Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!clewis From: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) Newsgroups: can.politics,net.women Subject: Re: Re: egg/chicken chicken/egg chigg/eckin Message-ID: <1247@mnetor.UUCP> Date: Tue, 9-Jul-85 17:23:50 EDT Article-I.D.: mnetor.1247 Posted: Tue Jul 9 17:23:50 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 9-Jul-85 18:44:38 EDT References: <893@mnetor.UUCP> <5642@utzoo.UUCP> <896@mnetor.UUCP> Reply-To: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada Lines: 87 Xref: utcs can.politics:650 net.women:6339 Summary: >> > I do not see how direct discrimination and suppression results in this >> > wage gap. The way I see it women have the same choices that exist for >> >> When society : 1) decreases someones selfrespect; 2) continually tells >> them that certain positions/jobs are not for them (cause it's mens work); >> 3) continually tells them that certain kinds of knowledge/abilities >> (such as mechanical knowhow and mathematical reasoning) are beyond >> their capacities; etc. etc. >> >> Then it is a lot easier to convince them, as well, that: 1) they are >> lucky to have any kind of job so they better not complain if conditions >> are poor and pay is low; 2) that they shouldn't even expect to have >> a job/career that is rewarding since their primary goal should be to >> get married; 3) that it is their responsibility to find a man to >> support them and so their wages need not be adequate to support themselves >> in reasonable style; 4) there is no point in going on to a higher >> education since they are not really equipped for it; and 5) if they do >> want a higher education that they should stay out of science and >> similar technical areas since they are really not equipped for it. > I think that this is very true except for one thing - is it "society" or individuals that are doing this? When we are talking about employment and education, I take "society" to primarily mean personnel depts. and enrollment depts. in business and educational institutions. I don't think that is is fair to imply that these groups are primarily responsible for John's points 1 thru 3. Particularly because (for some reason) personnel depts. and enrollment depts. appear to be well above the 51% women figure. I think it would be a lot fairer to say that (by and large) it is another sector of society that are primarily responsible for these attitudes. In fact, I very much suspect that the worst offenders in this area are a person's relatives or friends. (Particularly in second generation Canadians originating from some ethnic groups. Some of these groups still have pre-natal marriages for gawd's sake!) (BTW: My mother had quite a fight on her hands from her uncles and grandfather when she wanted to go to University in the early 50's. She won, and the discrimination that she found at University was considerably less than what she found in her own family!) Other participants (managers, teachers etc.) are, I would suspect, usually somewhat "more professional" (and probably more "liberal") in their attitudes. Especially, in the light of what legal responses to institutional discrimination are now available. Big corporations take a very dim view of offenders of the equal access legislation. How do we handle that kind of familial discrimination? Compulsory re-education? Good grief! (Sorry Granddad, you have to leave the nursing home for an hour every day to take a course!) It's better to let it die out. I think that there are many factors in the current fact that certain groups of women are getting paid less than men doing obviously "similar value" jobs. One of them, of course, is a certain amount of discrimination. However, I greatly suspect that the main reasons for it are historical: 1) Women haven't been in the workforce in such large numbers for very long (and were, of course, considerably more discriminated against in the past). 2) The "traditional" women's jobs (until recently) were very rarely unionized. If they were, they were frequently not very aggressive. I think that this factor is probably the biggest influence. No wonder that secretaries are paid less than Janitors or Plumbers (or most of the other trades). Janitors and the other trades are "guilds" - they enforce a monopoly on who you can hire to do such jobs. And, if they choose to, they can go on strike (as they are now) and demand anything they want. The only counter-balancing factor is when the strike fund runs out. Secretaries (and probably lots of other "traditional" female occupations) ARE being paid too little. If they had a guild just like carpenters, they would probably be paid a lot more. (Mind you, frequently I think that the unionized trades are being paid too much!) Take a look at the professions, where very few unions exist - I suspect that you will find that equivalent experience people are being paid very similar wages, regardless of sex. -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321