cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) (06/20/85)
In article <513@hou2g.UUCP=> scott@hou2g.UUCP (Danger Mouse) writes:
=>Cheryl Stewart:
=>
=>[...many valid assumptions about equality of innate skills among all people...]
=>
=>
=>-> There being an equal distribution of natural endowment in both sexes
=>-> and all races, and there being a disproportionately low number of
=>-> minorities and women utilizing these natural endowments in their
=> ^^ ^^^^^
=>-> work, simple logic would have it that a disproportionately high
=> ^^^^
=>-> number of minorities and women are undereducated and underemployed
=>-> given their level of natural endowment.
=>
=>I fail to see how women and minorities WHO WORK are underemployed. Under-
=>educated, probably, but by my definition, people who are underemployed
=>don't have jobs.
WRONG. People who are underemployed are working at jobs which do not take
best advantage of their skills and natural abilities. A Ph.D. in philosophy
who drives a bus is underemployed. He or she is probably smarter than most
of his or her coworkers. If there is an equal distribution of brains between
men and women, and men typically have the better jobs, then it follows
logically that a man can get farther with less brains. It then follows,
if men get farther with less brains, that between a man and woman who
have both gone the same distance, the woman probably is smarter.
Take two netters, for instance, one male and one female. The woman writes
an article containing a reasonable, logical argument. The man fails to
understand it, perhaps because he has been culturally deprived (nobody ever
taught him how to look up words in a dictionary), perhaps because he has
been poorly socialized (where he comes from, nobody is expected to read things
carefully before forming an opinion), or possibly because he is innately in-
capable of thinking logically.
This is not a personal attack, Scott; it is intended to illustrate the kind
of harsh, unfair treatment women face when--just trying to support themselves.
Cheryl Stewart
--
There's one kind of favor I'll ask of you:
Just see that my grave is kept clean.scott@hou2g.UUCP (Danger Mouse) (06/20/85)
-> Cheryl Stewert (Hi Cheryl) ->Take two netters, for instance, one male and one female. The woman writes ->an article containing a reasonable, logical argument. The man fails to ->understand it, perhaps because he has been culturally deprived (nobody ever ->taught him how to look up words in a dictionary), perhaps because he has ->been poorly socialized (where he comes from, nobody is expected to read things ->carefully before forming an opinion), or possibly because he is innately in- ->capable of thinking logically. ->This is not a personal attack, Scott; it is intended to illustrate the kind ->of harsh, unfair treatment women face when--just trying to support themselves. If you didn't want this to sound like a personal attack, you could have been less specific about the two people. Netter "A" and netter "B", for instance, or perhaps you could have reversed the male and female roles. (Role reversal...what a revolutionary idea! (:-)) Anyway, I won't let my "male ego" (:-) get in the way and attack you... The definition of underemployed I was using applies to a group of people, not an individual person (This is the only way I've heard the word used, and thus felt no NEED to look it up). I thought it meant a lower percentage of a given (perhaps arbitrary) group is employed relative to the population as a whole. Thus, women, making up 50% of the population, do not make up 50% of the work force. Therefore women, as a group, are underemployed. I have since looked it up, and found the following: Underemployed: having less than full-time, regular, or adequate employment. [From Webster's Ninth New College Dictionary] I see that this is probably closer to (or at least includes) your definition. Thanks for the education. When a person works at a job below his/her capabilities, I term that as OVERQUALIFIED. ->If there is an equal distribution of brains between ->men and women, and men typically have the better jobs, then it follows ->logically that a man can get farther with less brains. It then follows, ->if men get farther with less brains, that between a man and woman who ->have both gone the same distance, the woman probably is smarter. While I now see and acknowledge the truth in the above idea, I've seen fairer and more truthful generalizations. I DON'T want to get into a run-on discussion on generalizations, however. And for the record, I've been guilty of worse generalizations myself. Scott ->There's one kind of favor I'll ask of you: -> Just see that my grave is kept clean. Sorry, I don't do graves (:-)