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.