From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: More Hallucinations (was: Women as Victims)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:58:15 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Oct8101215@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.143949.16360@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <ZEN.92Oct7173418@death.corp.sun.com> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
>>>
>>>In article <1992Oct7.225000.19594@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>>>>>Only those businesses whose highest priority is to earn a *profit*.
>>>>>They'll hire whichever qualified candidate is willing to do the
>>>>>work for the lowst pay. And if, as Warren Farrell points out, women
>>>>>*really were* (as in the fairy tale) paid 59 cents on the dollar
>>>>>for doing the same work as men, then corporations EVERYWHERE would be
>>>>>dumping overpaid men on the streets, and hiring women in their place.
>>>
>>>  Unfortunately, no.  If that happened, then all the women would take
>>>over in more ways than just the jobs -- they would start by giving
>>>themselves all raises to equal their male (ex)counterparts.  Then if you
>>>were a man you'd be worse off than where you started; you'd be out of
>>>work, and the women would be in power.  What'd be the point?  It works
>>>fine now -- you just keep the women in line by economic as well as
>>>social force.  Give them all the jobs and power and you'd lose both.
>
>>So then you propose a conspiracy theory as well? I anxiously await
>>the revelation of the secret role of Elvis etc...  :^{
>
>I don't see d mentioning any "conspiracy."  

"It works fine now -- you just keep the women in line by economic as well
as social force. Give them all the jobs and power and you'd lose both"

This means nothing unless all are doing it, deliberatly.

>                                          It doesn't take a conspiracy
>for individual businesses to see what is (or isn't) good for them, and
>act accordingly.  All d is pointing out is that it is pretty easy to see
>that it would not, in fact, be good for businesses to hire a lot of
>women because they are cheaper, to the point where they dump the men for
>the women, because the men are the executives, who decide how much
>people get paid, and if they gave a lot of women this power, some of
>those women would use it to equalize salaries, and the companies
>wouldn't be saving money anymore.  

American companies are so short sighted that they cannot see beyond the
end of the quarter. The above assumes some intelligent long range plan,
and in general, this is what one finds in Japan, not America. So why is
it that one of us does not have a workforce that is mostly women? Could
there be other factors at play? Could the above have nothing to do with
American business?

>                                    So, this is simply a counter to
>Robert Sheaffer's claim that it can't be true that women make less
>because they aren't hired in droves by companies seeking to make money.
>The suggestion is not a conspiracy, but the concept that companies can
>look a little farther into the possible effects of such an action than
>Robert apparently can.

There is some question as to whether or not it is even true that
women make less than men with equivalant training and experience. But
this is not PC, so we must discount this out of hand I guess. <sigh>
What is women are not cheaper than men to hire? Gee, then everything
falls nicely into place, and there is really no problem. Naaa, won't
work in an election year.
 
>I don't really think, though, that this is the idea.  I think that it's
>more a resistance to change and a real belief on the part of the people
>doing the hiring, salary setting, etc., that women are less competent
>and worth less.  This isn't a conspiracy, it's a society, and not a very
>good one.

Which one is better? Or is this context free? :^)
 
>Muffy
>
>Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism