Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site mtung.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!jdh From: jdh@mtung.UUCP (Julia Harper) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: women's work Message-ID: <587@mtung.UUCP> Date: Wed, 3-Jul-85 12:07:33 EDT Article-I.D.: mtung.587 Posted: Wed Jul 3 12:07:33 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 4-Jul-85 04:48:46 EDT Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ Lines: 33 In article <543@umcp-cs.UUCP> flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) writes: >One of the reasons -- the biggest, I'll bet -- for the "59 cents" >wage gap is that girls/women are DISCOURAGED BY SOCIETY from taking >certain jobs; jobs that are considered "men's work". >So why aren't feminists raising hell (MORE hell than they raise >over "comparable worth") over the way girls are brought up to be >qualified for, and interested in, only "women's work"? It's worse than simply that women are encouraged to perform "women's work": When women start dominating a job, what has happened over and over in the past is that it then BECOMES "women's work", and employers start paying less for the job. A prime example of this is the job of secretary. This job used to be held exclusively by men. Another prime example in progress as we speak is that of data-processing clerk and even programmer. As women start to swamp a particular market, these jobs are devalued. What typically happens is 1) the scope of the job is narrowed ....in order to justify it when 2) the job is paid less. In other words, "women's work" BECOMES women's work when 1) women become a large percentage of a certain job 2) employers modify the job. Now, THIS is a problem. And it seems likely that it will remain a problem as long as employers - conciously or not - see women as people who shouldn't be given responsibility or as less valuable. (No recommendations as to a solution.) -- Julia Harper [ihnp4,ariel]!mtung!jdh