Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!yale!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: Discrimination against women and Message-ID: <7800342@inmet.UUCP> Date: Thu, 27-Jun-85 11:05:00 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.7800342 Posted: Thu Jun 27 11:05:00 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 1-Jul-85 06:49:07 EDT References: <226@ubvax.UUCP> Lines: 23 Nf-ID: #R:ubvax:-22600:inmet:7800342:000:1125 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Jun 27 11:05:00 1985 >/**** inmet:net.politics / ubvax!tonyw / 1:48 pm Jun 21, 1985 ****/ > >Mike's got this "thing" about arrogance. He shouldn't assume >that notions of "worth" are purely personal. They happen to >be widely shared. Occupational prestige studies show that >almost everyone shares the same "notions" of what are better >and what are worse jobs, at least in the US and Canada -- >and I'd bet in much of the rest of the world too. > >According to the same work, done over years, rankings of occupational >prestige are also very constant, almost unchanging over large >spans of time. Hence these notions aren't even fickle. So >asking employers (not the rest of the world, just employers) to >adapt to the notions of "worth" held by the vast majority is >a clear and specifiable political proposal. Whether clear >political proposals are "arrogant" or not is up to the beholder. > Citations, please. Or a retraction. As for your notion that they are not "purely personal" because they are "widely shared", I suggest you rephrase the sentences involved, because beliefs may be both purely personal and widely agreed to.