Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watmum.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!water!watmum!cdshaw From: cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw) Newsgroups: can.politics,net.women Subject: Discrimination against x Message-ID: <197@watmum.UUCP> Date: Mon, 1-Jul-85 12:40:14 EDT Article-I.D.: watmum.197 Posted: Mon Jul 1 12:40:14 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 2-Jul-85 04:48:17 EDT References: <893@mnetor.UUCP> <5642@utzoo.UUCP> <896@mnetor.UUCP> Reply-To: cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw) Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 58 Xref: watmath can.politics:581 net.women:6185 The opinion that AA for women is misguided has been expressed in this newsgroup. I'd like just to mention that there are a number of facets to this discussion which people seem to be missing. First, there is the famous 63cents-on-the-dollar rate of pay for Ms Average versus Mr Average. There is an argument made by anti-AA people that this figure is somehow bogus, and that there are other factors. The problem is, if we are debating social policy, we have to make clear what we want and what we don't want. Too often people broadly state "we want equality", then go no further to define what they are talking about. Do they want every man, woman and android earning precisely $12,385.55 per annum, or do they want equality of opportunity only in civil service jobs? Or somewhere in between? It is clear that this is a debate which needs some definitions -- a structured approach (debating in Pascal, anyone??). So here's my rash attempt at definitions. First off, what do we want ? (i.e., what (at least) are MY goals) I'd like to see a situation where (given an accurate job description) the average wage for holders of that job did not differ on basis of sex, religion, race, etc. In other words, black female plumbers get the same money as white male plumbers. I'd also like completely equal opportunity for any job that you care to mention (modulo qualification). In other words, pick the most qualified person. This also extends to situations where job applications are handed out to families of employees only. (I haven't been burned by nepotism, I just think it sucks as badly as sex-based inequality of opportunity.) Thus, we theoretically have the situation where an eskimo woman might become president of IBM. Of course, there aren't many eskimos who might be qualified, but if there were, then there should be no reason why not. What I don't want is the situation where people are promoted or hired for the sole reason that they are a member of some 'officially downtrodden' group. This requires some degree of research. One topic which requires more light is this 65-cents thing. Is it because women are paid less than men in exactly the same jobs, and are discriminated against in the promotion process? Or is there some other problem? I suspect it is both. For different-pay-for-same-job, something can easily be done (pass laws against it). For the passed-over-in-promotion situation, a solution doesn't come to mind, other than a typical union grievance kind of procedure, where the person who feels he is a victim can complain to some arbitration body, who will do essentially the same as the person who did the promotion did... find the best-qualified of the applicants. Note that the person doing the promotion states his criteria for qualification, which can be (up to a limit) reasonably arbitrary, and could be as simple as "the person most suited to working with me". This wouldn't wash is the guy was promoting assembly line workers, but probably would if a high-level manager was looking for an strategy-planning assistant. This is getting long, so I'll shut up. Chris Shaw watmath!watmum!cdshaw or cdshaw@watmath University of Waterloo I was walking down the street one day, when suddenly... my baloney melted !