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 Dylanbrian@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.