Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Orphaned Response Message-ID: <2016@inmet.UUCP> Date: Sat, 2-Mar-85 01:50:53 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.2016 Posted: Sat Mar 2 01:50:53 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 4-Mar-85 08:07:45 EST Lines: 93 Nf-ID: #R:ttidcc:-25300:inmet:7800321:177600:5368 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Mar 1 01:04:00 1985 ***** inmet:net.politics / ttidcc!regard / 1:57 pm Feb 27, 1985 >------------------------partial text of article---------------- >>>***** inmet:net.politics / ttidcc!regard / 10:38 am Feb 16, 1985 >>>While "market value" is generally a good concept for pay scales, it has >>>been shown that in the case of women "market value" does _not_ govern the >>>wages. In San Jose, the pay scale of nurses. . . Other studies have been >>>done to show that "market value" does not function in this context. > >>The table you give has two interesting points: first, male and female >>nurses are reported as having approximately the same salaries, which >>certainly seems to undermine ttidcc!regard's notion that nursing >>represents some sort of special hotbed of prejudice against women, >>although I concede that the forces of evil may underpay nurses >>as a way of getting at the 99% who are women, and ignore the >>problem of the 1% who are men. >------------------------------------------------------------------ >I often end up wondering if anybody really pays attention to what is >actually posted, rather than reading their own prejudices/slants into >everybody elses articles. The first article posted referred to the nurse >vs. truck driver commentary, disagreeing with the argument that "free >market" will sort out the actual "worth" of any particular job (held by men >or women). The second refers to the posting on relative salaries of men >and women in same industries. No mention was made of nursing being a >special hotbed of prejudice against women. I agree that you didn't use the word "hotbed", but it sure sounded to me as if you were arguing that nurses were underpaid because they were women, leading to the natural notion that the field of nursing was an especially obvious or significant (hence a hotbed) example of anti-female prejudice. >The point, that the free market >system does _not_ regulate the "worthiness" of many jobs, was completely >ignored. Excuse me, but the response I made to this was that many things about the price system may *seem* strange. I pointed out that it was reasonable that there's a shortage of nurses in an area if the salaries there are low, and asked how long the shortage had lasted. I also pointed out that arguing that the prices make no sense to you is a device frequently used by those who wish to impose price supports, or price controls, or some such. I thought it would be clear that just because something SEEMS strange doesn't mean that it isn't functioning in concert with reality -- it may be that your understanding of the whole picture isn't perfect. >--------------------partial text of article------------------ >>>(Always presuming that children are raised with similar expectations, >>>which, of course, they aren't. You can't dress your daughter >>>in pink and lace for her whole life, and reward only nurturing behaviour, >>>then expect her to "freely" choose to become a truck driver). > >>I think it's a little rough of you to ask the taxpayers to fund agencies >>to determine the "comparable worth" of all jobs, and at the same time >>ask them to raise children YOUR way, otherwise this agency will continue >>to do its work (and control everyone's salary) until children ARE raised >>the way you want. Perhaps you could try to convince people of this >>WITHOUT suggesting that government FORCE them to do it? >--------------------------------------------------------------- >Another example, *sigh*. I didn't recommend agencies, or task forces. Nor >did I even recommend other people raise their kids the way I raise mine. >I certainly have my own opinions, and practice them, and even discuss a >few of them in net.kids, but I don't suggest the government force anybody >to use my methods. It sure sounds to me as if you were arguing that the price system was out of whack somehow, and that something should be done. It is absolutely true that you did not propose government action, and I shouldn't have acted as if you did -- my experience though is that when someone want's "something to be done" to "fix" a strange situation that has arisen before and will likely arise again between free individuals, that they are talking about government. Sorry if I pounced -- It may be that I'm just overreacting (as you say) to my own expectations. What DO you suggest be done? As for the idea that you aren't suggesting that other people raise children in the way you would raise them, I point out that your use of quotation marks around "freely" implies that females raised in a certain way (daughter in pink and lace for whole life, nurturing behavior rewarded) would not be expected to make a free choice. This sounds to me like you're suggesting that daughters NOT be raised this way, but again, my own bias is that true freedom is very desirable. Having a cup of coffee and forgetting about it is not a bad idea -- communication over the net is a little like being drunk. I don't think people often realize how much the tty/batch-type interface restricts normal social signals. Had we been sitting together somewhere, a great deal of misunderstanding could have been avoided by real-time interaction and by picking up body-english signals from each other. I really did read your article though -- again, I apologize if I didn't read between the lines correctly.