Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site kontron.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!pesnta!pertec!kontron!cramer
From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Dsicrimination Again
Message-ID: <237@kontron.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 13-Jun-85 12:15:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: kontron.237
Posted: Thu Jun 13 12:15:30 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Jun-85 05:47:39 EDT
References: <357@iham1.UUCP> <26300003@uo-vax3.UUCP>
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA
Lines: 57

> Not a great deal of logic in your statements, Carl.  It makes you angry
> to be asked to "pay" for what other white males have done, but obviously
> it does not bother you to be paid for what they have done.  And you are.
> As long as your efforts, your hard work and application are rewarded at
> a two to one ratio over a woman's hard work and application.  Which the
> statistics on employment and income prove.
> 

The statistics on employment and income "prove" nothing of the sort.  There
is *more* of a disparity now between male and female incomes then there was
in the 1950s.  Does that mean there is more discrimination in jobs based on
sex?  Of course.  A lot higher percentage of women are working now --- and
a lot of them are women with limited job skills.  (This has a lot to do with
the epidemic of divorces in the late 1960s and and 1970s, and a little to
do with the fact that a lot of women in this country view being a mother as
more important than being a breadwinner.)  It is not surprising that average 
incomes for women are lower than for men.  

Secondly, for a lot of married women in this country, their job is secondary 
to their husband's job; if he's transferred, they may be unemployed while 
looking for a new job.  Additionally, many of the women who work in this
country are working to bring in additional money for buying a house, or a
second car --- their income is being used to buy non-essentials.  When the
job becomes a nuisance (as most jobs seem to as some or another), women
in this secondary breadwinner roles are more likely to quit those jobs
because the job is not necessary, or not necessary any longer.

Third: a lot of women, both in the past, and even today, take time off
to have and raise kids.  Not surprisingly, a woman who has been child-rearing
for two to six years is going to be starting at a disadvantage when she
returns to the job market.  At the same age, she will have less years of
experience than a man.  Even for the same number of years of experience,
her experience has been fragmented by being out of the work force.  

There is no reason to assume discrimination based on the statistics which
are usually thrown around on this subject.  Compare *comparable* 
populations of men and women (if you can find a way to define comparable) 
--- then we can talk.

> I'm not unsympathetic with your reaction, because I have that same reaction
> when accused of racism.  I didn't choose to be born white, never enslaved
> anyone, etc.  But I do lead a life of privilege compared to a black woman's
> life, and as long as I am content to do that, I continue to be racist.
> 

This is the most absurd linkage I've ever seen in my life.

> If you want to consider this problem beyond the knee-jerk stage, you're going
> to have to accept the fact that your sex and your color DO affect your status
> in this world, just as being born in the U.S. affects how much health care
> you will receive in your life and how many calories you consume.  If you
> don't want to think about it, don't want to admit that you are privileged
> (while continuing to enjoy the benefits of being born into a privileged
> class) consider South Africa.  Whites there would agree with you.

No.  Whites in South Africa would agree with the absurd idea that the
government should be in any way interested in a person's race.