than you?
>That you're willing to "marry below your class"? I would suspect many women
>are not. I'd be happy to hear if I'm wrong.
>-- 
>Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720

You're wrong.  (But I think you're a nice guy anyway.)
I am certainly willing to marry a man who makes less money than I do.
In fact, making more than my husband really appeals to me.  It'd be
a lot harder for such a man to insist that I should really give
up my job to complete "our happiness" by having a family.

Of course, I make enough money to have the luxury of not needing
a man to help me make ends meet.  If money were an immediate problem,
I might feel differently.  (And we all know about women and income....)

However, I am not especially interested in "marrying below my class".  
I am used to certain kinds of intellectual discussion and activities. 
Some one not brought up to enjoy these activities and not interested
in pursuing them, or unwilling to think about them would not satisfy
me.  (I should really be careful about that one...my father was not
"brought up" to enjoy these activities, but he learned to enjoy them
nonetheless.  But I think that takes a special person.  He did this
because the woman he married was interested in these activities, and he 
wanted to do things she enjoyed.)

-- 
Julia Harper
[ihnp4,ariel]!mtung!jdh

crs@lanl.ARPA (07/03/85)

> and that your sickeningly patronizing attitude towards her unemployment and
> hobbies has only served to trivialize her vast untapped potential for
> continued service to her profession.  

Come on, Cheryl, I read the original article and, barring falsehood,
it sounds more descriptive than patronizing.  He did, after all, say
that she *chose* to quit her job.  I know, you are going to tell me
that the reason that she chose to quit her job is that all of her
vicious and misguided relatives hassled her till she couldn't stand it
any more.

That could conceivably be true.  BUT, you can't possibly know that
unless you personally know the people involved and, perhaps, not even
then.  Your apparent pretensions to omniscience are annoying and
alienating, to say the least.

>       "Women's culture" is as much of a trap as "ghetto culture".
> Continuing to argue that *their* women don't *want* to get out of the ghetto
> (because it's oh-such-a-gilded ghetto), the male chauvinist swine on this net
> 

You seem to have the idea that you *know* everyone else's motives.
That you *know* what every other woman in the world wants and that it
is the same as what you want from life.

Granted, this is a little out of context but I don't think it distorts
the impression given by your flame.  Maybe you just had a bad day...
and, maybe not...

>                                    Cheryl Stewart

As may be expected, the opinions are mine alone.
-- 
Charlie Sorsby
...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs
crs@lanl.arpa

moiram@tektronix.UUCP (Moira Mallison ) (07/03/85)

In article <11357@brl-tgr.ARPA> wmartin@brl-bmd.UUCP writes:

>Well, I think that *my* wife has gotten a LOT of economic benefits from
>our marriage. When we married, we both worked full time, at
>professional-level Army jobs. Her marriage has allowed her to still live
>comfortably, while at the same time:
>
	...list of economic benefits...

So, Will, why are you such a sucker?  (1/2 :-), or maybe the real questions
are, when is it your turn to follow your heart's desire while she supports
you, and will she be able to pull the salary to do it?   

Moira Mallison
tektronix!moiram

ariels@orca.UUCP (Ariel Shattan) (07/03/85)

Will Martin writes:

>In article <2566@randvax.UUCP> edhall@rand-unix.UUCP (Ed Hall) writes:
>>  Men benifit tremendously from marriage, both economically
>>and in terms of getting someone to take care of them.  Women benifit
>>far less, but if the other alternatives are restricted it won't seem as
>>bad.
>>
>Well, I think that *my* wife has gotten a LOT of economic benefits from
>our marriage. When we married, we both worked full time, at
>professional-level Army jobs. Her marriage has allowed her to still live
>comfortably, while at the same time:
>
[List of benifits that have come to his wife since she married him, 
including quitting her job, starting a short-lived business, not 
needing to work for a time, taking temporary positions so as to 
increase choice of work/not work, using her income as fun-money.]
>
>Now, I accept that the only reason this situation is at all possible is
>because we have chosen to have no children or automobiles, both of which
>are infinite money sinks. But nobody is *forcing* any of the poor
>downtrodden masses, or whoever else you are referring to, to behave
>differently than we do -- they act differently because they choose to do
>so. I think they are making the wrong choices, and we made the right
>ones, and I think the evidence supports my correctness.
>
>Will

Obviously you equate economic benefits with not having to work for a
living.  There are some who'd debate this, but I won't here.  I'd
rather attack that final paragraph:

I disagree, Will.  The only reason this is possible is not because
you don't have kids or cars, though that helps, it's because you make
enough money in your job that one of you doesn't *have* to work.  

To say "If I can do it, anyone can" is one of the American Myths.
It just ain't so.  Most people don't have the benifit of a decent
education; they couldn't afford it.  Most people are so busy trying
to feed and house themselves and their families that they can only
dream of something better. Many people aren't offered the choices
that most of us take for granted.  To say that they should *take*
the choices shows a real lack of understanding of how people work.
Only those who *really* overcame prejudice and adversity (not just 
setbacks and disappointments, we all have those) have any right to say 
such things, and most of them know better.  

Most families, childless or not, don't have the luxury of one person
not working.  Just to feed two mouths takes money.  To say that
they're making the *wrong* choices and you're making the *right*
ones is unrealistic and cruel, besides being elitist, narrow-minded,
and insulting.  

Kids: What do you say to the poor teenager who's been raped, or who's 
just been messing around and ended up pregnant (because no-one told
her about birth control).  Get an abortion? With what money?

Ok, so she has the baby.  Should she abuse it because it's in her way?
Murder it, maybe? Give it to her mother to care for? What about all the
scorn and hatred poured in her direction for being an unwed teenage
mother.  What about schools that don't let "showing" teenagers in
class? These are *public* schools.  There's no money for a private
education, the special schools for teenagers in trouble are full, or
have to close down for lack of funding.  What now?  Here's a girl
caught in the downward spiral of poverty and welfare.  What do you tell
her? Are *YOU* (yes, you, Will) prepared to take the time to talk with
her, and help her feel like a worthwhile human being? Are you going to
help her sort out her alternatives?  Help her to *see* her choices?

Cars:  I know more people who have clunkers than have new cars and
payments.  They need the transportation!  Out here in the West, the
public transportation is not nearly as good as it is in the East.  I
never drove when I lived in Illinois, but when I came to Oregon, I
found that my quality of life improved markedly when I got a car (after
9 months auto-less).  There are major employment areas without public
transportation of any sort, and if you live close enough to walk, you
can't get anywhere else (like the grocery store).

----

Where would you be if your parents had picked the *right* choices as
you define them?  

Until you live as someone else, stating that the choices that they make
are wrong is the ultimate in egotism.  Just because something is right
for you doesn't make it right for the world! (Besides, one data
point does not "evidence" make.)

And as to the benefits of marriage for men and women, Ed didn't say
that women didn't benefit (though I might if my fur were ruffled
enough), he said that marriage benefits men *more* than it
benefits women.  

This question has been studied by many researchers, and if happiness
is any indication of benefit, I'll give you the results that a
(female) friend's mother used to quote at her when she talked about
getting married (no details on the study, of course): Men are
happiest when married, women are happiest when single.  

It's only been very recently that the rule "A married couple is one
person, and that person is the man," has not been the basis for
legal decisions reguarding marriage.  There are some very
interesting histories of marriage laws around, and while I haven't
got titles and authors, it might be worth looking in the Women's
Studies section of your local progressive bookstore.  

Lately, laws have been getting better (e.g., more equal) WRT men,
women, and marriage, but we still have a long way to go.  You might
try reading Dear Abby or Ann Landers for some quick sketches of what
life is like for many wives.

Ariel (not really wife material, but I might consider it) Shattan
..!tektronix!orca!ariels

fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (07/04/85)

In article <oddjob.832> cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) writes:
>	A married professional woman is forever having to fight the
>	aspect of our culture which expects her to slack off her duty,
>	just because big daddy is there to take care of her.
	             ^^^^^^^^^

There's that term again.		Frank Silbermann    :-)

fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (07/04/85)

In article <mtung.584> jdh@mtung.UUCP (Julia Harper) writes:
>
>I am certainly willing to marry a man who makes less money than I do.
>In fact, making more than my husband really appeals to me.  It'd be
>a lot harder for such a man to insist that I should really give
>up my job to complete "our happiness" by having a family.

One big danger to radical feminism is that most of the next generation 
of women is being raised by women who believe that having children
is the most important thing they can do with their lives.

	Frank Silbermann

barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (07/06/85)

From Cheryl Stewart (oddjob!cs1):
>>[Will Martin explains the advantages he believes his wife enjoys because
>>she doesn't have to work]
>>Sounds to me like she got a pretty good deal out of this...

>      "Women's culture" is as much of a trap as "ghetto culture".
>Continuing to argue that *their* women don't *want* to get out of the ghetto
>(because it's oh-such-a-gilded ghetto), the male chauvinist swine on this net
>are only flaunting their role in reducing what should be a spiritual and 
>personal relationship (marriage) to a mere economic decision, social agreement
>and civil contract--sort of like legal, licensed prostitution, Will.

	I think there are two issues in danger of being confused, here.
Women *do* suffer discrimination against them in the job market, and
are frequently underemployed as a result. This is patently unfair, and
is a particular hardship on women who are raising a family alone. But,
if a woman is in the fortunate position of not needing to work, and also
feels no desire to work, what is wrong with that? Is it your position
that such a woman must be a victim of brainwashing by our male-dominated
society? Is it not possible for two people to be sanely happy together
even though they choose to play contrasting roles in their relationship?
Must the Puritan ethic of measuring everyone's worth by their material
achievements become the standard for everyone?

-  From the Crow's Nest  -                      Kenn Barry
                                                NASA-Ames Research Center
                                                Moffett Field, CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 	USENET:		 {ihnp4,vortex,dual,nsc,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry

ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) (07/08/85)

In article <1035@ames.UUCP> barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes:
> [responding to Cheryl Stewart's critique of Will Martin's comments
> re his wife's economic benefits]
>
>	I think there are two issues in danger of being confused, here.
>Women *do* suffer discrimination against them in the job market, and
>are frequently underemployed as a result. This is patently unfair, and
>is a particular hardship on women who are raising a family alone. But,
>if a woman is in the fortunate position of not needing to work, and also
>feels no desire to work, what is wrong with that? Is it your position
>that such a woman must be a victim of brainwashing by our male-dominated
>society? Is it not possible for two people to be sanely happy together
>even though they choose to play contrasting roles in their relationship?
>Must the Puritan ethic of measuring everyone's worth by their material
>achievements become the standard for everyone?

The problem is that currently, most women who choose not to work do it
for the wrong reasons.  They choose not to work because they haven't been
brought up thinking that that's what they *should* do, rather that what
they should do is stay home, care for the family, and pursue hobbies.
This isn't *necessarily* wrong, but so far as I can tell, there are
some *very* large pressures on women to take this course.

If there weren't a societal predisposition for women to care for the home
and family - and if correspondingly there were an equal societal desire
for men to do the caring - then it would be easy to accept that a woman
made the choice freely.  As things stand now, it's very unlikely.

Let me illustrate a bit with a comment about a friend, who is now
in her early thirties, is trained as a carpenter, has a Bachelor's
degree from Radcliffe, and has a two year-old child.  Before having
the child, she worked full time, and made a reasonable amount of money -
a comparable amount to what her husband, a research neuro-biologist
doing post-doc work, made.  All was well, everybody was making money,
and everybody was happy.

At about the same time the child was born, or perhaps shortly before,
her husband gave up research (for a variety of reasons, one major one
was that to get a reasonable job in his field he would have had to move
away from where they were living) and went into (what else?) programming.
My friend stopped working shortly before the birth, and stayed off work
for a couple of months after - so far, so good.

When she was ready to return to work, she found it very hard to go back,
mostly because, as she realized, "his desire [to work] was much greater than"
hers.  It seems to me that this incident illustrates the problem very well.
She had trouble going back to work, not because she didn't like what she
had been doing, not because she hadn't made enough money, but because she
didn't have the career drive that he did.

-- 
Ed Gould                    mt Xinu, 2910 Seventh St., Berkeley, CA  94710  USA
{ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!ed   +1 415 644 0146

"A man of quality is not threatened by a woman of equality."

gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (07/08/85)

--
> One big danger to radical feminism is that most of the next
> generation of women is being raised by women who believe that having
> children is the most important thing they can do with their lives.
> 
> 	Frank Silbermann

Say what??  Where do you think the current generation of feminists
came from?  (That's right, women who thought that having children
was the alpha and omega of life.  It's an age-old dilemma--"How do
you keep them down on the farm once they've seen Paree?")
-- 
                    *** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI   ***** *****
                 ****** ******  08 Jul 85 [20 Messidor An CXCIII]
ken perlow       *****   *****
(312)979-7753     ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken   *** ***

moiram@tektronix.UUCP (Moira Mallison ) (07/08/85)

In article <537@unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes:
>One big danger to radical feminism is that most of the next generation 
>of women is being raised by women who believe that having children
>is the most important thing they can do with their lives.

I disagree.  The women who raised the baby boom generation placed much
more importance on the bearing and raising of children than women do
today.  Not only were there significantly fewer options, they were
seen as mutually exclusive.  If women did work after marriage, it 
was usually only until the first child was born.  Now, women can choose
to have careers *and* families.

Moira Mallison
tektronix!moiram

valerie@sdcc3.UUCP (Valerie Polichar) (07/08/85)

[]

Mr. Ngai wondered whether a woman would marry a man whose income was less
than hers; can't speak for marriage since mine is still a year or two off,
but would like to share my opinion.  My chosen field is going to be
bringing me $30K right after graduation.  Carl's salary will start at more
like $20K and won't grow as high or as fast as mine.  We're both doing
what we want to do, so what difference does it make?  I don't care whether
or not I'm the principle breadwinner; we're both working hard, right?
If Carl lost his job I would feel no particular qualms about supporting
the two of us, nor vice versa.  Carl doesn't feel his masculinity
threatened by my earning more money, nor his intelligence insulted, since
his work is far more specialized and intellectual than mine.  I never
really thought too much about it until you brought it up; growing up with
freedoms you take them for granted, I guess!


-- 

-=< Valerie Polichar >=-		 ...sdcsvax!sdcc3!valerie

"The nights are the rivers;
     they commit the crimes..."

zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (07/09/85)

> One big danger to radical feminism is that most of the next generation 
> of women is being raised by women who believe that having children
> is the most important thing they can do with their lives.
> 
> 	Frank Silbermann


I think there are enough women out there now raising children who do not
believe this so there will be a basic stock of women someday who dont
have this one stumbling block. While right now that number may be small
the effect will grow. If in the meantime we all work hard at educating
others the numbers will grow even faster. 



-- 
Jeanette Zobjeck ihnp4!ihlpl!zubbie

crs@lanl.ARPA (07/10/85)

> 
> The problem is that currently, most women who choose not to work do it
> for the wrong reasons. 

Perhaps they are the wrong reasons for you but how do you know that
they are the wrong reasons for them?

> They choose not to work because they haven't been
> brought up thinking that that's what they *should* do, rather that what
> they should do is stay home, care for the family, and pursue hobbies.
> This isn't *necessarily* wrong, but so far as I can tell, there are
> some *very* large pressures on women to take this course.

I get the strong impression that many on the net (not necessarily Ed)
would *now* like to put "some *very* large pressures on women" to take
the alternate course, ie a "career".  I get the same impression from
other areas as well as the net.

Is it really a good thing to replace one form of brainwashing with
another?

> If there weren't a societal predisposition for women to care for the home
> and family - and if correspondingly there were an equal societal desire
> for men to do the caring - then it would be easy to accept that a woman
> made the choice freely.  As things stand now, it's very unlikely.

It appears to be very easy to forget that this "societal predisposition"
is the direct result (and not the cause) of biology and evolution.
This is not a criticism of what Ed is saying but a gentle reminder to
other posters, many of whom seem to blame *men* for what was done by
*mother* nature.  [Sorry, I couldn't resist.]

> Let me illustrate a bit with a comment about a friend, who is now
> in her early thirties, is trained as a carpenter, has a Bachelor's
> degree from Radcliffe, and has a two year-old child.  Before having
> the child, she worked full time, and made a reasonable amount of money -
> a comparable amount to what her husband, a research neuro-biologist
> doing post-doc work, made.  All was well, everybody was making money,
> and everybody was happy.
> 
> At about the same time the child was born, or perhaps shortly before,
> her husband gave up research (for a variety of reasons, one major one
> was that to get a reasonable job in his field he would have had to move
> away from where they were living) and went into (what else?) programming.
> My friend stopped working shortly before the birth, and stayed off work
> for a couple of months after - so far, so good.
> 
> When she was ready to return to work, she found it very hard to go back,
> mostly because, as she realized, "his desire [to work] was much greater than"
> hers.  It seems to me that this incident illustrates the problem very well.
> She had trouble going back to work, not because she didn't like what she
> had been doing, not because she hadn't made enough money, but because she
> didn't have the career drive that he did.

[I really wanted to shorten that passage but it all seems relevant.]

It seems to me that *both* made sacrifices for what *they* wanted.
First, the husband sacrificed a career in neuro-biology, a field in
which, one must assume, he had more than a passing interest if he had
progressed all the way to post-doc work.  She found it "very hard to
go back [to work] because her desire to do so was less than his.  I
know you are just trying to illustrate your point that "society"
brainwashes women but it seems to me that she wasn't very well
brainwashed if she was a "trained carpenter" with a "Bachelor's degree
from Radcliffe."  It seems to me that a woman who has been able to fly
in the face of societal pressure to this extent and then *chose* *not* 
to return to work after their child was born did so precisely because
that is what *she* wanted from life.

Before you turn on the flame throwers, allow me to say that I am *not*
arguing against the reduction of societal pressures that cause women
not to choose nontraditional careers.  I do think, however, that we
had best think long and hard before we replace one form of
brainwashing with another.  The problem is, it seems to me, that of
societal pressure for *all* of us to fit into the same mold (actually,
there are two molds, I know) and the effort should be to reduce the
pressure to fit people to the respective mold rather than to merely to
reverse the direction of the pressure.  Again this is not directed so
much at Ed as prompted by his article.  Many seem intent on applying
as much pressure on women to have careers and "productive lives" as
has been applied in the other direction in the past, another
manifestation of the two wrongs make a right philosophy.

A matter of practical concern:  Several have suggested that after a
woman has interrupted her career to have a child, she should return to
work and the husband should now interrupt his career to care for the
child for a while.  This sounds good on the surface and in a utopian
world, it probably would be.  Certainly it would be fair but would it
be practical?  In this competitive world of ever rising cost of
living, does it make sense to interrupt *both* careers?  Think about
it before you start flaming at my "male arrogance" and remember that
neither I nor any other male designed the "plumbing" of either sex.
(:-})

Lets work for positive changes, not just changes.

> Ed Gould                   mt Xinu, 2910 Seventh St., Berkeley, CA  94710  USA


-- 
Charlie Sorsby
...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs
crs@lanl.arpa

diego@cca.UUCP (Diego Gonzalez) (07/10/85)

I was over at my mother's last night, helping her in a remodeling of her
bedroom.  She's a dear.  Turned "old" (65) last fall.  She's been
working for her present employer for over 15 years now.  So after
working she insisted that I sit down and have a piece of pie (blueberry;
she's a fantastic cook, always was as far back as I can remember) and
talk for a bit.

Seems she had her annual review yesterday.  "He [the supervisor] told me
I should be more aggressive," she said and that "we can always do
better."

"Sounds like he wants you to act "uppity" so he can fire you," I joked.

To my surprise, she answered seriously: "That's what I figured, so I
just kept quiet."

I'm relating this conversation to let you know that the hypothetical
discussions you've been having on this net are only as far away as
someone you know.  Or maybe you don't really know.  (I figure Ronald
Reagan doesn't personally know anyone black or poor.  You could probably
add quite a few other less-than-mainstream American types to that list.)
The fact is that after a dedicated career effort at one company, my
mother earns less than what most engineers will get the day they walk
out of college.  And she is accorded less professional respect than the
average white male high-school graduate (or, in some cases, dropout).

Sheryl and some of the other women who have been writing may be bitter
either because of their own experiences or those they have witnessed or
heard offrom others or both.  We men should be aware of the current of
thought that runs in the background of social and business life.  That
current consists of a whole bag of "common knowledge" about women's
motives and capabilities.  For example who was it (I ask rhetorically)
that first said that it was bad for women to get dirty, risk injury, or
do strenuous physical labor.  The U. S. armed forces still clings to
that philosophy, mind, in its insistence that women not perform combat
tasks.  The "women and children first" attitude, while attempting to
protect what men hold dear, denies equality.  For women who want their
fair chance to achieve and contribute in the broader society (not only
within the home and in the nurturing and raising of offspring) the
implicit inequality of such popularly held attitudes is insufferable.

So too, is the impression that a woman's absence from the work force
during the time she does raise her child(ren) is justification for lower
pay scales.  In my mother's case, by the time she returned to
work-for-pay status, the jobs for which she had been qualified no longer
existed.  She was willing to start a new career in an entry-level wage.
After fifteen years in which she learned quickly, maintained the highest
standards of quality in her work, and was refused advancement to most of
the positions she sought on the basis of any petty excuse, she is now
being told that she is "too qualified".  What the hell does that mean?
It means that they should have promoted her as her experience and
intelligence warranted.  Instead, she was held back because of sexual
(and age and racial) biases that exist in her company and at the
majority of firms in this country.

For those who have never knowingly experienced discrimination, I guess
it's hard to understand and believe.  For those of us who have
experienced it, you learn to recognize the sensation.  You know that if
you confront the party or parties directly on the issue, you will get a
denial or evasive response.  Would you or anyone you know answer "yes"
if asked if the applicant for a position (or contributor of an idea or
whatever) were turned down because of sex or race?  In the workplace,
it's difficult to gather such evidence.  There are rarely written
records of the decision-making process or transcriptions of "evaluation"
meetings.

I agree that some women as well as many men, over a rather lengthy
history, are responsible for the prevalent attitudes about women in the
workplace.  There are, for example, Phyllis Schlaffley and her ilk that
want to perpetuate women's second-class dependency as a demi-art form.
There are also, however, some enlightened men's groups -- not
particularly well known -- that are trying their best to make men more
aware of the learned attitudes that drive so much of their actions.  The
highly macho images dominating male-oriented advertising and the slinky,
clinging or surrendering females in the backgrounds are a vivid
testament to prevailing social values.

Some women might welcome, given the economic freedom to do so, the
opportunity to spend a majority of time encouraging the development of
children.  I contend that a (smaller) number of men (count me in) would
similarly welcome that kind of opportunity.  Nevertheless, the
prevailing economic conditions in America rule that option out for most
middle-income families in or near urban centers.  What that means is
that most women, like most men, seek jobs out of an economic necessity.
They expect the same career opportunities and remuneration.  They expect
that if they apply for a difficult job they will be considered on
qualifications and receive the same encouragement and support as a male
employee.

That's not what happened in my mother's case.  I suspect that her case
is similar to experiences of a great many women in the American work
force.  It has made her working days more tedious and far less rewarding
than they could have been.  Bias has promoted less qualified candidates,
at her expense, because they were of the "correct" gender or were
"buddies" with the appropriate senior.  It has reduced her potential
earnings and, correspondingly, her available income at retirement.  And
perhaps what is saddest, it has denied her company and the national
economy the benefit of her intelligence, experience, and expertise.

wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (07/11/85)

Completely wrong interpretation. She disliked her job, and *wanted* to
quit it. She could have chosen to go back to it if she wanted; she had
offers to do so. She declined. She is looking forward to retiring
completely in a few years (she's ten years older than I). She never had
any interest in having children, and that never entered into it.

You blew this one...

Will

linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) (07/26/85)

> 
> Does this mean you're willing to marry a man who makes less money than you?
> That you're willing to "marry below your class"? I would suspect many women
> are not. I'd be happy to hear if I'm wrong.
> -- 

When I was a Bell Labs MTS I went out with a music teacher who made 
substantially less than I did.  He ended up with a millionaire woman
who earns orders of magnitude more.  Personality, talent, and looks
count for a lot.  I know a wealthy lawyer in NY who can't find a
wife at all, even among some very low-paid women.