Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cca.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!diego From: diego@cca.UUCP (Diego Gonzalez) Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics,net.social Subject: Re: Discrimination against women and statistics Message-ID: <3256@cca.UUCP> Date: Wed, 10-Jul-85 15:34:10 EDT Article-I.D.: cca.3256 Posted: Wed Jul 10 15:34:10 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 20-Aug-85 00:20:58 EDT References: <482@ttidcc.UUCP> <8203@ucbvax.ARPA> <8204@ucbvax.ARPA> Organization: Computer Corp. of America, Cambridge Lines: 100 I was over at my mother's last night, helping her in a remodeling of her bedroom. She's a dear. Turned "old" (65) last fall. She's been working for her present employer for over 15 years now. So after working she insisted that I sit down and have a piece of pie (blueberry; she's a fantastic cook, always was as far back as I can remember) and talk for a bit. Seems she had her annual review yesterday. "He [the supervisor] told me I should be more aggressive," she said and that "we can always do better." "Sounds like he wants you to act "uppity" so he can fire you," I joked. To my surprise, she answered seriously: "That's what I figured, so I just kept quiet." I'm relating this conversation to let you know that the hypothetical discussions you've been having on this net are only as far away as someone you know. Or maybe you don't really know. (I figure Ronald Reagan doesn't personally know anyone black or poor. You could probably add quite a few other less-than-mainstream American types to that list.) The fact is that after a dedicated career effort at one company, my mother earns less than what most engineers will get the day they walk out of college. And she is accorded less professional respect than the average white male high-school graduate (or, in some cases, dropout). Sheryl and some of the other women who have been writing may be bitter either because of their own experiences or those they have witnessed or heard offrom others or both. We men should be aware of the current of thought that runs in the background of social and business life. That current consists of a whole bag of "common knowledge" about women's motives and capabilities. For example who was it (I ask rhetorically) that first said that it was bad for women to get dirty, risk injury, or do strenuous physical labor. The U. S. armed forces still clings to that philosophy, mind, in its insistence that women not perform combat tasks. The "women and children first" attitude, while attempting to protect what men hold dear, denies equality. For women who want their fair chance to achieve and contribute in the broader society (not only within the home and in the nurturing and raising of offspring) the implicit inequality of such popularly held attitudes is insufferable. So too, is the impression that a woman's absence from the work force during the time she does raise her child(ren) is justification for lower pay scales. In my mother's case, by the time she returned to work-for-pay status, the jobs for which she had been qualified no longer existed. She was willing to start a new career in an entry-level wage. After fifteen years in which she learned quickly, maintained the highest standards of quality in her work, and was refused advancement to most of the positions she sought on the basis of any petty excuse, she is now being told that she is "too qualified". What the hell does that mean? It means that they should have promoted her as her experience and intelligence warranted. Instead, she was held back because of sexual (and age and racial) biases that exist in her company and at the majority of firms in this country. For those who have never knowingly experienced discrimination, I guess it's hard to understand and believe. For those of us who have experienced it, you learn to recognize the sensation. You know that if you confront the party or parties directly on the issue, you will get a denial or evasive response. Would you or anyone you know answer "yes" if asked if the applicant for a position (or contributor of an idea or whatever) were turned down because of sex or race? In the workplace, it's difficult to gather such evidence. There are rarely written records of the decision-making process or transcriptions of "evaluation" meetings. I agree that some women as well as many men, over a rather lengthy history, are responsible for the prevalent attitudes about women in the workplace. There are, for example, Phyllis Schlaffley and her ilk that want to perpetuate women's second-class dependency as a demi-art form. There are also, however, some enlightened men's groups -- not particularly well known -- that are trying their best to make men more aware of the learned attitudes that drive so much of their actions. The highly macho images dominating male-oriented advertising and the slinky, clinging or surrendering females in the backgrounds are a vivid testament to prevailing social values. Some women might welcome, given the economic freedom to do so, the opportunity to spend a majority of time encouraging the development of children. I contend that a (smaller) number of men (count me in) would similarly welcome that kind of opportunity. Nevertheless, the prevailing economic conditions in America rule that option out for most middle-income families in or near urban centers. What that means is that most women, like most men, seek jobs out of an economic necessity. They expect the same career opportunities and remuneration. They expect that if they apply for a difficult job they will be considered on qualifications and receive the same encouragement and support as a male employee. That's not what happened in my mother's case. I suspect that her case is similar to experiences of a great many women in the American work force. It has made her working days more tedious and far less rewarding than they could have been. Bias has promoted less qualified candidates, at her expense, because they were of the "correct" gender or were "buddies" with the appropriate senior. It has reduced her potential earnings and, correspondingly, her available income at retirement. And perhaps what is saddest, it has denied her company and the national economy the benefit of her intelligence, experience, and expertise.