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