jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (06/28/85)
> In article <2102@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: > > Women : aprroximately 50% of the population. Probably close to that > > percentage of the work force. Average wage: 63% of the average > > male wage. If we assume women are not inherently inferior > > to men then we save approx. 25% of the labour cost component > > of goods (since we don't give that 50% of the people a 50% > > raise) directly by discriminating and suppressing this > > particular group of people. > > I do not see how direct discrimination and suppression results in this > wage gap. The way I see it women have the same choices that exist for When society : 1) decreases someones selfrespect; 2) continually tells them that certain positions/jobs are not for them (cause it's mens work); 3) continually tells them that certain kinds of knowledge/abilities (such as mechanical knowhow and mathematical reasoning) are beyond their capacities; etc. etc. Then it is a lot easier to convince them, as well, that: 1) they are lucky to have any kind of job so they better not complain if conditions are poor and pay is low; 2) that they shouldn't even expect to have a job/career that is rewarding since their primary goal should be to get married; 3) that it is their responsibility to find a man to support them and so their wages need not be adequate to support themselves in reasonable style; 4) there is no point in going on to a higher education since they are not really equipped for it; and 5) if they do want a higher education that they should stay out of science and similar technical areas since they are really not equipped for it. Note that we are not talking about an adult human being suddenly being faced with a bunch of bizzare/irrational predjudices and having a lifetime of experience/knowledge etc upon which to draw in dealing with them; this is a conditioning process which begins in infancy when the subject has zero chance to defend themselves. In addition until recently anyone who went against conventional behaviour was socially ostracized to the point where the subject of the conditioning probably couldn't find any countervailing examples even if they were aware enough to look for them. > for men, e.g. finish high school, get a university degree in medicine, > engineering, or whatever. That a significant percentage of women tend That just isn't so; women face a lot of obstacles from active harrasment to the basic fact that they are paid a lot less than men and so are less likely to be able to afford school. > to gravitate towards traditionally female careers (e.g. nursing) is But you see there is part of the problem; we have these traditionally female jobs and traditionally male jobs and significant pressure is place upon people to stay in their traditional roles. For many people you can replace the word "traditional" by "expected". Lest you think sex role training has no significant effect I suggest you try a small experiment. Do something that is harmless but that is definitely outside your normally defined sex role. Two suggestions (I am serious by the way): 1) wear a dress and walk down a street and have a beer in the Georgia (a vancouver bar for those who don't know), or 2) take a course in some traditionally female topic such as needlepoint or dressmaking and then make a point of telling people you know that you are doing so. Now take the reactions you get and imagine it every day of you life; even if a women does manage to overcome this kind of pressure just think of the energy she has to put into doing so that could have gone elsewhere. This general area (discrimination against women) is not something I am an expert on; perhaps someone in net.women could provide a more convincing case. > *not* because someone is denying them access to the type of training > or education that will result in high paying jobs. I suspect it is > due to the fact that only recently have women either wanted or had > to have well paying jobs (previously women were expected to marry > and, for the most part, be supported by their husbands). Since > this is a relatively new phenomenon it will take some time before > a new steady state is reached in which women make up 50% of > all engineering, medicine, plumbing, etc classes and hence 50% of > those professions, resulting in the average woman making 100% of what > the average male makes. > > > Who is talking about communism??????? Isn't that a little paranoid? > > Does a system where everyone is given equal opportunity (and not > > just lip service to the idea) mean communism? If a system does not > > The key phrase in the above is equal opportunity. As I said above > that exists for women now. It also exists, to a large extent, for > any and every group in *this* country. Because a particular group > has not taken advantage of the opportunities that exist is no > reason to raise the bogeyman of discrimination. Consider immigrants > from some mythical country. It is quite possible that in their > homeland job training and/or higher education were not given > much importance. Thus, once in Canada, they find themselves in a > country where the "old ways" just don't cut it anymore and their > present economic situation would reflect this. At this point > some would say that these people are being discriminated against. > I would totally disagree. They have the same access to > training and educational programs as everyone else and if they refuse If the programs even exist; last I heard your provincial government was cutting down on the ESL (english as a second language) programs/resources in the province. > to recognise the need to be trained and/or educated then even though > this is a regrettable state of affairs it is by no means discrimination. > > In conclusion the question should not be why does group A earn X% > of what group B does. The question should be *first* is group A doing > everything that it can to take advantage of the opportunities that > exist? If this is indeed the case, *then* the matter of disparate earnings *and* is anyone, in any way, holding those people back from taking advantage of those opportunities. > should be looked at, and if necessary some kind of AA policies instituted > so that group A is properly represented in the various professions and > job areas. > > J.B. Robinson > > P.S. As necessitated by my view of Utopia I support easy access to > job training and *retraining* programs and to post-secondary school > opportunities in general. I believe that tuition fees for such > schemes should be very modest (almost, but not quite zero) and that I think that is an excellent idea. But why not zero? It seems to me that society benefits when the average educational/skill level of the population rises so why not make it free. In the same way, if someone has become "obsoleted" and will have to go on welfare why not just send them to school/retraining for free instead of paying (probably) years of welfare - it's probably cheaper in the long run and society gets a newly productive member out of it. > loans (and maybe grants) be readily available. This is the Jim Well you have to watch that too; it's a pretty big handicap to come out of school with $10k-$20k of loans owing. I chose the alternative myself and worked my way through, but then it takes quite a bit longer. > Robinson theory of helping people to help themselves. It is also a > good step towards ensuring equality of opportunity and a good way of > combatting the general notion held by many (who will remain nameless) > that equality of *result* is the target that we should be shooting for. As long as everyone truly does have real equality of opportunity then that would be all I ask for, but I don't think you would claim that that is what we have now; until then looking at the result is a reasonable measure of how equal the opportunit really is.
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (07/01/85)
In article <2128@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: >If the programs even exist; last I heard your provincial government was >cutting down on the ESL (english as a second language) programs/resources >in the province. Unless they changed the rules all immigrants have to know one of the two official languages. Thus, I would assume that the ESL program was directed at the children of immigrants. If indeed ESL is the quicker way of integrating these children into the mainstream, then it would appear that cutting back on the program was not one of the brighter moves of the Socreds. >> P.S. As necessitated by my view of Utopia I support easy access to >> job training and *retraining* programs and to post-secondary school >> opportunities in general. I believe that tuition fees for such >> schemes should be very modest (almost, but not quite zero) and that >I think that is an excellent idea. But why not zero? It seems to >me that society benefits when the average educational/skill level of >the population rises so why not make it free. In the same way, if >someone has become "obsoleted" and will have to go on welfare why >not just send them to school/retraining for free instead of paying >(probably) years of welfare - it's probably cheaper in the long >run and society gets a newly productive member out of it. I'm philosophically opposed to providing most things absolutely free. My reasoning is that they are ultimately *not* free and charging a token fee is as good as way as any to remind the beneficiary of this. Also, you are less likely to get abuses if the beneficiary has a (small) investment in his education/medical care/whatever. Thus, a modest $50 to $100 per term fee for university education would be what I'd seek. As for the suggestion concerning welfare recipients, I'd go a step further and make school/retraining mandatory for recipients who are neither physically nor mentally handicapped. The alternative would be to participate in some kind of community work. Naturally, recipients with dependents would either have to be excused or it would be necessary to provide day-care for said dependents. Somehow, I've never been able to come to grips with a system which *pays* those so inclined to stay home and kick back. >As long as everyone truly does have real equality of opportunity then >that would be all I ask for, but I don't think you would claim that >that is what we have now; until then looking at the result is a >reasonable measure of how equal the opportunit really is. Not entirely true. The examples of discrimination and suppression against women that Mr. Chapman makes are not nearly as true now as they were, say, thirty years ago. Moreover, this type of discrimination (or cultural bias) is rapidly diminishing. Thus, in my opinion, there exists a time lag which makes it difficult to look at the economic situation of *all* women *now* and from that observation determine the level of opportunity that exists for those women who did not grow up under those conditions. It would make much more sense to me to look at the economic situation of women who have been in the workforce for maybe the last five years, and compare that to the economic situation of men who have been working for the same five year period. I do not expect that the women in this sample would be making 100c to every dollar earned by men but I'm sure it would be significantly more than 62c. [It might also be useful to determine what kind of a trend exists. Thus we'd first do as suggested above and compare dollar earnings of men and women who have been in the workforce for the last five years. Next we'd look at those people who had been in the workforce for the last 10 years, and etc. If we end up with a rapidly increasing curve I'd say there is no urgent problem. On the other hand if this is not the case then measures of some kind may be needed] Thus I question Mr. Chapman's apparent solution to the problem which, if I got it right, was to raise women's salaries by 50%. This does zippo as far as increasing accessability into the non-traditional work areas goes. It also meddles in the already over regulated marketplace. Instead let's first get a *real* idea of where we stand concerning opportunities for women and then work on the means of increasing these opportunities if deemed necessary. Solutions such as "equal pay for work of equal value" are cosmetic, and thus do not address the real problem. J.B. Robinson
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (07/09/85)
> > I do not see how direct discrimination and suppression results in this > > wage gap. The way I see it women have the same choices that exist for > > When society : 1) decreases someones selfrespect; 2) continually tells > them that certain positions/jobs are not for them (cause it's mens work); > 3) continually tells them that certain kinds of knowledge/abilities > (such as mechanical knowhow and mathematical reasoning) are beyond > their capacities; etc. etc. > > Then it is a lot easier to convince them, as well, that: 1) they are > lucky to have any kind of job so they better not complain if conditions > are poor and pay is low; 2) that they shouldn't even expect to have > a job/career that is rewarding since their primary goal should be to > get married; 3) that it is their responsibility to find a man to > support them and so their wages need not be adequate to support themselves > in reasonable style; 4) there is no point in going on to a higher > education since they are not really equipped for it; and 5) if they do > want a higher education that they should stay out of science and > similar technical areas since they are really not equipped for it. Thank you John. Some times being able to distance oneself emotionally does help one's argument a lot. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (07/10/85)
>> > I do not see how direct discrimination and suppression results in this >> > wage gap. The way I see it women have the same choices that exist for >> >> When society : 1) decreases someones selfrespect; 2) continually tells >> them that certain positions/jobs are not for them (cause it's mens work); >> 3) continually tells them that certain kinds of knowledge/abilities >> (such as mechanical knowhow and mathematical reasoning) are beyond >> their capacities; etc. etc. >> >> Then it is a lot easier to convince them, as well, that: 1) they are >> lucky to have any kind of job so they better not complain if conditions >> are poor and pay is low; 2) that they shouldn't even expect to have >> a job/career that is rewarding since their primary goal should be to >> get married; 3) that it is their responsibility to find a man to >> support them and so their wages need not be adequate to support themselves >> in reasonable style; 4) there is no point in going on to a higher >> education since they are not really equipped for it; and 5) if they do >> want a higher education that they should stay out of science and >> similar technical areas since they are really not equipped for it. > I think that this is very true except for one thing - is it "society" or individuals that are doing this? When we are talking about employment and education, I take "society" to primarily mean personnel depts. and enrollment depts. in business and educational institutions. I don't think that is is fair to imply that these groups are primarily responsible for John's points 1 thru 3. Particularly because (for some reason) personnel depts. and enrollment depts. appear to be well above the 51% women figure. I think it would be a lot fairer to say that (by and large) it is another sector of society that are primarily responsible for these attitudes. In fact, I very much suspect that the worst offenders in this area are a person's relatives or friends. (Particularly in second generation Canadians originating from some ethnic groups. Some of these groups still have pre-natal marriages for gawd's sake!) (BTW: My mother had quite a fight on her hands from her uncles and grandfather when she wanted to go to University in the early 50's. She won, and the discrimination that she found at University was considerably less than what she found in her own family!) Other participants (managers, teachers etc.) are, I would suspect, usually somewhat "more professional" (and probably more "liberal") in their attitudes. Especially, in the light of what legal responses to institutional discrimination are now available. Big corporations take a very dim view of offenders of the equal access legislation. How do we handle that kind of familial discrimination? Compulsory re-education? Good grief! (Sorry Granddad, you have to leave the nursing home for an hour every day to take a course!) It's better to let it die out. I think that there are many factors in the current fact that certain groups of women are getting paid less than men doing obviously "similar value" jobs. One of them, of course, is a certain amount of discrimination. However, I greatly suspect that the main reasons for it are historical: 1) Women haven't been in the workforce in such large numbers for very long (and were, of course, considerably more discriminated against in the past). 2) The "traditional" women's jobs (until recently) were very rarely unionized. If they were, they were frequently not very aggressive. I think that this factor is probably the biggest influence. No wonder that secretaries are paid less than Janitors or Plumbers (or most of the other trades). Janitors and the other trades are "guilds" - they enforce a monopoly on who you can hire to do such jobs. And, if they choose to, they can go on strike (as they are now) and demand anything they want. The only counter-balancing factor is when the strike fund runs out. Secretaries (and probably lots of other "traditional" female occupations) ARE being paid too little. If they had a guild just like carpenters, they would probably be paid a lot more. (Mind you, frequently I think that the unionized trades are being paid too much!) Take a look at the professions, where very few unions exist - I suspect that you will find that equivalent experience people are being paid very similar wages, regardless of sex. -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321