Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watcgl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watcgl!jchapman From: jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) Newsgroups: can.politics,net.women Subject: Re: egg/chicken chicken/egg chigg/eckin Message-ID: <2128@watcgl.UUCP> Date: Fri, 28-Jun-85 10:17:08 EDT Article-I.D.: watcgl.2128 Posted: Fri Jun 28 10:17:08 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 29-Jun-85 01:11:44 EDT References: <893@mnetor.UUCP> <5642@utzoo.UUCP> <896@mnetor.UUCP> <2102@watcgl.UUCP> <1127@ubc-cs.UUCP> Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 138 Xref: watmath can.politics:565 net.women:6120 > In article <2102@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: > > Women : aprroximately 50% of the population. Probably close to that > > percentage of the work force. Average wage: 63% of the average > > male wage. If we assume women are not inherently inferior > > to men then we save approx. 25% of the labour cost component > > of goods (since we don't give that 50% of the people a 50% > > raise) directly by discriminating and suppressing this > > particular group of people. > > I do not see how direct discrimination and suppression results in this > wage gap. The way I see it women have the same choices that exist for When society : 1) decreases someones selfrespect; 2) continually tells them that certain positions/jobs are not for them (cause it's mens work); 3) continually tells them that certain kinds of knowledge/abilities (such as mechanical knowhow and mathematical reasoning) are beyond their capacities; etc. etc. Then it is a lot easier to convince them, as well, that: 1) they are lucky to have any kind of job so they better not complain if conditions are poor and pay is low; 2) that they shouldn't even expect to have a job/career that is rewarding since their primary goal should be to get married; 3) that it is their responsibility to find a man to support them and so their wages need not be adequate to support themselves in reasonable style; 4) there is no point in going on to a higher education since they are not really equipped for it; and 5) if they do want a higher education that they should stay out of science and similar technical areas since they are really not equipped for it. Note that we are not talking about an adult human being suddenly being faced with a bunch of bizzare/irrational predjudices and having a lifetime of experience/knowledge etc upon which to draw in dealing with them; this is a conditioning process which begins in infancy when the subject has zero chance to defend themselves. In addition until recently anyone who went against conventional behaviour was socially ostracized to the point where the subject of the conditioning probably couldn't find any countervailing examples even if they were aware enough to look for them. > for men, e.g. finish high school, get a university degree in medicine, > engineering, or whatever. That a significant percentage of women tend That just isn't so; women face a lot of obstacles from active harrasment to the basic fact that they are paid a lot less than men and so are less likely to be able to afford school. > to gravitate towards traditionally female careers (e.g. nursing) is But you see there is part of the problem; we have these traditionally female jobs and traditionally male jobs and significant pressure is place upon people to stay in their traditional roles. For many people you can replace the word "traditional" by "expected". Lest you think sex role training has no significant effect I suggest you try a small experiment. Do something that is harmless but that is definitely outside your normally defined sex role. Two suggestions (I am serious by the way): 1) wear a dress and walk down a street and have a beer in the Georgia (a vancouver bar for those who don't know), or 2) take a course in some traditionally female topic such as needlepoint or dressmaking and then make a point of telling people you know that you are doing so. Now take the reactions you get and imagine it every day of you life; even if a women does manage to overcome this kind of pressure just think of the energy she has to put into doing so that could have gone elsewhere. This general area (discrimination against women) is not something I am an expert on; perhaps someone in net.women could provide a more convincing case. > *not* because someone is denying them access to the type of training > or education that will result in high paying jobs. I suspect it is > 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). Since > this is a relatively new phenomenon it will take some time before > a new steady state is reached in which women make up 50% of > all engineering, medicine, plumbing, etc classes and hence 50% of > those professions, resulting in the average woman making 100% of what > the average male makes. > > > Who is talking about communism??????? Isn't that a little paranoid? > > Does a system where everyone is given equal opportunity (and not > > just lip service to the idea) mean communism? If a system does not > > The key phrase in the above is equal opportunity. As I said above > that exists for women now. It also exists, to a large extent, for > any and every group in *this* country. Because a particular group > has not taken advantage of the opportunities that exist is no > reason to raise the bogeyman of discrimination. Consider immigrants > from some mythical country. It is quite possible that in their > homeland job training and/or higher education were not given > much importance. Thus, once in Canada, they find themselves in a > country where the "old ways" just don't cut it anymore and their > present economic situation would reflect this. At this point > some would say that these people are being discriminated against. > I would totally disagree. They have the same access to > training and educational programs as everyone else and if they refuse If the programs even exist; last I heard your provincial government was cutting down on the ESL (english as a second language) programs/resources in the province. > to recognise the need to be trained and/or educated then even though > this is a regrettable state of affairs it is by no means discrimination. > > In conclusion the question should not be why does group A earn X% > of what group B does. The question should be *first* is group A doing > everything that it can to take advantage of the opportunities that > exist? If this is indeed the case, *then* the matter of disparate earnings *and* is anyone, in any way, holding those people back from taking advantage of those opportunities. > should be looked at, and if necessary some kind of AA policies instituted > so that group A is properly represented in the various professions and > job areas. > > J.B. Robinson > > P.S. As necessitated by my view of Utopia I support easy access to > job training and *retraining* programs and to post-secondary school > opportunities in general. I believe that tuition fees for such > schemes should be very modest (almost, but not quite zero) and that I think that is an excellent idea. But why not zero? It seems to me that society benefits when the average educational/skill level of the population rises so why not make it free. In the same way, if someone has become "obsoleted" and will have to go on welfare why not just send them to school/retraining for free instead of paying (probably) years of welfare - it's probably cheaper in the long run and society gets a newly productive member out of it. > loans (and maybe grants) be readily available. This is the Jim Well you have to watch that too; it's a pretty big handicap to come out of school with $10k-$20k of loans owing. I chose the alternative myself and worked my way through, but then it takes quite a bit longer. > Robinson theory of helping people to help themselves. It is also a > good step towards ensuring equality of opportunity and a good way of > combatting the general notion held by many (who will remain nameless) > that equality of *result* is the target that we should be shooting for. As long as everyone truly does have real equality of opportunity then that would be all I ask for, but I don't think you would claim that that is what we have now; until then looking at the result is a reasonable measure of how equal the opportunit really is.