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!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!acf4!mms1646
From: mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Discrimination against women and statistics
Message-ID: <1340239@acf4.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 28-Jun-85 17:53:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: acf4.1340239
Posted: Fri Jun 28 17:53:00 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 1-Jul-85 07:52:30 EDT
References: <8204@ucbvax.ARPA>
Organization: New York University
Lines: 59

/* acf4:net.politics / mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) /  9:06 pm  Jun 27, 1985 */
>/* 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
/* ---------- */