cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) (06/19/85)
In article <457@unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: >In article <ucbvax.8204> fagin@ucbvax.UUCP (Barry Steven Fagin) writes: >>From Jennifer Roback, an economist at Yale, commenting on the "59c" >> >>"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. > O.K. This tells me that "things are the way they are because that's the way it is". Has it ever occurred to any of you that maybe one of the reasons some women get married in the first place is that it's been made clear to them that they'll be isolated and ridiculed if they take a "man's job" or, if they choose a "women's job" be expected to "be nice" to juvenile delinquents (as a teacher), vomitting old ladies (as a nurse), leering idiot junior executives (as a secretary), or drug-addict welfare fathers (as a social worker). Plenty of women get stuck in jobs like these for a lot less money than what a man makes peacefully pounding nails eight hours a day. (And don't tell me that a job pounding nails is just as available to a woman as it is to a man--I know what the scoop is on construction work and on factory work. Don't try to fool ME.) Don't promote stereotypes of women holding "nice" jobs and men holding "competitive, dangerous and dirty" jobs. I've seen too many women work too hard for too little pay after making darned sure they had a good education--only to realize that the men will make sure that another man is "the right person in the right place at the right time" to get the right training, the right wife, the right job, the right promotion, etc. >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. So women's work is "pleasant" is it? I'll tell you what. You give me YOUR computer account, and YOU can take a few years off (I'll support you) to whipe the baby's butt, and then when it's grown, maybe get you a job typing memos for someone ten years younger than yourself. If the foo... I'm not writing this to be hostile, but to illustrate a point. You can't rationalize the 53c issue away by saying "that's just the way it goes". I was hired to work loading the assembly line in a factory once (in High School) because I was very able to lift 60-70 lbs, having been a lifeguard and an athlete. My first day of work, the engineers at the plant assumed that I was hired to put the little bows on the purfume bottles on the assembly line. You got it--the line-loading job payed over 5 bucks an hour, and the "women's work" payed minimum. Being young and reckless, I argued with them until they went off to check their files only to find that I WAS hired to load the line. If I had been trying to support myself at that time, I probably wouldn't have the guts to argue with them--and plenty of young women at the plant were in that position...AND physically capable of doing the "man's job". Anyway, the job worked out fine. It wasn't very dangerous or dirty--just a lot of good hard work, and a lot of good hard cash. Next season, I was voted MVP in track for a record-breaking discus throw. No I am not an XXY. Cheryl Stewart -- There's one kind of favor I'll ask of you: Just see that my grave is kept clean.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/24/85)
> > In article <457@unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: > >In article <ucbvax.8204> fagin@ucbvax.UUCP (Barry Steven Fagin) writes: > >>From Jennifer Roback, an economist at Yale, commenting on the "59c" > >> > >>"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. > > > > O.K. This tells me that "things are the way they are because that's the way > it is". Has it ever occurred to any of you that maybe one of the reasons > some women get married in the first place is that it's been made clear to > them that they'll be isolated and ridiculed if they take a "man's job" > or, if they choose a "women's job" be expected to "be nice" to juvenile > delinquents (as a teacher), vomitting old ladies (as a nurse), leering idiot > junior executives (as a secretary), or drug-addict welfare fathers (as a > social worker). Plenty of women get stuck in jobs like these for a lot > less money than what a man makes peacefully pounding nails eight hours a day. > (And don't tell me that a job pounding nails is just as available to a > woman as it is to a man--I know what the scoop is on construction work > and on factory work. Don't try to fool ME.) > You missed the point, Cheryl. It isn't "things are the way they are", but rather, comparing two jobs without comparing relative risks and the pleasantness of the work compares apples and oranges. There are awful parts of being a nurse or a teacher, but there are also very rewarding aspects to those jobs because of the personal contact --- someone who lays tar on roads for a living doesn't get the same gratification from his or her (usually his) job, and it is not surprising that men have traditionally gravitated to awful jobs that pay well because they are awful, since men have traditionally been the primary wage-earner, and women in the past have usually *not* been the primary wage-earner. > Don't promote stereotypes of women holding "nice" jobs and men holding > "competitive, dangerous and dirty" jobs. I've seen too many women work > too hard for too little pay after making darned sure they had a good > education--only to realize that the men will make sure that another man > is "the right person in the right place at the right time" to get the > right training, the right wife, the right job, the right promotion, etc. > If by "good education" you mean a degree in English, or Art, or Urban Planning, then I'm not surprised. Men who get those degrees usually end of getting inferior jobs after college as well because those degrees are produced in numbers far in excess of the jobs that require those degrees. Unfortunately, women have tended to concentrate in studies that do not lead to high-paying jobs. > >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. > > So women's work is "pleasant" is it? I'll tell you what. You give me > YOUR computer account, and YOU can take a few years off (I'll support you) > to whipe the baby's butt, and then when it's grown, maybe get you a > job typing memos for someone ten years younger than yourself. If the foo... > You missed the point again, Cheryl. Barry was discussing women's jobs in the workforce, not mothering. > I'm not writing this to be hostile, but to illustrate a point. You can't > rationalize the 53c issue away by saying "that's just the way it goes". I > was hired to work loading the assembly line in a factory once (in High School) > because I was very able to lift 60-70 lbs, having been a lifeguard and an > athlete. My first day of work, the engineers at the plant assumed that I > was hired to put the little bows on the purfume bottles on the assembly line. > You got it--the line-loading job payed over 5 bucks an hour, and the "women's > work" payed minimum. Being young and reckless, I argued with them until they > went off to check their files only to find that I WAS hired to load the line. > If I had been trying to support myself at that time, I probably wouldn't have > the guts to argue with them--and plenty of young women at the plant were in > that position...AND physically capable of doing the "man's job". Anyway, > the job worked out fine. It wasn't very dangerous or dirty--just a lot of good > hard work, and a lot of good hard cash. Next season, I was voted MVP in track > for a record-breaking discus throw. No I am not an XXY. > > Cheryl Stewart You were able to do this physically demanding job --- a lot of women DO NOT have the strength for it (a fair number of men also don't have the strength for it). More important, a lot of women aren't interested in doing that kind of work (even though it would be better for them than putting bows on perfume bottles) because they would prefer to be thought of as "feminine" instead of capable.
cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) (06/26/85)
>> >> In article <457@unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: >> >In article <ucbvax.8204> fagin@ucbvax.UUCP (Barry Steven Fagin) writes: >> >>From Jennifer Roback, an economist at Yale, commenting on the "59c" >> >> >> >>"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 >> >> O.K. This tells me that "things are the way they are because that's the way >> it is". Has it ever occurred to any of you that maybe one of the reasons >> some women get married in the first place is that it's been made clear to >> them that they'll be isolated and ridiculed if they take a "man's job" >> or, if they choose a "women's job" be expected to "be nice" to juvenile >> delinquents (as a teacher), vomitting old ladies (as a nurse), leering idiot >> junior executives (as a secretary), or drug-addict welfare fathers (as a >> social worker). Plenty of women get stuck in jobs like these for a lot >> less money than what a man makes peacefully pounding nails eight hours a day. >> >You missed the point, Cheryl. It isn't "things are the way they are", >but rather, comparing two jobs without comparing relative risks and >the pleasantness of the work compares apples and oranges. There are awful >parts of being a nurse or a teacher, but there are also very rewarding >aspects to those jobs because of the personal contact --- someone who lays >tar on roads for a living doesn't get the same gratification from his or >her (usually his) job, and it is not surprising that men have traditionally >gravitated to awful jobs that pay well because they are awful, since men >have traditionally been the primary wage-earner, and women in the past have >usually *not* been the primary wage-earner. > No I did NOT miss the point, Cramer. I think that the assumption that men have different social and financial needs than women is patently absurd. Why don't divorced men with no children to support become secretaries (they can afford to take a "pleasant" low-paying job) while divorced women with several children to support (i.e. they ARE the primary wage-earners) join the electrician's union? (And before you tell me that girls are too wimpy to be electricians, just think of how little REAL physical exertion goes into it. Humping cinder block, now that's a different story.) Most unions of skilled laborers offer apprenticeship programs (where they learn things like how to convert feet to meters) which pay a substantial fraction of the union wage to the apprentice. Up until very, very recently, these APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS WERE OFFICIALLY CLOSED TO WOMEN. My dad's union, Steamfitter's Local 638 ("We heat New York") just graduated its first card-carrying female steamfitter a couple years ago. Without AA, they never would have had to open their doors to women (or blacks or Puerto Ricans) ever. And without quotas, they could just throw women's applications in the garbage can and tell the government that no women applied. It's been done before. And then people like you could sit back with your hands folded and make rationalizations like "girls shouldn't get the same money boys do because girls want wimpy jobs and boys are tough enough for rough jobs, nyaa-nyaa-nyaa." Barry's point was that women *choose* easy, fun jobs. My counterpoint is that women have been railroaded into these jobs, and kept out of better, albeit harder jobs--by men. And that those "helpful, thrify, courteous, kind..." jobs are *not at all* easy or fun or "socially gratifying". You wanna know what I find "socially gratifying"? Winning arguments. It takes two to tango, but only one to squirm. >> Don't promote stereotypes of women holding "nice" jobs and men holding >> "competitive, dangerous and dirty" jobs. I've seen too many women work >> too hard for too little pay after making darned sure they had a good >> education--only to realize that the men will make sure that another man >> is "the right person in the right place at the right time" to get the >> right training, the right wife, the right job, the right promotion, etc. >> >If by "good education" you mean a degree in English, or Art, or Urban >Planning, then I'm not surprised. Men who get those degrees usually >end of getting inferior jobs after college as well because those degrees >are produced in numbers far in excess of the jobs that require those >degrees. Unfortunately, women have tended to concentrate in studies that >do not lead to high-paying jobs. Oh, don't give me that crap. Men who get "those" degrees become bank presidents stock-brokers, lawyers, Madison Avenue advertizing tycoons, insurance magnates, architects, clergymen, and sometimes even computer programmers and engineers. Women who get "those" degrees are told that they don't have any useful skills-- except typing of course. And women who do make sure to acquire higher-level skills (programming, engineering, chemistry, physics) tend to be exploited for those skills and those skills only--under the assumption that they're not really planning of making a career out of it, that they'll be going to seed soon anyway. Being exploited for those skills and those skills only means-- you got it--writing subroutines instead of planning software, doing linear heat- flow problems instead of nonlinear reaction-diffusion equations, working in an chemical lab as a technician instead of being encouraged to go to graduate school, working as an exploration geophysicist for an oil company rather than being the theoretical physicist who formulates a consistent unified field theory. There is nothing LESS satisfying than doing less than what you are capable of--which is why so many women are unhappy with their "pleasant" work. >> >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. >> >> So women's work is "pleasant" is it? I'll tell you what. You give me >> YOUR computer account, and YOU can take a few years off (I'll support you) >> to whipe the baby's butt, and then when it's grown, maybe get you a >> job typing memos for someone ten years younger than yourself. If the foo... >> >You missed the point again, Cheryl. Barry was discussing women's jobs in >the workforce, not mothering. > Are you confused, Clayton? If Barry wants to take a few years off to make sure his offspring don't become JD's, then I think that it would be called-- "fathering" not "mothering". But if he still wants a job after his children are grown--that's fine with me. As long as he's fulfilled his duty as a husband and a father by staying home with the children while they're young...and as long as it's a safe, pleasant job that won't upset him or make him cry. I really think that his wife should LET him work, if that's what he really wants to do.... and even if he wants to go back to school, I think his wife should let him do that, too. But of course, if he finds that the big girls out there in the real world play too rough for him, well, maybe it's better that he occupy his time by joining the garden club, or do volunteer work -- something that would gratify his social needs perhaps even better than a job would. >> athlete. My first day of work, the engineers at the plant assumed that I >> was hired to put the little bows on the purfume bottles on the assembly line. >> You got it--the line-loading job payed over 5 bucks an hour, and the "women's >> work" payed minimum. Being young and reckless, I argued with them until they >> went off to check their files only to find that I WAS hired to load the line. >> If I had been trying to support myself at that time, I probably wouldn't have >> the guts to argue with them--and plenty of young women at the plant were in >> that position...AND physically capable of doing the "man's job". Anyway, > >You were able to do this physically demanding job --- a lot of women DO NOT >have the strength for it (a fair number of men also don't have the strength >for it). More important, a lot of women aren't interested in doing that >kind of work (even though it would be better for them than putting bows on >perfume bottles) because they would prefer to be thought of as "feminine" >instead of capable. The point of the anecdote was that the plant engineers were trying to edge me into the lower-paying job, when I was explicitly hired for the higher-paying job. I was clearly physically capable of doing the job (at that time, I had two, count them, two necks). The ONLY thing that made them think they could get away with pushing me into the nice little girls' job was the fact that I am female. Many of the women asked me how I got the job. And, Mr. Cramer, NONE of them gave a *shit* about femininity. Their main concern was *cash* for their families (think about it -- do you remember the recession in the late 70's? I do.) and they were willing and able to lift 70# boxes to get it. The *guys* who were automatically given the higher-paying job were generally lazy, good-for-nothing idiots who needed the money to fuel their precious little Camaros. I SAVED MINE FOR ENGINEERING SCHOOL! > > I'm going to assume that you actually DID sign your name to your attempted rebuttal, and that it got eaten by the mysterious line-eating bug in the news program. So you've tried the ole boys trick of telling someone that they've missed the point if they don't clearly agree with you. Nice try. You've even thrown my name around in the process, Clayton Cramer. Well, two can play those games. Cheryl Stewart --
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/01/85)
> >> >In article <ucbvax.8204> fagin@ucbvax.UUCP (Barry Steven Fagin) writes: > >> >>From Jennifer Roback, an economist at Yale, commenting on the "59c" > >> >> > >> >>"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 > >> > >> O.K. This tells me that "things are the way they are because that's the way > >> it is". Has it ever occurred to any of you that maybe one of the reasons > >> some women get married in the first place is that it's been made clear to > >> them that they'll be isolated and ridiculed if they take a "man's job" > >> or, if they choose a "women's job" be expected to "be nice" to juvenile > >> delinquents (as a teacher), vomitting old ladies (as a nurse), leering idiot > >> junior executives (as a secretary), or drug-addict welfare fathers (as a > >> social worker). Plenty of women get stuck in jobs like these for a lot > >> less money than what a man makes peacefully pounding nails eight hours a day. > >> > >You missed the point, Cheryl. It isn't "things are the way they are", > >but rather, comparing two jobs without comparing relative risks and > >the pleasantness of the work compares apples and oranges. There are awful > >parts of being a nurse or a teacher, but there are also very rewarding > >aspects to those jobs because of the personal contact --- someone who lays > >tar on roads for a living doesn't get the same gratification from his or > >her (usually his) job, and it is not surprising that men have traditionally > >gravitated to awful jobs that pay well because they are awful, since men > >have traditionally been the primary wage-earner, and women in the past have > >usually *not* been the primary wage-earner. > > > No I did NOT miss the point, Cramer. I think that the assumption that > men have different social and financial needs than women is patently > absurd. Why don't divorced men with no children to support become secretaries > (they can afford to take a "pleasant" low-paying job) while divorced women > with several children to support (i.e. they ARE the primary wage-earners) > join the electrician's union? (And before you tell me that girls are too > wimpy to be electricians, just think of how little REAL physical exertion goes > into it. Humping cinder block, now that's a different story.) Men and women through most of recent history had different social and financial needs because for the most part, marriages didn't break up. I'm not going to argue that the marriages were particularly happy, but because families stayed together, the requirements were different. Also, until very recently, divorced fathers seldom were given custody of the kids (I'm not sure that they usually wanted them, either). This is why men ended up primary breadwinner jobs. (Also, a lot of employers perceived that the man's job was essential to put bread on the table, and a woman's job was not. The reasoning was that a single woman didn't have kids to support (largely true, until the last few years), and a married woman was supported by her husband (largely untrue, but a lot of people believed it because they wanted things to be this way). Employers were excessively concerned with "social good" in this respect.) > > Most unions of skilled laborers offer apprenticeship programs (where they learn > things like how to convert feet to meters) which pay a substantial fraction > of the union wage to the apprentice. Up until very, very recently, these > APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS WERE OFFICIALLY CLOSED TO WOMEN. My dad's union, > Steamfitter's Local 638 ("We heat New York") just graduated its first > card-carrying female steamfitter a couple years ago. Without AA, they never > would have had to open their doors to women (or blacks or Puerto Ricans) ever. > And without quotas, they could just throw women's applications in the garbage > can and tell the government that no women applied. It's been done before. You are right about unions --- most unions explicitly prohibited minorities until the 1950s, and a lot continued their prejudices even when the written prohibitions were removed. A lot of that is because the government removed the building trade unions from the free market with the Davis-Bacon Act. By requiring government building projects to be built by labor paid at union scale, non-union contractors had no cost advantage over union contractors. Unions were able to continue their discriminatory practices because non-union contractors were largely shut out of lucrative government building market. Labor unions, at least since the 1930s, have benefitted from government practices that give them a privileged position that other organizations are not allowed. The appropriate solution is repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act --- which would break the power of labor unions in the construction trade. > > And then people like you could sit back with your hands folded and make > rationalizations like "girls shouldn't get the same money boys do because > girls want wimpy jobs and boys are tough enough for rough jobs, nyaa-nyaa-nyaa." > I didn't say that. I said that trying to compare jobs is very difficult because there a lot of factors involved besides the tangibles in jobs. > Barry's point was that women *choose* easy, fun jobs. My counterpoint is that > women have been railroaded into these jobs, and kept out of better, albeit > harder jobs--by men. And that those "helpful, thrify, courteous, kind..." jobs > are *not at all* easy or fun or "socially gratifying". You wanna know what > I find "socially gratifying"? Winning arguments. It takes two to tango, but > only one to squirm. Society has certainly encouraged women to take certain jobs --- I think I would argue that the objective of this encouragement wasn't to deprive women of good jobs, but the society thought it was doing women a favor by discouraging them from dirty, hard, and dangerous work. If our social roles were the same as 1960, perhaps it would be a favor. The collapse of the traditional family has put a lot of single mothers in the position of needing high paying jobs because of divorce --- and many of these single mothers weren't trained for high paying jobs because both they, and the society, didn't forsee a need. > > >> Don't promote stereotypes of women holding "nice" jobs and men holding > >> "competitive, dangerous and dirty" jobs. I've seen too many women work > >> too hard for too little pay after making darned sure they had a good > >> education--only to realize that the men will make sure that another man > >> is "the right person in the right place at the right time" to get the > >> right training, the right wife, the right job, the right promotion, etc. > >> > >If by "good education" you mean a degree in English, or Art, or Urban > >Planning, then I'm not surprised. Men who get those degrees usually > >end of getting inferior jobs after college as well because those degrees > >are produced in numbers far in excess of the jobs that require those > >degrees. Unfortunately, women have tended to concentrate in studies that > >do not lead to high-paying jobs. > > > Oh, don't give me that crap. Men who get "those" degrees become bank presidents > stock-brokers, lawyers, Madison Avenue advertizing tycoons, insurance magnates, > architects, clergymen, and sometimes even computer programmers and engineers. Really? Most everyone I know (male and female) with those sort of degrees have miserable low paying jobs. Also, clergymen get paid very poorly --- a little below secretaries. (Fortunately, I don't have the handicap of a degree.) > Women who get "those" degrees are told that they don't have any useful skills-- > except typing of course. And women who do make sure to acquire higher-level > skills (programming, engineering, chemistry, physics) tend to be exploited > for those skills and those skills only--under the assumption that they're not > really planning of making a career out of it, that they'll be going to seed > soon anyway. Being exploited for those skills and those skills only means-- > you got it--writing subroutines instead of planning software, doing linear heat- > flow problems instead of nonlinear reaction-diffusion equations, working in an > chemical lab as a technician instead of being encouraged to go to graduate > school, working as an exploration geophysicist for an oil company rather than > being the theoretical physicist who formulates a consistent unified field > theory. There is nothing LESS satisfying than doing less than what you are > capable of--which is why so many women are unhappy with their "pleasant" work. What planet do you live on? All the women *I* know with technical degrees are treated better than men with technical degrees. > > >> >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. > >> > >> So women's work is "pleasant" is it? I'll tell you what. You give me > >> YOUR computer account, and YOU can take a few years off (I'll support you) > >> to whipe the baby's butt, and then when it's grown, maybe get you a > >> job typing memos for someone ten years younger than yourself. If the foo... > >> > >You missed the point again, Cheryl. Barry was discussing women's jobs in > >the workforce, not mothering. > > > > Are you confused, Clayton? If Barry wants to take a few years off to make > sure his offspring don't become JD's, then I think that it would be called-- > "fathering" not "mothering". > But if he still wants a job after his children are grown--that's fine with > me. As long as he's fulfilled his duty as a husband and a father by staying > home with the children while they're young...and as long as it's a safe, > pleasant job that won't upset him or make him cry. I really think that > his wife should LET him work, if that's what he really wants to do.... > and even if he wants to go back to school, I think his wife should let him > do that, too. But of course, if he finds that the big girls out there > in the real world play too rough for him, well, maybe it's better that > he occupy his time by joining the garden club, or do volunteer work -- > something that would gratify his social needs perhaps even better than a > job would. > What are you talking about? My wife is staying home raising our daughter because she wanted to. She was tired of working, thought raising a child a very important job, and decided it would be fun and fulfilling. Maybe I'm fortunate coming from a poor family --- the sort of foolishness you are describing above didn't, and couldn't, happen in our family, because it was all we could do to stay above water. The situation you are describing sounds like a wealthy family where the wife working isn't economic necessity. > >> athlete. My first day of work, the engineers at the plant assumed that I > >> was hired to put the little bows on the purfume bottles on the assembly line. > >> You got it--the line-loading job payed over 5 bucks an hour, and the "women's > >> work" payed minimum. Being young and reckless, I argued with them until they > >> went off to check their files only to find that I WAS hired to load the line. > >> If I had been trying to support myself at that time, I probably wouldn't have > >> the guts to argue with them--and plenty of young women at the plant were in > >> that position...AND physically capable of doing the "man's job". Anyway, > > > >You were able to do this physically demanding job --- a lot of women DO NOT > >have the strength for it (a fair number of men also don't have the strength > >for it). More important, a lot of women aren't interested in doing that > >kind of work (even though it would be better for them than putting bows on > >perfume bottles) because they would prefer to be thought of as "feminine" > >instead of capable. > > The point of the anecdote was that the plant engineers were trying to edge > me into the lower-paying job, when I was explicitly hired for the higher-paying > job. I was clearly physically capable of doing the job (at that time, I had > two, count them, two necks). The ONLY thing that made them think they could > get away with pushing me into the nice little girls' job was the fact that > I am female. Many of the women asked me how I got the job. And, Mr. Cramer, > NONE of them gave a *shit* about femininity. Their main concern was *cash* for > their families (think about it -- do you remember the recession in the late > 70's? I do.) and they were willing and able to lift 70# boxes to get it. > The *guys* who were automatically given the higher-paying job were generally > lazy, good-for-nothing idiots who needed the money to fuel their precious little > Camaros. I SAVED MINE FOR ENGINEERING SCHOOL! It could be the way you are describing it, or it could be well-intentioned but ignorant efforts to protect a "girl" from "awful work". A little education would have gone a long way. > So you've tried the ole boys trick of telling someone that they've missed the > point if they don't clearly agree with you. Nice try. You've even thrown my > name around in the process, Clayton Cramer. Well, two can play those games. > > Cheryl Stewart > -- I really think you did miss the point, Cheryl, because your original follow up didn't seem to match what you were commenting on. Your vicious tone suggests that you have a lot of anger to resolve, and are directing at me rather than whoever you are angry at.
oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster) (07/02/85)
In article <826@oddjob.UUCP> cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) writes: >>> >>If by "good education" you mean a degree in English, or Art, or Urban >>Planning, then I'm not surprised. Men who get those degrees usually >>end of getting inferior jobs after college as well because those degrees >>are produced in numbers far in excess of the jobs that require those >>degrees. Unfortunately, women have tended to concentrate in studies that >>do not lead to high-paying jobs. > > >Oh, don't give me that crap. Men who get "those" degrees become bank presidents >stock-brokers, lawyers, Madison Avenue advertizing tycoons, insurance magnates, >architects, clergymen, and sometimes even computer programmers and engineers. >Women who get "those" degrees are told that they don't have any useful skills-- >except typing of course. And women who do make sure to acquire higher-level >skills (programming, engineering, chemistry, physics) tend to be exploited >for those skills and those skills only--under the assumption that they're not >really planning of making a career out of it, that they'll be going to seed >soon anyway. Being exploited for those skills and those skills only means-- >you got it--writing subroutines instead of planning software, doing linear heat- >flow problems instead of nonlinear reaction-diffusion equations, working in an >chemical lab as a technician instead of being encouraged to go to graduate >school, working as an exploration geophysicist for an oil company rather than >being the theoretical physicist who formulates a consistent unified field >theory. There is nothing LESS satisfying than doing less than what you are >capable of--which is why so many women are unhappy with their "pleasant" work. > I have some friends who are married; the male has a B.A. in English, the woman an M.S. in Bacteriology. The male has been working his way up in the world of banking from bottom-of-the-heap teller for over three years now, and has gotten to the lofty position of Head Teller. The female has just gotten her first "real" (not limited-term) job. He is taking shit from people both above and below his "station", and barely earning a 5-figure salary. She is making AT LEAST double his salary, and only taking shit from specimen containers (:-). I certainly believe that she will still have a better-paying, more enjoyable job ten years hence. I do, however, acknowledge that this is not how things happen everywhere, and in every situation. >But if he still wants a job after his children are grown--that's fine with >me. As long as he's fulfilled his duty as a husband and a father by staying >home with the children while they're young...and as long as it's a safe, >pleasant job that won't upset him or make him cry. I really think that >his wife should LET him work, if that's what he really wants to do.... >and even if he wants to go back to school, I think his wife should let him >do that, too. But of course, if he finds that the big girls out there >in the real world play too rough for him, well, maybe it's better that >he occupy his time by joining the garden club, or do volunteer work -- >something that would gratify his social needs perhaps even better than a >job would. > Bitter invective isn't any more effective coming from females than it is coming from males. Your point was well made without resorting to "male tactics" (to use a net.women concept). I disagree with his "women take lower paying jobs because they enjoy non-monetary benefits" argument, but I find it hard to be sympathetic to somebody who feels a need to alienate half the population just to make a point (<- this applies to a lot of stuff here, from both men and women). -- - joel "vo" plutchak {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster "Take what I say in a different way and it's easy to say that this is all confusion."
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (07/07/85)
In a previous posting criticizing Comparable Worth, I wrote: >One cause of women's lower income 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 etc. Many replies described in detail the unpleasantness involved in these "women's jobs." Nevertheless, many women would prefer to empty bedpans for dying patients rather than take a job where they might have to fire somebody occasionally. Many would prefer to teach social studies to unruly (and perhaps even violent) adolescents than to take a job that required extra exposure to mathematics. Whether you consider a job fun or intolerable depends on your own values and tastes. Since people's tastes vary so much, it would be impossible for any single person or small group to issue satifaction ratings to various jobs. Yet, to apply the doctrine of "comparable worth", this is exactly the kind of rating that must be made. Who is qualified to make such a decision? The only fair way is to let the people decide in the marketplace. That is, a job is worth only as much money as it takes to attract enough qualified applicants. By this approach, we can conclude that math teachers are underpaid, computer programmers are paid appropriately, and postal workers are overpaid. The chief criticism of allowing the market to decide, is that the market has been tampered with. Because women were restricted to only a few occupations for so many years, these occupations have received many more applicants at lower wages than market forces alone would justify. For fairness, we would have to remove unfair and arbitrary discrimination agains women (and certain minority groups). If that can be done, then the market will eventually correct itself. "Comparable Worth" is a kludgy attempt to patch over this problem. Like a bad computer program bug fix, it only corrects part of problem, while introducing new errors. Suppose the government were able to issue a fiat that would suddenly increase secretaries' wages. What would happen? For one, businesses would put extra effort into finding ways to get along with fewer secretaries. Second, more people would try to get into this field. The result: unemployment of secretaries. Women who were forced into this field in the days when they had few alternatives would find themselves without ANY job at all. Clearly, "Comparable Worth" is not the answer. The answer is AA. But let's be clear about the purpose and extent of this affirmative action. We must not use affirmative action as an attempt to undo past injustice. What's done is done and cannot be undone. Nor should we use affirmative action with the intent of pro-rata representation of all social groups. This would be an impossible task, since there are an infinite number of overlapping groups and subgroups to ever achieve fairness. We must satisfy ourselves with the more modest goal of partially offsetting the employers' existing prejudices, so that people can get used to the idea of women in "men's jobs", blacks in "white jobs", etc. Frank Silbermann
muffy@lll-crg.ARPA (Muffy Barkocy) (07/10/85)
In article <309@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >Also, until very recently, divorced fathers seldom were given custody of >the kids (I'm not sure that they usually wanted them, either). This is >why men ended up primary breadwinner jobs. (Also, a lot of employers >perceived that the man's job was essential to put bread on the table, and >a woman's job was not. The reasoning was that a single woman didn't have >kids to support (largely true, until the last few years), and a married >woman was supported by her husband (largely untrue, but a lot of people >believed it because they wanted things to be this way). Employers >were excessively concerned with "social good" in this respect.) > I note a major contradiction here. 1) Divorced fathers were not given custody. This implies that divorced *mothers* were. We now have a single (divorced) woman with children to take care of, which conflicts with 2) a single woman would not have kids to support. Explain, please? > <description of attempts to edge female out of good-pay job lifting 70-lb. > boxes> > >It could be the way you are describing it, or it could be well-intentioned >but ignorant efforts to protect a "girl" from "awful work". A little >education would have gone a long way. > What is so "awful" about lifting things? If the person is capable, let them. Muffy
scott@hou2g.UUCP (N. Ersha) (07/12/85)
> I note a major contradiction here. 1) Divorced fathers were not given > custody. This implies that divorced *mothers* were. We now have a single > (divorced) woman with children to take care of, which conflicts with 2) a > single woman would not have kids to support. Explain, please? ALIMONY! SJB
zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (07/16/85)
> > > > I note a major contradiction here. 1) Divorced fathers were not given > > custody. This implies that divorced *mothers* were. We now have a single > > (divorced) woman with children to take care of, which conflicts with 2) a > > single woman would not have kids to support. Explain, please? > > > ALIMONY! > > SJB More corectly : Child Support! Alimony is money paid by the exhusband to support the ex wife untill such time as she remarries. Child support is money paid by the father for that support of the child which the child would normally ( without the divorce) have reason to expect and was therefore legaly due to the CHILD. This includes food, clothing, housing ,medical care and a reasonable amount of education up to the tile the child is legally of age (This in most cases does not include college). I am not defending the situation only explaining the difference. -- Jeanette Zobjeck ihnp4!ihlpl!zubbie
seifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy) (07/18/85)
In article <688@lll-crg.ARPA> muffy@lll-crg.UUCP (Muffy Barkocy) writes: >In article <309@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> >> The reasoning was that a single woman didn't have >>kids to support (largely true, until the last few years), and a married >>woman was supported by her husband >> > >I note a major contradiction here. 1) Divorced fathers were not given >custody. This implies that divorced *mothers* were. We now have a single >(divorced) woman with children to take care of, which conflicts with 2) a >single woman would not have kids to support. Explain, please? Not a contradiction, just a problem with the language. "Single" is normally taken to mean "never married", but some people include "divorced" in with "single". Then there's "seperated", "widow(er)", and probably a couple of other catagories. Snoopy tektronix!hammer!seifert
tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) (07/19/85)
In article <218@ihlpl.UUCP> zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) writes: I thought that this explanation of child support given by Jeanette deserved a bit of re-phrasing. I suppose I am a bit sensitive on this issue as I do pay child support, disregard this if you think I'm just nit-picking, that is not my intention. >Child support is money paid by the father for that >support of the child which the child would normally ( without the divorce) >have reason to expect and was therefore legaly due to the CHILD. This >includes food, clothing, housing ,medical care and a reasonable >amount of education up to the tile the child is legally of age >(This in most cases does not include college). > I have troubles with the phrase <therefore legally due to the child>. I suppose that technically this is correct but I much prefer to think of it as a moral responsibility. I fathered the child and I should expect to share in the support of that child. What the government decides in regard to this issue is actually immaterial to me. The issue here is vocabulary - I agree with the idea that the words we use to express an idea indicate our true feelings. Take care, Peter B
zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (07/25/85)
> I have troubles with the phrase <therefore legally due to the child>. I > suppose that technically this is correct but I much prefer to think of it > as a moral responsibility. I fathered the child and I should expect to > share in the support of that child. What the government decides in regard > to this issue is actually immaterial to me. > > > Take care, > Peter B In as much as I was speaking of child support as defined by the courts I was correct. I think I like Peter's definition better. -- Jeanette Zobjeck ihnp4!ihlpl!zubbie ================================================================================ These are my opinions! I worked for them and I intend to enjoy them. Handle carefully or else someone might think they are yours also. ================================================================================