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!clewis
From: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: can.politics,net.women
Subject: Re: Re: egg/chicken chicken/egg chigg/eckin
Message-ID: <1247@mnetor.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 9-Jul-85 17:23:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: mnetor.1247
Posted: Tue Jul  9 17:23:50 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Jul-85 18:44:38 EDT
References: <893@mnetor.UUCP> <5642@utzoo.UUCP> <896@mnetor.UUCP>
Reply-To: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 87
Xref: utcs can.politics:650 net.women:6339
Summary: 

>> > I do not see how direct discrimination and suppression results in this
>> > wage gap. The way I see it women have the same choices that exist for
>> 
>> When society : 1) decreases someones selfrespect; 2) continually tells
>> them that certain positions/jobs are not for them (cause it's mens work);
>> 3) continually tells them that certain kinds of knowledge/abilities
>> (such as mechanical knowhow and mathematical reasoning) are beyond
>> their capacities; etc. etc.
>> 
>> Then it is a lot easier to convince them,  as well, that: 1) they are
>> lucky to have any kind of job so they better not complain if conditions
>> are poor and pay is low; 2) that they shouldn't even expect to have
>> a job/career that is rewarding since their primary goal should be to
>> get married; 3) that it is their responsibility to find a man to
>> support them and so their wages need not be adequate to support themselves
>> in reasonable style; 4) there is no point in going on to a higher
>> education since they are not really equipped for it; and 5) if they do
>> want a higher education that they should stay out of science and
>> similar technical areas since they are really not equipped for it.
>

I think that this is very true except for one thing - is it "society"
or individuals that are doing this?  When we are talking about employment
and education, I take "society" to primarily mean personnel depts. and
enrollment depts. in business and educational institutions.  I don't
think that is is fair to imply that these groups are primarily responsible
for John's points 1 thru 3.  Particularly because (for some reason)
personnel depts. and enrollment depts. appear to be well above
the 51% women figure.  

I think it would be a lot fairer to say that (by and large) it is
another sector of society that are primarily responsible for these
attitudes.  In fact, I very much suspect that the worst offenders in
this area are a person's relatives or friends.  (Particularly in 
second generation Canadians originating from some ethnic groups.
Some of these groups still have pre-natal marriages for gawd's sake!)

(BTW: My mother had quite a fight on her hands from her uncles and 
grandfather when she wanted to go to University in the early 50's.  She
won, and the discrimination that she found at University was considerably
less than what she found in her own family!)

Other participants (managers, teachers etc.) are, I would suspect, usually
somewhat "more professional" (and probably more "liberal") in their attitudes.
Especially, in the light of what legal responses to institutional 
discrimination are now available.  Big corporations take a very dim
view of offenders of the equal access legislation.

How do we handle that kind of familial discrimination?  Compulsory 
re-education?  Good grief!  (Sorry Granddad, you have to leave the
nursing home for an hour every day to take a course!)  It's better to 
let it die out.

I think that there are many factors in the current fact that certain
groups of women are getting paid less than men doing obviously "similar
value" jobs.  One of them, of course, is a certain amount of discrimination.
However, I greatly suspect that the main reasons for it are historical:

	1) Women haven't been in the workforce in such large numbers
	   for very long (and were, of course, considerably more 
	   discriminated against in the past).

	2) The "traditional" women's jobs (until recently) were
	   very rarely unionized.  If they were, they were frequently
	   not very aggressive.  I think that this factor is probably
	   the biggest influence.

No wonder that secretaries are paid less than Janitors or Plumbers
(or most of the other trades).  Janitors and the other trades are
"guilds" - they enforce a monopoly on who you can hire to do
such jobs.  And, if they choose to, they can go on strike (as they
are now) and demand anything they want.  The only counter-balancing
factor is when the strike fund runs out.  Secretaries (and probably
lots of other "traditional" female occupations) ARE being paid too 
little.  If they had a guild just like carpenters, they would probably
be paid a lot more.

(Mind you, frequently I think that the unionized trades are being paid 
too much!)

Take a look at the professions, where very few unions exist - I suspect
that you will find that equivalent experience people are being paid
very similar wages, regardless of sex.
-- 
Chris Lewis,
UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis
BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321