Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!water!watcgl!jchapman
From: jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Re: egg/chicken chicken/egg chigg/eckin
Message-ID: <2178@watcgl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 11-Jul-85 10:12:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: watcgl.2178
Posted: Thu Jul 11 10:12:49 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 12-Jul-85 01:02:17 EDT
References: <893@mnetor.UUCP> <5642@utzoo.UUCP> <896@mnetor.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 56

> In article <1240@mnetor.UUCP> sophie@mnetor.UUCP writes:
> >Sure, women have the same choices NOW that boys had, but they didn't
>        ----------------------------------------------
> Glad to see someone finally admit it.
> 
 But by the reasoning you provided in the rest of your article
 below (actually I think I hit DD a couple of times too many, sorry)
 they don't.  As you have said friends/family etc. will provide a lot of
 counter pressure to females who wish to make non traditional choices.  Thus
 while they may theoretically have the same choices, practically they
 dont't.
.
.
.
> today are cultural biases, e.g. Aunt Betsy just can't figure out why a 
> "pretty" girl like Linda wants to be an EE instead of getting married
> and raising 1.8 kids, ***and*** Aunt Betsy does not mind telling Linda
> how she feels. Since there is still no reasonable way to legislate
> the thinking of the Aunt Betsys of the country (even if there were I
> wouldn't go for it) women (and men) will just have to wait until the 
> Aunt Betsys (and Uncle Georges) have gone on to the big suburban 
> duplex in the sky. 

 What about when Uncle George is ther personnel manager or owner of
 a firm?  Then those cultural biases affect a lot more than relatives
 and friends.

> 
> The impression I get is that many feminists are ranting and raving 
> about conditions that existed 20 years ago. These conditions, for 
> the most part, no longer exist. However, these feminists seem to
> get a great deal of pleasure in pointing to the 55 year old secretary,
> who, I admit, never really had the opportunity to be anything else, and 
> holding her out as an example of *today's* discrimination. It don't make
> sense to me, but then again I guess I'm just one of them thare male
> chauvinist swine.

 Well you didn't take my last suggestion for an experiment I guess
 but heres a *very* simple one.  I don't think you would argue that
 clerical occupations are quite low paid.  Go into your local high
 school and ask them how many are taking the office skills types
 of courses (i.e. courses/program to teach people how to be good
 clerks, secretaries etc).  Now find out how many are male.  Not
 too many I bet.  I also doubt that the young women taking these
 courses are doing so because of any biological prediliction to
 typing.
> 
> I know if I had a daughter I would be encouraging her to go
> to university and become a professional. I, also, honestly cannot
> think of any of my friends who would hold a different opinion.
> So, just maybe, if we wait just a while longer 50% of all
> doctors, engineers, plumbers, lawyers, etc will be women and the question
> of whether to legislate equality of result (gag me with two spoons)
> will be moot.
> 
> J.B. Robinson