Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watmum.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!water!watmum!cdshaw
From: cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics,net.social
Subject: Re: Discrimination against women and statistics
Message-ID: <198@watmum.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 1-Jul-85 13:34:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: watmum.198
Posted: Mon Jul  1 13:34:59 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 2-Jul-85 04:49:10 EDT
References: <11357@brl-tgr.ARPA> <832@oddjob.UUCP>
Reply-To: cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw)
Distribution: net
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 66
Xref: watmath net.women:6186 net.politics:9679 net.social:765

In article <832@oddjob.UUCP> cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) writes:
>In article <11357@brl-tgr.ARPA> wmartin@brl-bmd.UUCP writes:
>>
>>Well, I think that *my* wife has gotten a LOT of economic benefits from
>>our marriage. When we married, we both worked full time, at
>>professional-level Army jobs. Her marriage has allowed her to still live
>>comfortably, while at the same time:
>> 
>>b) Withdrawing her accumulated retirement benefits, and using that plus
>>even a larger amount from my savings to open and furnish a retail
>>business, which lasted less than a year, but which satisfied a long-held
>>desire she had.
>>
>>Sounds to me like she got a pretty good deal out of this...
>>
>
>Until she wakes up one morning to realize that she could have achieved whatever
>ambition or goal that led her into "professional-level" work in the first 
>place, and that your sickeningly patronizing attitude towards her unemployment
>and hobbies has only served to trivialize her vast untapped potential for 
>continued service to her profession.


Well, for one thing Cheryl, she probably isn't you. You take (I guess from your 
postings) the same attitude to your field as I do. I tend to take "professional
-level computer stuff" very seriously. I have met few others in my undergrad
career who do likewise, male or female. Taking Will's posting at face value,
it seems she was more interested in opening a store than in working for the 
Army. Saying what her motivations are with no evidence of your own
is the height of arrogance on your part.

Admittedly, Will's posting is almost tailor-made for Cheryl's type of attack,
but extrapolating from one's own experience onto another's personal motivations
is foolish at best. Will's wife is a sort of unwilling martyr to the cause
of forsaken professionalism.

Also, Will's wife's year of "vacation"  would certainly not be for me. I would
be looking for something meaty to do within a week. This is perhaps an
indication that she might have "had a job" as opposed to "pursuing a career".

>She often gets negative feedback from her parents (who want grandchildren), 

Well, as he mentioned later, they don't have kids, so this has nothing to do
with it.

> --all for being serious about her career, an attitude that would evoke a 
>strong positive response from 
>her parents, social group and spouse IF ONLY SHE HAD BEEN BORN MALE.

Point well taken in general, but perhaps not in this case.

>      "Women's culture" is as much of a trap as "ghetto culture".
>Continuing to argue that *their* women don't *want* to get out of the ghetto, 
>the male chauvinist swine on this net are... reducing marriage to a mere 
>economic decision, social agreement...
>
>                                   Cheryl Stewart

Well, um, good point. But what to do about it? (Other than jumping on any fool
you see posting/saying/whatever the kind of material you abhor.)

Yours in vague confusion,

Chris Shaw    watmath!watmum!cdshaw  or  cdshaw@watmath
University of Waterloo
I was walking down the street one day, when suddenly... my baloney melted !