HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen)
Subject: Re: Pay Discrimination for Women?
Organization: Sequoia Peripherals, Inc.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 16:31:31 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.150053.22887@midway.uchicago.edu> hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:
>> My lack of a home life hasn't resulted in better wages or shorter hours, why
>> should her pregnancy be any different?
>You have shown by the above that, in particular, the system does not work for
>women.  In fact that the system has no place for women.  That they are infact
>high cost low return burdens to the system.  If men were the ones
>getting pregnant, believe me, it would be incorporated into the system.  

That's not at all clear. I suspect that if men were the ones
getting pregnant, then women would be the ones who had traditionally
been running the economy. It's no coincidence that the people who
have been doing the wage earning are the ones who are cheaper to 
hire, the ones who are willing to sacrifice just about their entire
lives to their careers.

>Lets face some facts:  At least the men who work themselves half to death
>as you put it get paid for it.  The domestic labor force (and I mean women
>working at home) dont.  The system here displays its bias.  

And homemakers don't get paid? Then how do they live?

They get paid by the wage-earner in the family to provide child-rearing
and other domestic serives for the family. And quite well, I might
add. How many men do you know who make half of whatever the person paying
his salary makes? And it's tax-free too.



-- 
Dave Eisen    dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU   Sequoia Peripherals: (415) 967-5644
          	Some of my best friends are men.
        --- Lisa Nee in "American Women Deserve a Tax Break."
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,alt.politics.correct,soc.men
From: jleduc@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (JonPaul Leduc)
Subject: Re: Pay Discrimination for Women?
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:40:08 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.150053.22887@midway.uchicago.edu> hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:

>You have shown by the above that, in particular, the system does not work for
>women.  In fact that the system has no place for women.  That they are infact
>high cost low return burdens to the system.  If men were the ones
>getting pregnant, believe me, it would be incorporated into the system.  
>Yes and we would see six months of leave.
	
	This shows you are missing the point of why women are high cost low
return.  The who reason revolves around the fact that women bear children
and if men did, then it would be women getting all the jobs.  From a company
standpoint, you can hire someone who is going to leave you, put get all the
benifits of staying with nothing for the company, or hire a man.  

	The whole point it that women are left to child care, and if you
want to make the comapany look at women and men equally, make the company
give both men and women maternaty leaves.  No reason a husband can't take
three of those month to care for a child with the same benifits.

	But I do think that child care is irrelevant, because families
usually have two working parents, and the mother doesn't exclusively care
for the children.

Then again, we can just sterilize both the men and women, and noone would
need child care or maternity leave. :->

--Jean-Paul Leduc


Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,alt.politics.correct,soc.men
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Pay Discrimination for Women?
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 18:32:48 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.182300.10278@midway.uchicago.edu> hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:
>>   S:  Lets come a little down to earth.  After years and years of statistical
>analysis in business and economics, I came to the conclusion that besides the
>absolute basic and obvious stats (mostly averages, medians etc), the value
>is extremely limited (thats probably why I wasn't really liked by my 
>"quant" finance professors even though my portfolios did pretty well!).
>Personally, I have some philosophical problems with the causal relationships
>assumed in statistical theories (but thats a part of my academic career
>I would much rather forget!)
>The bottom line is this, if some racist swings a bat at a person of color and
>kills them (or for that matter anyone kills anybody in that way) the "direct"
>reason for that would be not only the bat but the degree of hardness of the
>bat and the velocity of the swing.  Adjusting for all those variables,
>it probably was not racism that killed the poor soul but an absurd constant
>and some silly variables.  

Non sequitur.  When someone is complaining that sexism is resulting in
lower wages, they're not complaining about the thirty-year-old discrimination
that still has its effects in the earnings of 50-year-olds, or the
socialization of women to dislike math or science, or that women take
more time off to care for children than men do.  They're complaining about
the wage structure, which isn't sexist at all now, and addressing the
wage structure while ignoring where the real sexism is occurring will
mean that the underlying problems will never be solved.

A better analogy is whether someone would be mad at the forestry industry
because a racist swung a bat at somebody.  A number of feminists claim
the SAT's are "sexist" because they demonstrate that women are less
educated than men are.  Banning the SAT's or their use won't change that
fact.

>So using common sense lets not statistically adjust to make a point.  

I'm not statistically adjusting to make a point.  I'm statistically
adjusting to show where reality lies.  The sexism in our society is
not in the wage structure, it's in the education system and the
socialization of gender roles.
-- 
                      ....................................
                      ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
                      the university of chicago law school 
                      official member of the cultural elit
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: The Reality of Discrimination
Summary: Constructive reaction is possible
Date: 26 Jul 92 21:38:21 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <FS_FUCHS.92Jul24144257@rcsw66.rcvie.at> fs_fuchs@rcsw66.rcvie.at (Kurt Fuchs) writes:

>In article <76076@ut-emx.uucp> zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle) writes:

>> I find it vindicating to see in print what I've always felt, and often said.
>> Namely, blacks are just as capable and just as guilty of racism as whites,
>> and yet no one seems to care.

>Blacks have always been slaved, used and suppressed by the Whites.
>Whites had always the power, thereby the possibility for a real
>change, but they didn't.

The Jews have not quite been enslaved, but all of the above, on an
essentially universal basis.  As have the Orientals in the US before
WWII.  As have the Hindus in India by the Muslims, and many other
such situations.

>So if you (being a black person) grow up, feel the discrimation all
>the time, see and understand, what Whites did to Blacks the last
>centuries, its even natural to oppose Whites. 

Take this attitude, and no advancement is made.  One can advance even
in the face of open discrimination, but only if the group considers
individual advancement as the goal.  If a group takes the attitude
that "they did it to us, and therefore they owe us the results," this
group cannot advance.  The most that can be given today is an opportunity
to compete on a somewhat equal basis.  And the basis is not by quotas,
but by individual performance.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,alt.politics.correct,soc.men
From: hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain)
Subject: Re: Pay Discrimination for Women?
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 15:00:53 GMT

In article <viking.712558827@vincent1.iastate.edu>Dan Sorenson writes:
> 
Nothing is free,
> you know.  Men dominate because they are a source of cheap labor, as most
> don't require much by way of benefits until after they have retired.  In
> a way it's just as sexist, but men are willing to put up with it.  If I ran
> a business, would I be smart to hire those who will cost me the most even
> if they provide no better return?  Mandatory child care and maternity leave
> is like government medical care -- is is a certainty that those who cost the
> least will subsidize those who cost the most, and everybody has to pay.
> 
> 	What I see here is, "Well, I'm a woman.  Therefore, you must give me
> six months leave to care for a child, but I have to get my old job back and
> at the same pay scale.  Meanwhile, my husband can work himself to death but
> shouldn't get better health benefits because my day care takes care of that
> part of the profit margin."  Feh!  If women want to compete, let them compete.
> My lack of a home life hasn't resulted in better wages or shorter hours, why
> should her pregnancy be any different?
> 

>I reply:
You have shown by the above that, in particular, the system does not work for
women.  In fact that the system has no place for women.  That they are infact
high cost low return burdens to the system.  If men were the ones
getting pregnant, believe me, it would be incorporated into the system.  
Yes and we would see six months of leave.
Lets face some facts:  At least the men who work themselves half to death
as you put it get paid for it.  The domestic labor force (and I mean women
working at home) dont.  The system here displays its bias.  
Let the system work for us, and not us for the system.


Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,alt.politics.correct,soc.men
From: hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain)
Subject: Re: Tax Breaks for Decent White Folks
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:20:23 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.163736.5073@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> 
> In article <FS_FUCHS.92Jul30163734@rcsw66.rcvie.at> fs_fuchs@rcsw66.rcvie.at (Kurt Fuchs) writes:
> >Probably, cause women are still quite underpaid (among other
> >discriminating stuff) compared to men.
> 
> Maybe thirty years ago.  Certainly not today.

  Ted, Now you've really displayed your ignorance. I Forgot that you memorize
  a lot in the law school.  If only they taught you how to think!   Not what
  but how!
  Sheheryar 

>                       ....................................
>                       ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
>                       the university of chicago law school 
>                       official member of the cultural elit
> 
> 
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
From: fs_fuchs@rcsw66.rcvie.at (Kurt Fuchs)
Subject: Re: The Reality of Discrimination
Organization: Alcatel-ELIN RC, Vienna, Austria
	<55140@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:30:40 GMT


In article <55140@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:

> In article <FS_FUCHS.92Jul24144257@rcsw66.rcvie.at> fs_fuchs@rcsw66.rcvie.at (Kurt Fuchs) writes:
> 
> >In article <76076@ut-emx.uucp> zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle) writes:
> 
> >> I find it vindicating to see in print what I've always felt, and often said.
> >> Namely, blacks are just as capable and just as guilty of racism as whites,
> >> and yet no one seems to care.
> 
> >Blacks have always been slaved, used and suppressed by the Whites.
> >Whites had always the power, thereby the possibility for a real
> >change, but they didn't.
> 
> The Jews have not quite been enslaved, but all of the above, on an
> essentially universal basis.  As have the Orientals in the US before
> WWII.  As have the Hindus in India by the Muslims, and many other
> such situations.
> 
> >So if you (being a black person) grow up, feel the discrimation all
> >the time, see and understand, what Whites did to Blacks the last
> >centuries, its even natural to oppose Whites.
> 
> Take this attitude, and no advancement is made.  One can advance even
> in the face of open discrimination, but only if the group considers
> individual advancement as the goal.  If a group takes the attitude
> that "they did it to us, and therefore they owe us the results," this
> group cannot advance.  The most that can be given today is an opportunity
> to compete on a somewhat equal basis.  And the basis is not by quotas,
> but by individual performance.

Correct (in some respect). 

But consider you yourself being in such a position (as black person).
Would you be able to have the attitude to not be - at least very, very
carefull, when dealing with white folks, keeping in mind all the above
mentioned discrimination? 

I'm fed up by all these people, who are looking just on effects
instead on the roots (I hope my English explains what I want to say). 

So here the effect is, that "blacks are just as capable and just as
guilty of racism as whites". The root of this is, that Blacks have
been suppressed for centuries - and still are; the effect is simply a
consequence of that.

And the root has to be tackled! First show them, that not necessarily
Whites are rassist to Blacks (unfortunately too many are). And if you
are rassist towards Blacks, don't complain (or be surprised), that
they are to you! 
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,alt.politics.correct,soc.men
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Pay Discrimination for Women?
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:44:12 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.172023.7622@midway.uchicago.edu> hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:
>In article <1992Jul30.163736.5073@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>> 
>> In article <FS_FUCHS.92Jul30163734@rcsw66.rcvie.at> fs_fuchs@rcsw66.rcvie.at (Kurt Fuchs) writes:
>> >Probably, cause women are still quite underpaid (among other
>> >discriminating stuff) compared to men.
>> 
>> Maybe thirty years ago.  Certainly not today.
>
>  Ted, Now you've really displayed your ignorance. I Forgot that you memorize
>  a lot in the law school.  If only they taught you how to think!   Not what
>  but how!

I do think.  Which is why I look beyond statistics instead of parroting
them.  When you adjust for education, quality of education, career field,
experience, and the like, women are paid what men are.

Now, if you want to argue that there's sexism in education such that women
are trained not to like the math or science courses they need to earn as
much as men, I'd buy that argument.

Or, if you'd want to argue that societal judgments that women should be the
primary care-givers mean that their careers get interrupted more result in
lower pay, I'd be receptive to that, also.

But if you want to argue that sexism is the direct reason why women are paid
less than men, you're confusing the symptoms with the causes, and you're
never going to solve the root problems.

Now, instead of ignorant flames, perhaps you have something to contribute
to the discussion?
-- 
                      ....................................
                      ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
                      the university of chicago law school 
                      official member of the cultural elit
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,alt.politics.correct,soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Tax Breaks for Decent White Folks
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 15:49:13 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.160847.3127@javelin.sim.es.com> biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:
)dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen) writes:

)>	          American Whites Deserve a Tax Break

---
)Why? I read it as a clever parody, sarcasm incarnate. Perhaps the
)author didn't intend it as such, but the piece is quite funny.
)
)Regards,
)       H. Biesel s.N.a.

The problem is, I think, that the original author (before the substitution of
white for men) was serious.

Also, there is a lot of this anti-male bigotry out there, and it is (IMO)
starting to affect the laws.  The bigotry always was there, I think -
what's new is that the media and some lawmakers are starting to take it
seriously and pander to it.
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,alt.politics.correct,soc.men
From: hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain)
Subject: Re: Pay Discrimination for Women?
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 18:23:00 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.174412.8605@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> 
  I look beyond statistics instead of parroting
> them.  When you adjust for education, quality of education, career field,
> experience, and the like, women are paid what men are.  

> 
> Now, if you want to argue that there's sexism in education such that women
> are trained not to like the math or science courses they need to earn as
> much as men, I'd buy that argument.
> Or, if you'd want to argue that societal judgments that women should be the
> primary care-givers mean that their careers get interrupted more result in
> lower pay, I'd be receptive to that, also.
> But if you want to argue that sexism is the direct reason why women are paid
> less than men, you're confusing the symptoms with the causes, and you're
> never going to solve the root problems.
> Now, instead of ignorant flames, perhaps you have something to contribute
> to the discussion?


>   S:  Lets come a little down to earth.  After years and years of statistical
analysis in business and economics, I came to the conclusion that besides the
absolute basic and obvious stats (mostly averages, medians etc), the value
is extremely limited (thats probably why I wasn't really liked by my 
"quant" finance professors even though my portfolios did pretty well!).
Personally, I have some philosophical problems with the causal relationships
assumed in statistical theories (but thats a part of my academic career
I would much rather forget!)
The bottom line is this, if some racist swings a bat at a person of color and
kills them (or for that matter anyone kills anybody in that way) the "direct"
reason for that would be not only the bat but the degree of hardness of the
bat and the velocity of the swing.  Adjusting for all those variables,
it probably was not racism that killed the poor soul but an absurd constant
and some silly variables.  So using common sense lets not statistically adjust
to make a point.  I thought we were beyond that.  Unlike what the  
establishment requires of us to make a point, I really don't think basing
an entire argument on statistics is valuable.  

Is this contributing to 
the discussion or do you want to see some F-ratios or T-tests!
 
-- 
>                       ....................................
>                       ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
>                       the university of chicago law school 
>                       official member of the cultural elit
> 
> 
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: The Reality of Discrimination
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:35:48 GMT

In article <FS_FUCHS.92Jul30163040@rcsw66.rcvie.at> fs_fuchs@rcsw66.rcvie.at (Kurt Fuchs) writes:
>> >Blacks have always been slaved, used and suppressed by the Whites.
>> >Whites had always the power, thereby the possibility for a real
>> >change, but they didn't.

Well, not right away anyway.  But the reforms that did come about could
not have happened without the cooperation of those in power.

>> >So if you (being a black person) grow up, feel the discrimation all
>> >the time, see and understand, what Whites did to Blacks the last
>> >centuries, its even natural to oppose Whites.

Okay.  Ever so briefly, let's rationalize away all black opposition to
whites.  Please explain the racism exhibited by blacks toward Koreans.
-- 
                      ....................................
                      ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
                      the university of chicago law school 
                      official member of the cultural elit
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,alt.politics.correct,soc.men
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Pay Discrimination for Women?
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 18:25:36 GMT

From article <1992Jul31.174008.4779@news.acns.nwu.edu>, by jleduc@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (JonPaul Leduc):

> 	
> 	This shows you are missing the point of why women are high cost low
> return.  The who reason revolves around the fact that women bear children
> and if men did, then it would be women getting all the jobs.  From a company
> standpoint, you can hire someone who is going to leave you, put get all the
> benifits of staying with nothing for the company, or hire a man.  
> 

The NY Times recently had an article about how Chinese women are treated
in the work place.  Apparently, as China has gone more and more to the
free market system, employers have become more and more unlikely to hire
a women for the job if a man is available to do it.

The main driving force being economics, since women in China are guaranteed x 
months maternity leave, its a better value to hire a man.  (value didn't matter
in the communist system)

SEH
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,alt.politics.correct,soc.men
From: fs_fuchs@rcsw66.rcvie.at (Kurt Fuchs)
Subject: Re: Tax Breaks for Decent White Folks
Organization: Alcatel-ELIN RC, Vienna, Austria
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:37:34 GMT


> OK, Ed, now it's your turn. Tell me why my anger is totally unreasonable 
> and sexist (and racist, while you're at it). We've come to expect it of
> you.

Probably, cause women are still quite underpaid (among other
discriminating stuff) compared to men.

Just for your savety: I'm not Ed!
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,alt.politics.correct,soc.men
From: fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick)
Subject: Re: Tax Breaks for Decent White Folks
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 04:48:48 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.020554.25184@leland.Stanford.EDU> dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen) writes:
>   
>	          American Whites Deserve a Tax Break
>
>Blacks are the major perpetrators of the most brutal and inhuman
>crimes: rape, robbery, shooting children, and abandoning
>families.

 Typical. When a woman decides to 'abandon a family' either by
 abortion, adoption, it is called exercising sexual freedom.
 When a man decides that he shouldn't have to be extorted by
 the government and courts into paying some woman who unilaterally
 decided to become a mother, and does the only thing he possible
 can and commits a civil disobedience by withholding child support
 payments, he is commiting an 'inhumane crime.'

 -kelvin
From: raisch@Control.COM (Robert Raisch)
Newsgroups: alt.industrial
Subject: Re: Help! What is this group for?
Date: 31 Jul 92 20:22:04 GMT
Organization: Control Technology Corp., Hopkinton MA


Alt.Industrial.Computing has taken over the responsibilities you mention.
</rr>
-- 
<UsenetSig><aphorism>Member of the Cultural Elites (sic)</aphorism></UsenetSig>
Newsgroups: alt.industrial