Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!randvax!edhall From: edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics,net.social Subject: Re: Discrimination against women and statistics Message-ID: <2566@randvax.UUCP> Date: Mon, 24-Jun-85 13:27:39 EDT Article-I.D.: randvax.2566 Posted: Mon Jun 24 13:27:39 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 27-Jun-85 06:19:39 EDT References: <482@ttidcc.UUCP> <8203@ucbvax.ARPA><457@unc.UUCP> Reply-To: edhall@rand-unix.UUCP (Ed Hall) Distribution: net Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica Lines: 76 Keywords: discrimination, sex roles Xref: watmath net.women:6099 net.politics:9597 net.social:743 Summary: "women's" occupations > In article fagin@ucbvax.UUCP (Barry Steven Fagin) writes: > >From Jennifer Roback, an economist at Yale, commenting on the "59c" > >button popular among feminists during the 1984 election: (This > >button was intended to symbolize the fact that women make 59 cents > >for every dollar that men make). > > > >"Actually, many of the factors that contribute to the earnings gap are the > >result of personal choices made by women themselves, not decisions thrust > >on them by bosses. The most important example is marriage." Seems to me that just as many men would be affected by marriage as women. I think what Ms. Roback must mean is *traditional* marriage, i.e., stay at home and keep house and cook and have babies while Hubby goes to work and makes the money. In the past most women had damn few options other than this; society is still pretty blatant in its channeling of women in this direction. Men benifit tremendously from marriage, both economically and in terms of getting someone to take care of them. Women benifit far less, but if the other alternatives are restricted it won't seem as bad. > One other factor is that women tend to choose occupations with greater > nonmonetary benefits which may compensate for the lower pay scales. That is, > women more often choose occupations which center around helping other people > and cooperating with them (teacher, nurse, secretary, social worker). > The direct gratitude from the helpee satisfies some of the woman's social > needs. This is pure bull, and you know it. Aren't you grateful when a plumber fixes a leaky pipe or a stopped drain? Plumbing, and a whole lot of other service jobs traditionally occupied by men, are extremely well-paid. Why don't we just behave very grateful to them and pay them half as much? Let's hear it for ``nonmonetary benifits''! You've obviously not spent much time observing teachers, nurses, or secretaries, or you'd see how much shit they have to put up with, and how damn little gratitude they usually get. 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? ``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. > Men more often find themselves in occupations which either isolate them > from other people, or pits them in anxiety-provoking competition. > Some of these higher paying "men's jobs" are dirty and dangerous as well. ...and provide a great deal of challenge and a feeling of accomplishment. You think that being a nurse isn't often ``dirty and dangerous''? Is being exposed to the bodily wastes of people with highly infectuous diseases something you'd call ``clean and safe''? Or do you think that there aren't a lot of anxiety-producing elements in being a social worker? Or a teacher? Would you rather deal with anxiety you can control the source of, or anxiety you have no control over? Is being at the mercy of other people that much better than being isolated from them for a few hours each day? > The fallacy of the equal-pay-for-equal-work idea is that it compares > only the paychecks and level of skill and training required. If we do not > also factor in the safety, pleasantness, and emotional effects of the job, > then this plan is likely to create more unfairness than it rectifies. 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. > Frank Silbermann -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall