Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: "64 cents!" (Was Re: The problem in academia)
Message-ID: <672079231@lear.cs.duke.edu>
Date: 23 Apr 91 17:27:19 GMT
References: lear.cs.duke.edu> <1991Apr15.145023.7239@psych.toronto.edu>
Organization: The Piranha Club
Lines: 30
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: zola.ics.uci.edu

In article <1991Apr15.145023.7239@psych.toronto.edu>
chris@psych.toronto.edu (Christine Hitchcock) writes:

>or the way in which women's earnings remain around 64% of men's,

When I hear such "data", I suggest affirmative action by income level.
Instead of giving priority by sex, give priority to the applicant with
the lowest income.  *If* the above data is correct then it will be a
non-sexist AA program.

The very same women who "believed" in the above "data"
rejected this idea time and again.  Do you reject it too?

>discriminated against in issues regarding child custody.  Most of us agree
>that it would be better if both sexes were no longer victims of sexism.

That's very nice of you, but would you mind doing something to show it?

Will you (Chris) give up your affirmative action (or the
Canadian equivalent) as a way to prevent sexism against men?

>Chris Hitchcock, Dept. of Psychology     chris@psych.toronto.edu

Hillel                                    gazit@cs.duke.edu

"The continuation of earnings gap between men and women, the decimation of
affirmative action in order to protect white men from `reverse discrimination',
the rise of male victories in child custody cases - all of these attest to the
need for a way to galvanize women's opposition and women's power in the 1980s."
            --  ("Caught Looking", Kate Ellis, Barbara O'Dair & Abby Tallmer)