Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!ubc-ean!ubc-cs!robinson From: robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Re: egg/chicken chicken/egg chigg/eckin Message-ID: <1144@ubc-cs.UUCP> Date: Wed, 10-Jul-85 19:39:25 EDT Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.1144 Posted: Wed Jul 10 19:39:25 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 11-Jul-85 01:41:41 EDT References: <893@mnetor.UUCP> <5642@utzoo.UUCP> <896@mnetor.UUCP> <2102@watcgl.UUCP> <1127@ubc-cs.UUCP> <1240@mnetor.UUCP> Reply-To: robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science, Vancouver, B.C., Canada Lines: 61 Summary: 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. >Where do you get your history from? do you think that the pre-our-time >times consisted of a big suburbia? the middle class suburban family is >a fairly recent phenomenon. Well into the middle of the 20th century >only the upper and upper-middle class could afford the luxury of stay >at home wives. "lower-class" women have always worked outside of their >homes, either on farms, in the family business, and in industries after >the industrial revolution. The wages were usually pitiful if any, but >they sure worked outside of the home a well as inside. If you take the time to reread what I wrote you'll see that I said: ".... due to the fact that only recently have women either wanted or had to have well paying jobs (previously women were expected to marry and, for the most part, be supported by their husbands). " The key phrases above are "well paying jobs" ( as opposed to any old job) and "for the most part". I.e. I did not at any time claim that working women are a new phenomenon. What I did claim was that previously women were expected to marry and it was expected that the husband would be the *main* income provider. Thus, there was no pressing need for the wife to have a *high income* job. What with single mothers and women marrying later in life (if at all) the situation has changed. Women now do need to have access to well paying jobs. And, it appears that Sophie Q. agrees that *today's* woman has "the same choices NOW that boys had". I'll admit that it's unlikely that the 55 year old secretary will ever be anything other than a secretary. However, there is no reason that the 15 year old high school girl cannot hope to, and one day succeed in, becoming a neuro-surgeon. As has been said by several the main problems 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. 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. 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