Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site kontron.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!pertec!kontron!cramer From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics Subject: Re: Discrimination and AA Message-ID: <328@kontron.UUCP> Date: Fri, 5-Jul-85 11:54:16 EDT Article-I.D.: kontron.328 Posted: Fri Jul 5 11:54:16 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 6-Jul-85 11:11:35 EDT References: <514@ttidcc.UUCP> Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA Lines: 47 Xref: utcs net.women:6311 net.politics:9593 > >Until quite recently (sometime in the 1970s) most men's jobs in this > >country were blue collar jobs involving dirt and risk. My father used > >to work on high steel, and the tales he told of industrial injuries > >are pretty stomach turning. I can see why few women would have gone into > >his line of work (although I'm sure the macho bias of my father's > >co-workers would have prevented it anyway). I suspect that the move > >away from blue collar jobs in America is part of the reason that women > >are getting a fairer shake in the workplace. > >Clayton Cramer > > Go back a little earlier, Clayton. When the men were still underground > mining coal (a dirty dangerous job) it was women and children who ran the > factories (another dirty, dangerous job) for far longer hours than the men > who made steel. And the tales of industrial injuries were so horrible that > safety regulations had to be changed -- by law -- and enforced. By the > time your dad was working, conditions had altered remarkably for the > better, and still weren't as safe as you or I would expect. > I wouldn't argue that women and children's jobs weren't at one time very dangerous and very dirty; I might argue that men's jobs were riskier, but I'm not sure that it is easy to measure. Certainly in recent history, women's jobs have been, overall, less dangerous. (Note, my original comments were observing *why* the notion of "men's work" and "women's work" came about, without any notion of "right" or "wrong" being associated.) > Depending on how far we want to look into history, we discover that men > haven't any special claim to the dirty and the dangerous. Depending on > which countries one wants to investigate, we discover differing levels of > male dominance. Historical anecdotes are interesting, and sometimes > illustrative, but one finds it easy to get off the track when relating > a policy, or a hypothesis, to personal experiences. Men have no special claim to dirty and dangerous work *until the middle of this century* at least in America. I think this issue is worth considering; I don't claim that no discrimination based on sex has ever existed, and I don't claim that it doesn't exist now. I think a little more thought about the origins of the 59 cent figure are useful. Re: "getting off the track when relating a policy, or a hypothesis, to personal experiences." Heck, that's easily half of the postings to this newsgroup! Would you have told the guy who posted his experiences as a Spanish-surnamed black that he was getting off the track? What about the various women who have told of the trauma they experienced because of rape? What about the woman who had the humiliating experience with the twerp who made sexual advances towards her when she was driving home? Are you planning to tell them they were "getting off the track", or is it OK because they come to the same conclusions?