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!sophie From: sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Re: egg/chicken chicken/egg chigg/eckin Message-ID: <1238@mnetor.UUCP> Date: Tue, 9-Jul-85 15:16:32 EDT Article-I.D.: mnetor.1238 Posted: Tue Jul 9 15:16:32 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 9-Jul-85 16:36:20 EDT References: <893@mnetor.UUCP> <5642@utzoo.UUCP> <896@mnetor.UUCP> <15418@watmath.UUCP> Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada Lines: 90 > In article <2102@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: > > > > Women : aprroximately 50% of the population. Probably close to that > > percentage of the work force. Average wage: 63% of the average > > male wage. If we assume women are not inherently inferior > > to men then we save approx. 25% of the labour cost component > > of goods (since we don't give that 50% of the people a 50% > > raise) directly by discriminating and suppressing this > > particular group of people. > Well, the debate was on foreign figures, but I will tackle this domestic > issue. First, your assumption that "women are not inherently inferior to > men" doesn't quite apply. A large proportion of the difference between > total male and female earnings is due to the fact that men are still doing the > most important jobs in society. In the old days, men did them all and women > didn't work, so women earned a penny for every dollar men made. Does that > mean people were saving 99% of their costs by suppressing women? Hardly. {taking a long deep breath so as not to scream... this is going to be very very difficult......} {I am afraid I cannot respond to this without becoming nearly hysterical (how feminine of me indeed!) so I will have to resort to the most polite form of argumentation I can think of in this case: asking questions} {Here goes:} Brad, how do you define "the most important jobs in society"? I would like to remind you that without people, there wouldn't be a "society" therefore by definition, THE most important job in society is making people, a job which has traditionally been left entirely for women to do (except of course for the "fun part", a little fleeting moment in which men have never minded participating) and woen have been doing that without any pay until very recently. When I am talking about "making" people here, I am not just speaking of biology, but of the constant care and attention that is required to make sure that a small person survives physically and emotionally in a very hostile world. > We may not like the fact that men still rule the economy, but it makes your > figures meaningless. In the cases where women are paid less than men for > the same work, then you truly have unfair treatment of women. But such > unfair misuse of women is hardly the major cause of our economic prosperity. The main problem is not that women are paid less than men for the same work, but that they are not given a chance to do work that pays because they are so busy doing other work that doesn't pay. I know what's coming next: a tirade about women beeing FREE to do whatever work they want. Not until very recently. Look at any book on women history, Brad. Women who wanted to do "men's work" were not *allowed* to by men. And even when they are allowed, there are other less obvious weapons than the direct ones of stopping women from doing what they want. There are psychological weapons that work very well. I know what I speak of from experience. I was given reverse discrimination as a child, and if I hadn't been, I probably wouldn't be where I am (where am I? good question). The boys in our elementary school were told that they would fail because girls were better, and indeed, did they ever fail! most of them caught up with us girls pretty quickly as they did encounter people along the way who made matters better by telling them that boys were better. It is amazing how easily people can be manipulated, especially children! Here's a reference Brad: "how to suppress women's writing". I'll give you the author if you are interested. I can even lend you the book. When you read about the difficulties that women artists have encountered trying to write, or paint, or sculpt, you might be amazed, not that there were no women artists, but just that there were some who did succeed. And that is only for art! > If anything, misuse of good talent HURTS us rather than helps us. Indeed, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't been misused. Now, maybe I am too far behind on this newsgroup. Am I really the only one who objects to what was just said? Hello everybody? are there any women reading this newsgroup or what? how can anybody let something like that pass through? hello? hello? Back to you, Brad. Do you actually believe that you can have ONE theory such as survival of the fittest (or most intelligent in your case) describing *everything*? People of the net, do you actually believe that there is one theory in the world that explains everything: economics, politics, life, love, etc? what's going on here? are you all religious or something? doesn't anybody else worry about this trend in our net conversations? {back to work, back to work....} -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie