jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (07/06/85)
As an addendum to my (immediately) previous posting: Women are paid less (in part anyway) because it is expected that they will have a man to support them. Men in turn are paid more because they have to support a family. So to those who complain that equal pay for work of equal value will cost too much: if you think that the average standard of living is adequate then EPFWOEV doesn't have to cost anything extra - we just redistribute it. Personally I think that everyone should be paid enough to live a decent life themselves but to set salaries so that one half of the population can "keep" the other half is ridiculous and then to pay minimal (or nothing) to the other half so that they are economically dependent is ridiculous in the extreme. (not to mention insulting, unfair etc etc). John Chapman
zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (07/11/85)
> > > Women are paid less (in part anyway) because it is > expected that they will have a man to support them. > Men in turn are paid more because they have to support > a family. So to those who complain that equal pay for > > John Chapman I agree with John as far as he went ( what me agree with someone?!?!?) but the extension should be made that equal pay is only part of the issue. Equal acceptance as members of a work force and as part of society is more important. Many power groups see the equal pay for equivalent work issue as just another way to put more government control on business.In the end the result may be that more work classes will be down graded so that payscales remain the same with an added narrowing of job responsibilites (sp) so that the only thing an employer need do to keep things as they are is to define broader job responsibilites for men on the basis that they (the current job holders) are more experienced or some other bull**** and hence deserve more pay. Regulating the pay of a job relative to another is not a place for government. I have worked in many different types of jobs and while I have not always been fairly paid for my abilities I have found that the more difficult part of holding that job was to be accepted as able by my co-workers. If employers didnot distinguish (however subtly) between men and women on the job the pay disparities would not exist. I know that I am at least as capable of doing my job as a man performing the same work. If I find that there is a co-worker (male or female) who is smarter or more adept at the work I do I usually cuiltivate a learning relationship with that person if possible. I have never thought that I couldn't learn more. The end obviously is to become as knowledgeable and proficient at what I do as I am capable of. I have also found that my superiors become aware of my abilites rapidly in this manner also. In those jobs I have held which started out paying less than men doing the same work were paid the disparity did not last any longer than it took for me to show that I was worth the extra money. Perhaps I should not have had to make that extra-extra effort but I earned what I got and that was often more than monetary. -- Jeanette Zobjeck ihnp4!ihlpl!zubbie
cat@tommif.UUCP (Catherine Mikkelsen) (07/15/85)
In article <2159@watcgl.UUCP>, jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: > > > Women are paid less (in part anyway) because it is > expected that they will have a man to support them. > Men in turn are paid more because they have to support > a family. So to those who complain that equal pay for > work of equal value will cost too much: if you think > that the average standard of living is adequate then > EPFWOEV doesn't have to cost anything extra - we just > redistribute it. Personally I think that everyone > should be paid enough to live a decent life themselves > but to set salaries so that one half of the population > can "keep" the other half is ridiculous and then to pay > minimal (or nothing) to the other half so that they > are economically dependent is ridiculous in the extreme. > (not to mention insulting, unfair etc etc). > > John Chapman Uh oh. I was just scrolling through net.women, minding my own business, when SOMEONE BROUGHT UP A TOUCHY SUBJECT. So I am enclosing excerpts from a very interesting report. This report is titled _The Feminization of Poverty_ and is the result of a study commissioned by Lt. Gov. McCarthy in jolly Sacratomato -- bastion of zen rights for all Californians (oh sh**. Is Brown out of office???) The report notes the following: If the current trend [increasing numbers of women are becoming poor] continues, *95% of Americans living under the poverty line by the year 2000 will be women and children.* Pertaining to California, the report says: *By 1982, 30.9 percent of households headed by white women were below the poverty level nationally, as were 58.8 percent of the households headed by black women and 60.1 percent of the households headed by hispanic women.* *Women in California are even worse off than the national norm [in wage discrimination issues]...Women bring home earnings that average only 54 cents to every dollar earned by men.* The report notes six major factors that are pushing more women into poverty: 1) Quality child care is expensive and difficult to find. (Perhaps you've read about our lovely California nursery horror stories?) 2) A majority of absent fathers don't pay child support. 3) Aid to Families with Dependent Children (some welfare branch, I believe) does not provide adequate money to single mom parents. 4) It is extremely difficult for women to get the type of higher- paying jobs that men hold 5) Wage discrimination leaves women with [national average here] 59% of men's earnings. 6) Older women and displaced homemakers suffer particular economic disadvantages after divorce or spouse death and are often ineligible for welfare, medical insurance, unemployment insurance, and disability. Frankly, I haven't the patience to wade through most of the long-winded pseudo-philosophical didacticisms I've seen in this section. (Okay, kill me for this one.) But I think that the above facts and statistics will perhaps steer the current conversation in a more useful -- and less ivory tower -- direction. Why don't you guys go out and get your corporations to provide good child care instead of participating in useless socio-sexual pedantry? Exsuse any transmission errors here; we're new on the net. Catherine Mikkelsen @Teknisk decwrl!greips!tommif!cat *I've always felt positive about my father even though he was a junkie and a slimy person.* MacKenzie Phillips in PEOPLE Magazine (honest) *We were somewhere near Barstow on the edge of the desert when the drugs began to take effect* H.Thompson
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (07/16/85)
In article <2159@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: || || Personally I think that everyone || should be paid enough to live a decent life themselves || but to set salaries so that one half of the population || can "keep" the other half is ridiculous and then to pay || minimal (or nothing) to the other half so that they || are economically dependent is ridiculous in the extreme. || (not to mention insulting, unfair etc etc). I agree that every woman who wants to have a career should be entitled to. But we're never going to see complete statistical equality, for the simple reason that many women do not want to work outside the home. That's nothing to put them down for, of course, and it also doesn't mean they're "economically dependent". The fact that my income is sufficient to support our family hardly means that I am "keeping" my better half. Dave Sherman -- { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave
scott@hou2g.UUCP (N. Ersha) (07/17/85)
-> Why don't you guys go out and get your corporations to provide good -> child care instead of participating in useless socio-sexual pedantry? -> Catherine Mikkelsen @Teknisk Why don't people (couples) who can't support children stop having so many of them. Granted, in a large number of "woman head of household" cases the woman may have expected the husband to "provide" and then he may have run off without paying child support, but I hardly think this is the rule. Nobody has the right to expect ME to pay for their children (via welfare, etc.) except for the case above. If their religion doesn't allow or believe in birth control, that's just tough shit. Make BIRTH CONTROL free--it's a lot cheaper than welfare support payments. (I know the above quote doesn't really address this subject, but I was in a hurry and am just pet peaving) Scott
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (07/18/85)
. . . > || but to set salaries so that one half of the population > || can "keep" the other half is ridiculous and then to pay . . . > > I agree that every woman who wants to have a career > should be entitled to. But we're never going to see > complete statistical equality, for the simple reason > that many women do not want to work outside the home. > That's nothing to put them down for, of course, and > it also doesn't mean they're "economically dependent". > The fact that my income is sufficient to support our > family hardly means that I am "keeping" my better half. > > Dave Sherman But if the majority of mens wages are higher than womens based on the premise of men supporting women it is unfair. Better to recognize the value of homemakers economically and base peoples wages on what is necessary to support themselves (pie in the sky I know). John Chapman > { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (07/18/85)
> Why don't people (couples) who can't support children > stop having so many of them. Granted, in a large number > of "woman head of household" cases the woman may have expected > the husband to "provide" and then he may have run off without > paying child support, but I hardly think this is the rule. > > Nobody has the right to expect ME to pay for their children > (via welfare, etc.) except for the case above. If their religion > doesn't allow or believe in birth control, that's just tough shit. > Make BIRTH CONTROL free--it's a lot cheaper than welfare support > payments. > > Scott Ok, but then you don't have the right to expect THEIR CHILDREN to pay for supporting you when you retire. We can also make LIFE CONTROL free, it will be much cheaper than paying for old-age pensions. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
muffy@lll-crg.ARPA (Muffy Barkocy) (07/20/85)
In article <554@hou2g.UUCP> scott@hou2g.UUCP (N. Ersha) writes: > > >-> Why don't you guys go out and get your corporations to provide good >-> child care instead of participating in useless socio-sexual pedantry? > >-> Catherine Mikkelsen @Teknisk > >Why don't people (couples) who can't support children >stop having so many of them. Granted, in a large number >of "woman head of household" cases the woman may have expected >the husband to "provide" and then he may have run off without >paying child support, but I hardly think this is the rule. I thik it is the rule. There are many fathers who do not pay child support. Many of them don't make enough money, others figure that it's not really their responsibility, etc. My father never paid child support. Luckily for us, my mother was quite capable of working and making enough money to support us all. However, it would have helped her a lot if some decent child care had been available, especially if it had been pro- vided by the company she worked for. As it was, we went through a series of afternoon-care people, and she had to do a lot of running around after work...to pick us up, and do whatever else needed to be done, like shopping for food so she could make dinner. > >Nobody has the right to expect ME to pay for their children >(via welfare, etc.) except for the case above. If their religion >doesn't allow or believe in birth control, that's just tough shit. >Make BIRTH CONTROL free--it's a lot cheaper than welfare support >payments. > Scott It happens that women with one child, or two, need child care facilities as much as those with ten. Regardless of the number of children, you can't just leave them alone in the house all day. Of course, you're better off here if you have a lot of children, since then some of them are older and can look after the younger ones. Anyway, birth control *is* free, or nearly so. Planned Parenthood asks for a donation, which is *not* required. The size of the donation asked is based on the income that is claimed by the person. It is also fine to donate *any* amount, above or below the requested donation. Of course, lots of people are bombing and picketing their facilities, and standing outside harassing their clients. How would you feel if you went for birth control and got harassed, then you "have an accident" and go back for a pregnancy test, through a line of people shouting at you, then go in for an abortion, which is not one of the less upset- ting incidents of your life, and are stopped at the door by a person handing out literature about how what you're about to do is really murder? Now that birth control is free, how about making it possible for people to get it without other people harassing them? > Scott
desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) (07/23/85)
> > > -> Why don't you guys go out and get your corporations to provide good > -> child care instead of participating in useless socio-sexual pedantry? > > -> Catherine Mikkelsen @Teknisk > > Why don't people (couples) who can't support children > stop having so many of them. Granted, in a large number > of "woman head of household" cases the woman may have expected > the husband to "provide" and then he may have run off without > paying child support, but I hardly think this is the rule. Two good reasons for providing child care at work: - it encourages people with children to work (perhaps they COULD but this gives them another incentive, and they actually might turn out to be useful (gasp!)) - many people like to work for their own personal satisfaction. day care at work not only gives both parents the opportunity to work, but is more convenient than day care elsewhere may be. > Nobody has the right to expect ME to pay for their children > (via welfare, etc.) except for the case above. What does day care at work have to do with welfare? One is provided by a corporation as a perq, the other is provided by the government. As for welfare, though, I don't deny that there almost certainly are a number of people who "expect" the government to pay for their children. However, I don't think that most people on welfare choose to be so (and probably more of them than you would think are single women!). > If their religion > doesn't allow or believe in birth control, that's just tough shit. > Make BIRTH CONTROL free--it's a lot cheaper than welfare support > payments. I agree, but don't forget that first you have to educate everyone about sex and birth control; believe it or not, there *are* people out there who have kids without even really knowing how babies are made! In addition, a lot of poor people probably have kids in the hope that they'll grow up and help out with money. That is, the problem of poverty may exist in the first place, and getting this kids on welfare is something they do in order to (eventually) have another worker in the family. marie desjardins park
pauly@zaphod.UUCP (Paul Yeager) (08/01/85)
In article <455@h-sc1.UUCP> desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) writes: >> >> >> -> Why don't you guys go out and get your corporations to provide good >> -> child care instead of participating in useless socio-sexual pedantry? >> >> -> Catherine Mikkelsen @Teknisk >> > > >What does day care at work have to do with welfare? One is provided >by a corporation as a perq, the other is provided by the government. > > marie desjardins park And neither one is free. In one way or another they both cost all of us. Paul Yeager {the universe}!ihnp4!alberta!sask!zaphod!pauly