Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!sophie
From: sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Re: egg/chicken chicken/egg chigg/eckin
Message-ID: <1238@mnetor.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 9-Jul-85 15:16:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: mnetor.1238
Posted: Tue Jul  9 15:16:32 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Jul-85 16:36:20 EDT
References: <893@mnetor.UUCP> <5642@utzoo.UUCP> <896@mnetor.UUCP> <15418@watmath.UUCP>
Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 90

> 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.

> Well, the debate was on foreign figures, but I will tackle this domestic
> issue.   First, your assumption that "women are not inherently inferior to
> men"  doesn't quite apply.  A large proportion of the difference between
> total male and female earnings is due to the fact that men are still doing the
> most important jobs in society.  In the old days, men did them all and women
> didn't work, so women earned a penny for every dollar men made.  Does that
> mean people were saving 99% of their costs by suppressing women?  Hardly.

{taking a long deep breath so as not to scream...  this is going to be
very very difficult......}

{I am afraid I cannot respond to this without becoming nearly hysterical
(how feminine of me indeed!) so I will have to resort to the most polite
form of argumentation I can think of in this case: asking questions}

{Here goes:}

Brad, how do you define "the most important jobs in society"?
I would like to remind you that without people, there wouldn't be
a "society" therefore by definition, THE most important job in
society is making people, a job which has traditionally been left
entirely for women to do (except of course for the "fun part", a
little fleeting moment in which men have never minded participating)
and  woen have been doing that without any pay until very recently.
When I am talking about "making" people here, I am not just speaking
of biology, but of the constant care and attention that is required
to make sure that a small person survives physically and emotionally
in a very hostile world.

> We may not like the fact that men still rule the economy, but it makes your
> figures meaningless.  In the cases where women are paid less than men for
> the same work, then you truly have unfair treatment of women.  But such
> unfair misuse of women is hardly the major cause of our economic prosperity.

The main problem is not that women are paid less than men for the same work,
but that they are not given a chance to do work that pays because they are
so busy doing other work that doesn't pay.  

I know what's coming next:  a tirade about women beeing FREE to do whatever
work they want.  Not until very recently.  Look at any book on women history,
Brad.  Women who wanted to do "men's work" were not *allowed* to by men.
And even when they are allowed, there are other less obvious weapons than
the direct ones of stopping women from doing what they want.  There are
psychological weapons that work very well.  I know what I speak of from 
experience.  I was given reverse discrimination as a child, and if I hadn't
been, I probably wouldn't be where I am (where am I? good question). The
boys in our elementary school were told that they would fail because girls
were better, and indeed, did they ever fail!  most of them caught up with
us girls pretty quickly as they did encounter people along the way who made
matters better by telling them that boys were better.  It is amazing how
easily people can be manipulated, especially children!

Here's a reference Brad:  "how to suppress women's writing".  I'll give you
the author if you are interested.  I can even lend you the book.  When you
read about the difficulties that women artists have encountered trying to
write, or paint, or sculpt, you might be amazed, not that there were no
women artists, but just that there were some who did succeed.
And that is only for art!

> If anything, misuse of good talent HURTS us rather than helps us.

Indeed, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't been misused.

Now, maybe I am too far behind on this newsgroup.  Am I really the only
one who objects to what was just said?  Hello everybody?  are there any
women reading this newsgroup or what?  how can anybody let something
like that pass through? hello?  hello?

Back to you, Brad.  Do you actually believe that you can have ONE theory
such as survival of the fittest (or most intelligent in your case)
describing *everything*?  People of the net, do you actually believe
that there is one theory in the world that explains everything: economics,
politics, life, love, etc?  what's going on here?  are you all religious
or something?   doesn't anybody else worry about this trend in our  net
conversations?

{back to work, back to work....}
-- 
Sophie Quigley
{allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie