pc@hplabsb.UUCP (Patricia Collins) (11/03/83)
When one analyzes what details are available on the statistics, one finds that the 59-cents "statistic" symbolizes the assortment of economic problems women face. Women earn only 57 cents (c. 1983) to their male-counterpart's dollar because... (1) Women are paid less for the SAME job (same experience, same qualifications) in many cases [where they can actually get comparable jobs]. (2) Women are paid less for "comparable" jobs. The women-dominated professions are often undercompensated (e.g., nursing, clerical work) relative to comparable men-dominated professions. (3) Women are stuck in lower-paying career tracks for an endless list of reasons. Among these: (a) Women are still seen as being the "best" "support" personnel. [It reminds me of the attitude many Southern Plantation owners had of their Black slaves. That condescending appreciation which kept them down on the farm...or sold down the river...is worse than the more blatant discrimination which one can at least fight against.] (b) Women's careers are often fragmented by their secondary "importance." Families and husband's careers dictate the direction of a woman's career in many cases. This affects reason (c). (c) Women often lack confidence and the savvy needed to attain the career goals they might otherwise have. Many women's goals are modest. So be it. But for many others, the desire is there but the confidence and know-how are not. There are cultural/social/psychological reasons for this which explain it but do not lessen the frustration. (d) The people in a position to promote women are typically men; often part of an Old Boys Network. Who gets promoted? The person who seems to "fit best" in the existing structure. In my experience, it has only been the most open-minded (or coerced) manager who has promoted a woman. (e) Last hired, first fired. Like most symbols, the 59-cent symbol is multi-faceted. One can not negate the validity of that symbol by arguing that the 59-cent quote does not have a clear statistical interpretation. For almost every woman I know, it has a very clear meaning. When I was denied a job because I was young and married (and therefore ripe for childbearing), I knew what that 59 cents meant. When my manager thought someone else had been helping me with my work (he simply couldn't believe that I had the LOGIC to design such a complex circuit so quickly), I knew what that 59 cents meant. And when I hear my supervisors say that my organizational and management skills are exceptional, therefore I'm being asked to take care of a number of paperwork and miscellaneous tasks (NOT to guide a project or its team members), I know what that 59 cents means. Every time I read or listen to arguments which must be boiled down to deductive logic and statistical analyses, I realize just how difficult it is to communicate a reality which is totally concrete and "logical" to me (and to many of the women I know), but which fails to meet the criteria set forth for communication with those who can only understand the quantifable and the deduceable (predicate logic only). I know women who have learned to restrict their analytic thought to these limited domains; I still find it very frustrating. Outside of the sciences, I also believe that this restricted thinking is dangerous. Please pardon my rambling. I hope that I am able to strike a non-deductive chord with those who still value a broader kind of analysis and communication. Patricia Collins hplabs