Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site oddjob.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!oddjob!cs1
From: cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics,net.social
Subject: Re: Discrimination against women and statistics
Message-ID: <832@oddjob.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 1-Jul-85 01:39:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: oddjob.832
Posted: Mon Jul  1 01:39:51 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 2-Jul-85 04:47:11 EDT
References: <482@ttidcc.UUCP> <8203@ucbvax.ARPA>  <457@unc.UUCP> <2566@randvax.UUCP> <11357@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Reply-To: cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart)
Distribution: net
Organization: U. Chicago, Astronomy & Astrophysics
Lines: 51
Xref: watmath net.women:6183 net.politics:9678 net.social:764

In article <11357@brl-tgr.ARPA> wmartin@brl-bmd.UUCP writes:
>In article <2566@randvax.UUCP> edhall@rand-unix.UUCP (Ed Hall) writes:
>>  Men benifit tremendously from marriage, both economically
>>and in terms of getting someone to take care of them.  Women benifit
>>far less, but if the other alternatives are restricted it won't seem as
>>bad.
>>
>Well, I think that *my* wife has gotten a LOT of economic benefits from
>our marriage. When we married, we both worked full time, at
>professional-level Army jobs. Her marriage has allowed her to still live
>comfortably, while at the same time:
>
>a) Quitting her government job.
>b) Withdrawing her accumulated retirement benefits, and using that plus
>even a larger amount from my savings to open and furnish a retail
>business, which lasted less than a year, but which satisfied a long-held
>desire she had.
>c) Living for at least a year without holding any job at all.
>d) Choosing to then work as a temporary, so she can work or not as she
>wishes.
>e) Spending her income on her hobbies and a few groceries, while my
>income goes to support the household, buys IRA's for both of us, buys
>more of her (and mine, admittedly) hobby stuff, and all other expenses.
>
>Sounds to me like she got a pretty good deal out of this...
>

Until she wakes up one morning to realize that she could have achieved whatever
ambition or goal that led her into "professional-level" work in the first place,
and that your sickeningly patronizing attitude towards her unemployment and
hobbies has only served to trivialize her vast untapped potential for continued
service to her profession.  (Sometimes I wonder whether the etymology of the
word "woman" is actually derived from a contraction of the phrase "would-have-
been".)  
       A married professional woman is forever having to fight the aspect 
of our culture which expects her to slack off her duty, just because big daddy
is there to take care of her.  She often gets negative feedback from her parents
(who want grandchildren), from her husbands' colleagues' wives (who want bridge
partners and objects of gossip), and from her husband himself (who, after all
is willing to support her little hobbies anyway) -- all for being serious about 
her career, an attitude that would evoke a strong positive response from 
her parents, social group and spouse IF ONLY SHE HAD BEEN BORN MALE.
      "Women's culture" is as much of a trap as "ghetto culture".
Continuing to argue that *their* women don't *want* to get out of the ghetto
(because it's oh-such-a-gilded ghetto), the male chauvinist swine on this net
are only flaunting their role in reducing what should be a spiritual and 
personal relationship (marriage) to a mere economic decision, social agreement
and civil contract--sort of like legal, licensed prostitution, Will.

                                   Cheryl Stewart
--