Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site kontron.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!pesnta!pertec!kontron!cramer From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) Newsgroups: net.women,net.social Subject: Re: "pleasant" work vs. "dangerous" work Message-ID: <262@kontron.UUCP> Date: Mon, 24-Jun-85 12:28:24 EDT Article-I.D.: kontron.262 Posted: Mon Jun 24 12:28:24 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 26-Jun-85 05:43:56 EDT References: <808@oddjob.UUCP> Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA Lines: 94 Xref: watmath net.women:6061 net.social:733 > > In article <457@unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: > >In articlefagin@ucbvax.UUCP (Barry Steven Fagin) writes: > >>From Jennifer Roback, an economist at Yale, commenting on the "59c" > >> > >>"Actually, many of the factors that contribute to the earnings gap are the > >>result of personal choices made by women themselves, not decisions thrust > >>on them by bosses. The most important example is marriage." > > > >One other factor is that women tend to choose occupations with greater > >nonmonetary benefits which may compensate for the lower pay scales. That is, > >women more often choose occupations which center around helping other people > >and cooperating with them (teacher, nurse, secretary, social worker). > >The direct gratitude from the helpee satisfies some of the woman's social needs > >Men more often find themselves in occupations which either isolate them > >from other people, or pits them in anxiety-provoking competition. > >Some of these higher paying "men's jobs" are dirty and dangerous as well. > > > > O.K. This tells me that "things are the way they are because that's the way > it is". Has it ever occurred to any of you that maybe one of the reasons > some women get married in the first place is that it's been made clear to > them that they'll be isolated and ridiculed if they take a "man's job" > or, if they choose a "women's job" be expected to "be nice" to juvenile > delinquents (as a teacher), vomitting old ladies (as a nurse), leering idiot > junior executives (as a secretary), or drug-addict welfare fathers (as a > social worker). Plenty of women get stuck in jobs like these for a lot > less money than what a man makes peacefully pounding nails eight hours a day. > (And don't tell me that a job pounding nails is just as available to a > woman as it is to a man--I know what the scoop is on construction work > and on factory work. Don't try to fool ME.) > You missed the point, Cheryl. It isn't "things are the way they are", but rather, comparing two jobs without comparing relative risks and the pleasantness of the work compares apples and oranges. There are awful parts of being a nurse or a teacher, but there are also very rewarding aspects to those jobs because of the personal contact --- someone who lays tar on roads for a living doesn't get the same gratification from his or her (usually his) job, and it is not surprising that men have traditionally gravitated to awful jobs that pay well because they are awful, since men have traditionally been the primary wage-earner, and women in the past have usually *not* been the primary wage-earner. > Don't promote stereotypes of women holding "nice" jobs and men holding > "competitive, dangerous and dirty" jobs. I've seen too many women work > too hard for too little pay after making darned sure they had a good > education--only to realize that the men will make sure that another man > is "the right person in the right place at the right time" to get the > right training, the right wife, the right job, the right promotion, etc. > If by "good education" you mean a degree in English, or Art, or Urban Planning, then I'm not surprised. Men who get those degrees usually end of getting inferior jobs after college as well because those degrees are produced in numbers far in excess of the jobs that require those degrees. Unfortunately, women have tended to concentrate in studies that do not lead to high-paying jobs. > >The fallacy of the equal-pay-for-equal-work idea is that it compares > >only the paychecks and level of skill and training required. If we do not > >also factor in the safety, pleasantness, and emotional effects of the job, > >then this plan is likely to create more unfairness than it rectifies. > > So women's work is "pleasant" is it? I'll tell you what. You give me > YOUR computer account, and YOU can take a few years off (I'll support you) > to whipe the baby's butt, and then when it's grown, maybe get you a > job typing memos for someone ten years younger than yourself. If the foo... > You missed the point again, Cheryl. Barry was discussing women's jobs in the workforce, not mothering. > I'm not writing this to be hostile, but to illustrate a point. You can't > rationalize the 53c issue away by saying "that's just the way it goes". I > was hired to work loading the assembly line in a factory once (in High School) > because I was very able to lift 60-70 lbs, having been a lifeguard and an > athlete. My first day of work, the engineers at the plant assumed that I > was hired to put the little bows on the purfume bottles on the assembly line. > You got it--the line-loading job payed over 5 bucks an hour, and the "women's > work" payed minimum. Being young and reckless, I argued with them until they > went off to check their files only to find that I WAS hired to load the line. > If I had been trying to support myself at that time, I probably wouldn't have > the guts to argue with them--and plenty of young women at the plant were in > that position...AND physically capable of doing the "man's job". Anyway, > the job worked out fine. It wasn't very dangerous or dirty--just a lot of good > hard work, and a lot of good hard cash. Next season, I was voted MVP in track > for a record-breaking discus throw. No I am not an XXY. > > Cheryl Stewart You were able to do this physically demanding job --- a lot of women DO NOT have the strength for it (a fair number of men also don't have the strength for it). More important, a lot of women aren't interested in doing that kind of work (even though it would be better for them than putting bows on perfume bottles) because they would prefer to be thought of as "feminine" instead of capable.