Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero-c!nadel
From: rivero@dev8a.mdcbbs.com
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: "64 cents!" (Was Re: The problem in academia)
Message-ID: <1991Apr25.131335.1@dev8a.mdcbbs.com>
Date: 25 Apr 91 13:13:35 GMT
References: lear.cs.duke.edu> <1991Apr15.145023.7239@psych.toronto.edu> <672079231@lear.cs.duke.edu>
Sender: news@aero.org
Organization: McDonnell Douglas M&E, Cypress CA
Lines: 16
Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org


In article <672079231@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) writes:
> 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.

True, but it will remove the last vestige of meritocracy from our
system of work incentives. After all, why should I work my way through
college, and put in overtime at the office if the underpaid party animal
high school dropout sitting next to me gets priority in hiring?

Michael