Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site acf4.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!acf4!mms1646 From: mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Discrimination against women and statistics Message-ID: <1340237@acf4.UUCP> Date: Thu, 27-Jun-85 21:06:00 EDT Article-I.D.: acf4.1340237 Posted: Thu Jun 27 21:06:00 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 30-Jun-85 03:23:40 EDT References: <8204@ucbvax.ARPA> Organization: New York University Lines: 57 >/* edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) / 1:27 pm Jun 24, 1985 */ >This is pure bull, and you know it. Well then, I guess the author had best let Mr. Hall write his postings and perhaps think for him in general, since Mr. Hall appears to know what the author believes better than the author himself. The reason the author gave for why women tend to cluster into certain occupations may not be accurate, i.e., the chief non-monetary benefits are of another type. This, of course, does not negate the fact that women do tend to cluster in certain occupations. >How would you like >having to ``cooperate'' with every Tom, Sue, Dick, and Sally that >comes along, and *have no say in the matter*? How would you like >being stuck helping people who are often hostile, and face getting >fired if you respond in a natural way? I wouldn't. That's one of the reasons I didn't choose such a career. Why do you suppose so many women choose such careers? >``Tend to choose?'' Who are you kidding??? The tendency to propagandize, >train, and provide incentives for women to take these ``women's jobs,'' >and the tendency to propagandize against, fail to train, and provide >disincentives for women to take ``men's jobs'' was never subtle in the >past, and often is blatant even now. If society at large propagandizes non-coercively, then it is up to individual women to deal with that. As far as training goes, what types of training are women excluded from? You just criticized a suggestion that a particular type of non-monetary benefit was not peculiar to occupations that women tend to enter into. Can you give an example of the incentives that society provides to women to enter these fields and how they are greater than the ones provided by other fields. >Damn right! And I suspect that if you really did a just job of ``factoring >in'' all these things, and factor in as well the contribution women make >to the social welfare in the often-unpleasant jobs of teaching, nursing, >social working, or being a secretary, women would end up being paid MORE >than men. It is the height of arrogance for an individual or group to think that they can possibly determine the relative worths of occupations of which they only have second hand knowledge. Then why AREN'T women paid more? To suppose that discrimination is largely responsible for this is ludicrous. If it were discrimination, some sharp entrepenours (probably women) would start hiring all this cheap labor and make a killing. This would cause the women's wages to rise to what they are "worth." > -Ed Hall Mike Sykora