Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site hammer.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!hammer!annej From: annej@hammer.UUCP (Anne Jacko) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Do Statistics Prove Discrimination Against Women? Message-ID: <867@hammer.UUCP> Date: Wed, 8-Aug-84 14:28:20 EDT Article-I.D.: hammer.867 Posted: Wed Aug 8 14:28:20 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 10-Aug-84 02:16:44 EDT References: <879@trwrba.UUCP> Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR Lines: 19 I would guess that your statements are sound, as far as they go. I feel a pertinent question to ask when citing the different job history of men and women is "Why?" Do women take non-unionized jobs because they don't like unions? Do they work part-time because they don't want to work full-time? For some women, the answer may be yes. But I would guess that most of these women end up in different sorts of jobs due to lack of opportunity for the better-paying, higher-status jobs mostly held my men. And professions that are traditionally female bring in less money than professions that are traditionally male, even when the skill and education level is similar. Examples: grade school teachers vs. junior bank officers; nurses vs. engineers. Sexism isn't just a factor when you have a man and a woman doing exactly the same job and the woman is paid less. It is much more subtle (and consequently more insidious) than that. Anne Jacko, Tektronix