Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihlpg.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!ihlpg!jeand
From: jeand@ihlpg.UUCP (Diaz)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Discrimination and Affirmative Action
Message-ID: <672@ihlpg.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Jun-85 11:27:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihlpg.672
Posted: Wed Jun 19 11:27:08 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 20-Jun-85 09:33:29 EDT
References: <806@oddjob.UUCP> <513@hou2g.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 24

> ->  There being an equal distribution of natural endowment in both sexes
> ->  and all races, and there being a disproportionately low number of 
> ->  minorities and women utilizing these natural endowments in their
>                                                             ^^ ^^^^^
> ->  work, simple logic would have it that a disproportionately high
>     ^^^^
> ->  number of minorities and women are undereducated and underemployed
> ->  given their level of natural endowment.  
> 
> I fail to see how women and minorities WHO WORK are underemployed.  Under-
> educated, probably, but by my definition, people who are underemployed
> don't have jobs.

If I have the talent to be an expert mathematician, and I'm keeping the books for the local hardware store instead, I would definitely call it underemployment.

> ->                                           Put simply--"that's right,
> ->  the women are smarter"...than men holding the same jobs.
> 
> Run that by me again?  Women with equal natural endowment are smarter?

No, but a woman with a large (but undeveloped) natural endowment would wind up working with a white male who is at the limit of his talents--hence the above quote.

                                                   Jean Marie Diaz
                                          "Never play leapfrog with a unicorn."