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!water!watcgl!jchapman From: jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) Newsgroups: can.politics,net.women Subject: Re: opportunities, women Message-ID: <2158@watcgl.UUCP> Date: Fri, 5-Jul-85 17:27:01 EDT Article-I.D.: watcgl.2158 Posted: Fri Jul 5 17:27:01 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 8-Jul-85 13:42:25 EDT References: <893@mnetor.UUCP> <5642@utzoo.UUCP> <896@mnetor.UUCP> Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 104 Xref: watmath can.politics:596 net.women:6268 . .. > > Not entirely true. The examples of discrimination and suppression > against women that Mr. Chapman makes are not nearly as true now as they > were, say, thirty years ago. Moreover, this type of discrimination Well a lot of people think that and no doubt in some areas things are improving but a lot of the problems are either not improving or are in fact getting worse. Let me give you three recent examples: a) In the Toronto Star last weekend a columnist quoted a member of the Fraser Institute as saying that sexual harrassment by an employer of a female employee was qualitatively different than "outside" harrasment since (after all) she is an employee and it is up to her employer to define what her job is (willing to be pinched a legitimate job requirement?) and if she doesn't like it she can always quit. The Fraser Institute for those of you who don't know is a conservative think tank based in Vancouver. Their opinions influence government policy (in BC at least). b) A provincial bill being brought forward which would require a woman seeking an abortion to among other things have the permission of either 1. her parents if she is single (no age limit on this), or 2. her husband if she is married No point in assuming she's capable of making her own decision right? c) statistics in the last few years show a lower percentage of female graduate students than in the first half of the decade. I can't remember if this is across the board or in a specific area; sorry. > (or cultural bias) is rapidly diminishing. Thus, in my opinion, there > exists a time lag which makes it difficult to look at the economic > situation of *all* women *now* and from that observation determine > the level of opportunity that exists for those women who did not grow up > under those conditions. It would make much more sense to me to look > at the economic situation of women who have been in the workforce for > maybe the last five years, and compare that to the economic situation > of men who have been working for the same five year period. I do not > expect that the women in this sample would be making 100c to every dollar > earned by men but I'm sure it would be significantly more than 62c. Do you think there are fewer secretaries now as a percentage of the work force or is it that you think their pay is relatively higher? Women have made *slight* gains but it's sure nothing to be either proud or complacent about. > > [It might also be useful to determine what kind of a trend exists. > Thus we'd first do as suggested above and compare dollar earnings of > men and women who have been in the workforce for the last five years. > Next we'd look at those people who had been in the workforce for the > last 10 years, and etc. If we end up with a rapidly increasing curve > I'd say there is no urgent problem. On the other hand if this is not > the case then measures of some kind may be needed] > > Thus I question Mr. Chapman's apparent solution to the problem > which, if I got it right, was to raise women's salaries by 50%. This > does zippo as far as increasing accessability into the non-traditional > work areas goes. It also meddles in the already over regulated It allows women the dignity and freedom of economic self sufficiency something which should be a laudable enough goal by itself to command some action. It also means more women could afford to put themselves through school or skill enhancement programs. What do I think should be done? If a job is being done that is important to a company/business/group then the people doing it should not be underpaid just because they are women. There are numerous cases of a man and a woman doing the *exact* same job in the same company but somehow the woman gets paid substantially less. Not to mention that being (for instance) a good secretary is at least as hard and demanding of skill as being a (for instance) janitor. On a practical level the secretary may be more essential to a company. Most secretaries make less than janitors. Most secretaries are women most janitors (as opposed to cleaning ladies who do the same thing but get paid less) are men. I don't see why these types of situations can't be corrected. There was a good posting in net.women recently explaining how jobs lose prestige and earning power *after* they become womens jobs; you should read it or like I said, try an experiment to see what it is like having the show on the other foot. > marketplace. Instead let's first get a *real* idea of where we stand > concerning opportunities for women and then work on the means of > increasing these opportunities if deemed necessary. Solutions > such as "equal pay for work of equal value" are cosmetic, and thus > do not address the real problem. > What exactly is cosmetic about equal pay for work of equal value? I would certainly insist on being paid what my work is worth, wouldn't you? > J.B. Robinson John Chapman