[net.women] women's work

jdh@mtung.UUCP (Julia Harper) (07/03/85)

In article <543@umcp-cs.UUCP> flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) writes:
>One of the reasons -- the biggest, I'll bet -- for the "59 cents"
>wage gap is that girls/women are DISCOURAGED BY SOCIETY from taking
>certain jobs; jobs that are considered "men's work".  
>So why aren't feminists raising hell (MORE hell than they raise
>over "comparable worth") over the way girls are brought up to be
>qualified for, and interested in, only "women's work"?

It's worse than simply that women are encouraged to perform 
"women's work":   When women start dominating a job, what has
happened over and over in the past is that it then BECOMES
"women's work", and employers start paying less for the 
job.  A prime example of this is the job of secretary.  This
job used to be held exclusively by men.  Another prime example
in progress as we speak is that of data-processing clerk and
even programmer.  As women start to swamp a particular market, these
jobs are devalued.  What typically happens is
	1) the scope of the job is narrowed ....in order to justify it when
	2) the job is paid less.

In other words, "women's work" BECOMES women's work when
	1) women become a large percentage of a certain job
	2) employers modify the job.


Now, THIS is a problem.  And it seems likely that it will remain
a problem as long as employers - conciously or not - see women as
people who shouldn't be given responsibility or as less valuable.
(No recommendations as to a solution.)

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

flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (07/06/85)

In article <587@mtung.UUCP> jdh@mtung.UUCP (Julia Harper) writes:
>It's worse than simply that women are encouraged to perform 
>"women's work":   When women start dominating a job, what has
>happened over and over in the past is that it then BECOMES
>"women's work", and employers start paying less for the 
>job. [...].  As women start to swamp a particular market, these
>jobs are devalued.  What typically happens is
>	1) the scope of the job is narrowed ....in order to justify it when
>	2) the job is paid less.

It could be, though, that the scope of the job is narrowed in response
to the greater supply of workers which allows for further division of
labor.  Similarly, wages may go down due to increased supply of workers
in the field.  (Discrimination probably applies to both, as well,
admittedly, but it's hard to say how much.)

Anyway, my view is that the best way to attack discrimination is to
crush it between the rock of market realities (undervaluing women is a
mistake that will cost profits when others don't make the same mistake)
and the hard place of increased social consciousness (recognizing one's
prejudices so as to avoid such mistakes).

--Paul V Torek, Iconbuster-in-chief