flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (06/30/85)
Why can't feminist spokeswomen accept what I'm saying? Does the need to justify their suggested government action blind them to the problems their solution doesn't address? (I don my asbestos suit...) 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". If women are pushed into a narrow range of jobs -- creating a much larger supply of such workers than there would be if women were supported in whatever free choice they made -- it follows as the night upon the day that they will be paid less than men. This is so obvious that I shouldn't have to explain it, but here goes. Picture, if you will, two societies, A and B, in a world where there are only 4 jobs: hunter, gatherer, toolmaker, and housebuilder. In society A, men and women are free to choose any job; their families support them regardless of their decision; nobody tells women that hunting is "men's work", etc. The 40,000 people in society A are evenly split among the jobs, and they pay nearly equally. In B, women are brought up to be gatherers only; everything else is discouraged. Although the environment, consumer tastes for meat vs plants, etc. are exactly the same for societies A and B, there are 19,000 gatherers (almost all women) in B. So guess what? -- supply and demand dictate that the price of veggies is lower in B; fewer veggies can be gathered per worker-hour (diminishing returns); thus gatherers receive terrible wages! Society B's problem can't be solved by mandating "comparable worth" pay schedules, though that might help remedy discrimination by bosses of gathering companies (OK, so there's a 5th job). Society B must become more like society A, else comparable worth legislation will only result in a lot of unemployed gatherers (plus a few well- paid ones). The moral for our society is clear (I hope). 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"? --Paul "Turn up those flames -- I hate cold weather!" Torek
cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) (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". If women are >pushed into a narrow range of jobs -- creating a much larger supply >of such workers than there would be if women were supported in >whatever free choice they made -- it follows as the night upon the >day that they will be paid less than men. This is so obvious that >I shouldn't have to explain it, but here goes. > < many valid statements about supply & demand > >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"? A better question might be "why aren't feminists raising more hell over the way boys are brought up to be qualified and interested in, only "men's work"? Paul, you tell mothers and fathers across this nation how to raise their children, and see what kind of response you get. You can't legislate the way people raise their children--you can't even make suggestions to some parents without risking having your teeth pulled out of your head and pushed into your eyesockets. It's been my experience that people raise their girls to be "sugar and spice" for three reasons. The least thoughtful ones do it because they think that that's the way it should be. The more thoughtful ones know that women are discriminated against in "men's jobs" and don't want their girls to be disappointed by trying for one. By eliminating discrimination, citizens feel more free to raise their daughters to take on a man's work. During the oil crisis, I knew several women in college whos parents were strongly encouraging them to go into geology, petroleum engineering and land management (lot of good that does now, during the oil glut). I honestly don't think that these parents would have encouraged their daughters to major in such "dirty, dangerous" topics had there been no anti- discrimatory or affirmative action laws passed. People raise their children to be successful. If employers make it so the only way a woman is going to "make it" is by starving in a bad job or marrying, then people will raise their daughters to marry, and to have "something to fall back on if the marriage fails." Oh, and the third reason people raise their daughters to be "sugar and spice" is that it's easier--you don't have to help her with her math homework, or drive her to little league practice, and what's more, you get extra help around the house! How nice! And she'll stay at or near home, maybe even go to that nice community college down the block! Help keep the extended family together after the boys are grown and gone away! Me, I'd rather have my teeth pulled out of my head and pushed into my eyesockets. I agree that equality should start at home. But the home is the first place of training for the outside world. And if the outside world dictates inequality, then parents will raise their kids to be successful in an unjust world. The only way to get parents to raise their daughters to be successful in "man's jobs" is to make it clear to those parents that their daughters won't be denied those jobs on the basis of sex once they're out of college (an increasingly costly investment in any child). Paul, for these reasons, I believe that your suggestion that feminists go around telling other people how to raise their children would be ineffective and counterproductive. What if they all agreed only to find that their daughters were chronically unemployed because of discriminatory hiring practices? Or that the companies involved created special jobs for women with advanced techical & scientific training, so as to get the work out of them while paying less? (This I have seen with my own two eyes.) This is exactly what companies did when a lot of women were suddenly qualified for clerical work (they'd learned how to read & write, and add columns of numbers). The position of Secretary was made into "women's work" -- it had previously been a man's job, and a steppingstone to higher management. Fair-minded people across the nation advocate comparable worth legislation. Too bad you're not one of them. Cheryl Stewart --
gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (07/03/85)
-- > Why can't feminist spokeswomen accept what I'm saying? ... > > 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"? > > --Paul "Turn up those flames -- I hate cold weather!" Torek What makes you think they're not, Paul? We attack the mythology through its institutions. (How else can you do it, except by writing books that you don't read or speaking at rallies you don't attend?) One way to get young girls interested in non-traditional work is to have more women for them to see in non-traditional roles. And thus feminists' passionate support for affirmative action programs, and of course, abortion rights. The oppression of women is an insidious cycle of restrictive upbringing and constricted thinking. We try to break it anywhere we can. There is a substantial amount of feminist literature dealing with the causes of women's restrictive roles in western society, incidentally. I heartily recommend (for about the 5th time in this newsgroup) Dorothy Dinnerstein's "The Mermaid and the Minotaur". -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 03 Jul 85 [15 Messidor An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (07/06/85)
In article <833@oddjob.UUCP> cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) writes: >You can't legislate the way people raise their children--you can't >even make suggestions to some parents without risking having your >teeth pulled out of your head and pushed into your eyesockets. I'm not talking about legislation. As far as the teeth-and-eyes, I think it's worth the risk... >It's been my experience that people raise their girls to be "sugar >and spice" for three reasons. The least thoughtful ones do it because >they think that that's the way it should be. The more thoughtful >ones know that women are discriminated against in "men's jobs" and >don't want their girls to be disappointed by trying for one. [...] I support laws prohibiting discrimination (I recognize it's hard to enforce, but it's something). Also, there are market pressures against discrimination (simply put, it hurts your company to forgo using the full potential of women employees). If there are few women in a field, there will probably be enough nondiscriminatory employers (since there only need to be a few) to hire them at fair wages (or slighly below, given that the women have few alternative employers to turn to). I don't think thoughtful parents will discourage their girls from "men's work" for the girls' own good, because that *wouldn't* be for their good. I.e., women are better off in "men's jobs" *in spite of extra discrimination* because of the oversupply of workers in "women's jobs". Check the facts -- I think you'll find that women trained for "men's work" make more, on average, than those trained for "women's work". >Fair-minded people across the nation advocate comparable worth legislation. >Too bad you're not one of them. I don't like the fact, nor do I evade the fact, that discrimination happens and makes people's lives worse. But the comparable worth cure is worse than the disease -- it will result in gross economic distortions based on biased and subjective notions of "worth", while condemning many "women's work"ers to unemployment or underemployment.