Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!yale!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Discrimination against women and
Message-ID: <7800342@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 27-Jun-85 11:05:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.7800342
Posted: Thu Jun 27 11:05:00 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 1-Jul-85 06:49:07 EDT
References: <226@ubvax.UUCP>
Lines: 23
Nf-ID: #R:ubvax:-22600:inmet:7800342:000:1125
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Jun 27 11:05:00 1985


>/**** inmet:net.politics / ubvax!tonyw /  1:48 pm  Jun 21, 1985 ****/
>
>Mike's got this "thing" about arrogance.  He shouldn't assume
>that notions of "worth" are purely personal.  They happen to
>be widely shared.  Occupational prestige studies show that
>almost everyone shares the same "notions" of what are better
>and what are worse jobs, at least in the US and Canada --
>and I'd bet in much of the rest of the world too.
>
>According to the same work, done over years, rankings of occupational
>prestige are also very constant, almost unchanging over large
>spans of time.  Hence these notions aren't even fickle.  So
>asking employers (not the rest of the world, just employers) to
>adapt to the notions of "worth" held by the vast majority is
>a clear and specifiable political proposal.  Whether clear
>political proposals are "arrogant" or not is up to the beholder.
>

Citations, please.  Or a retraction.  As for your notion that they
are not "purely personal" because they are "widely shared", I suggest
you rephrase the sentences involved, because beliefs may be both
purely personal and widely agreed to.