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