zben@umcp-cs.UUCP (09/26/83)
(From heterosexual white male [Generic Christian]). I have always considered long hair on women very attractive. I don't believe that only some women have the "face" for it, but would be willing to consider counterexamples :-). Various women have told me that long hair is *very* hard to manage, must be washed frequently, gets in the way at times, etc. I wouldn't want to wish that much work on anyone. I also consider makeup very unattractive (at least if its obvious). The Miss/Mrs title probably evolved as a hint to men whether sexual advances would be tolerated. Sounds innocent on the surface, but actually is odious for two reasons. One, it implies that the only thing a woman is good for is sex; we need to resist this attitute most strongly. Two, it implies that the marital status of a *man* does *not* affect his reception to sexual overtures. I.E. its OK for a man to cheat, but not a woman. This is odious hypocracy and not to be tolerated. It's unfortunate, but the reason that women are only paid 59 cents for every dollar paid to a man is probably related to a lack of a militant demand for more, coupled with the ultimate sanction, the threat of changing jobs. This can be explicit or implicit. I have heard management types say frequently: "we have to pay him more, or we will lose him". I have been salary-surpassed by many men I have helped to train. Of course, they are writing CCCI systems for the military, or are slaves to someone's airline reservation or automated bank teller systems, while I am happy to continue working in a university environment. Whether by nature (can feel the flames gathering) or by cultural imposition it seems that women are less self-confident than men and less likely to threaten to change jobs or actually do it than men. Now, why should an employer pay more when he doesn't have to? Moral righteousness? Don't hold your breath... Ben Cranston umcp-cs!zben zben@umd2 Computer Science Center The University of Maryland College Park, Maryland 20740