Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!qantel!dual!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!flink
From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics
Subject: Re: Comparable worth -- what I suggest instead
Message-ID: <757@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 5-Jul-85 20:41:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.757
Posted: Fri Jul  5 20:41:31 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Jul-85 05:39:22 EDT
References: <482@ttidcc.UUCP> <8203@ucbvax.ARPA> 
Reply-To: flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 36
Xref: watmath net.women:6309 net.politics:9830
Summary: "men's work" pays more for women

In article <833@oddjob.UUCP> cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) writes:
>You can't legislate the way people raise their children--you can't
>even make suggestions to some parents without risking having your
>teeth pulled out of your head and pushed into your eyesockets. 

I'm not talking about legislation.  As far as the teeth-and-eyes,
I think it's worth the risk...

>It's been my experience that people raise their girls to be "sugar
>and spice" for three reasons.  The least thoughtful ones do it because
>they think that that's the way it should be.  The more thoughtful
>ones know that women are discriminated against in "men's jobs" and
>don't want their girls to be disappointed by trying for one. [...]

I support laws prohibiting discrimination (I recognize it's hard to
enforce, but it's something).  Also, there are market pressures against
discrimination (simply put, it hurts your company to forgo using the
full potential of women employees).  If there are few women in a field,
there will probably be enough nondiscriminatory employers (since there
only need to be a few) to hire them at fair wages (or slighly below,
given that the women have few alternative employers to turn to).  I
don't think thoughtful parents will discourage their girls from "men's
work" for the girls' own good, because that *wouldn't* be for their
good.  I.e., women are better off in "men's jobs" *in spite of extra
discrimination* because of the oversupply of workers in "women's jobs".
Check the facts -- I think you'll find that women trained for "men's
work" make more, on average, than those trained for "women's work".

>Fair-minded people across the nation advocate comparable worth legislation.
>Too bad you're not one of them.

I don't like the fact, nor do I evade the fact, that discrimination
happens and makes people's lives worse.  But the comparable worth cure
is worse than the disease -- it will result in gross economic distortions
based on biased and subjective notions of "worth", while condemning 
many "women's work"ers to unemployment or underemployment.