From: perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez)
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels,soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Date: 10 Nov 92 20:44:10 GMT
Organization: HJF AIDS Research Project, Washington DC

In article <1992Nov6.150355.9849@rtf.bt.co.uk> fletcher@rtf.bt.co.uk (Catherine Fletcher) writes:
>stevenra@feserve.cc.purdue.edu (Alex Stevens) writes:
>...
>> to say about the opposite of what you inferred.  It's basically
>> something to the effect of "if women make half of what guys make, why
>> don't they all hire women, and cut salary costs in half???"
>> 
>> Calm down!
>> Alex
>
>Yes, of course that's what it is *saying*, but it is also *implying*
>something because it is asking a question and leaving the reader to think
>about the answer - which could be any of these:
>
>1.  The statistic about women's salaries is not correct.

The way this statistic is commonly presented attempts to imply that a
woman working the same job as a man can expect to make only 59% as much.
This is what the quote under discussion tries to refute.

>2.  The statistic is correct and no company has ever realised this simple
>    way of making more money.

This sort of proposition tends to remain true for about a half-second.

>3.  The statistic is correct but no company wants to employ a purely female
>    workforce.

Even those start-ups headed by women?

>Basically the question is supposed to be offensive to feminists.  It's 
>implications: 

Only those feminists with axes to grind who have had their favorite
statistic refuted.

>1.  Doubt (by the word "if") one of the few statistics that it is safe to
>    "believe" because the information it contains is straightforward
>    and easy to obtain from accurate and diverse sources. 

If I recall correctly, it is a comparison of the average pay of a working
woman versus that of a working man. It actually says nothing at all about
whether individual working women are being shafted, because men and women
often *are* working different types of jobs.

>2.  Laugh at capitalism not taking advantage of exploitation where they
>    can, after all, look at the rich individuals in those countries where 
>    you can get away with child slave labour.

Before you make another crack about child "slave" labor, look at child
mortality rates before the Industrial Revolution and after.

>3.  Laugh at women.

If company officers and owners really have this attitude, laugh at them
instead, all the way to the bank.

>
>This is what printing the quote and the quote itself implies on a very simple
>level.  Keith Duddy has already explained what it implies on a slightly
>more complex level, but that obviously went straight over Alex's head.

This is an example of seeing what you want to see instead of the facts and
their implications.

>By the way, anyone who has the slightest grasp of what sexism is and doesn't
>understand why an Elle calendar is offensive and harmful and a Chippendales
>calendar isn't probably has no aptitude for complex thought - therefore I
>am resorting to condescending insult rather than reasoned explanation.

So, anyone who doesn't agree with you is a fool, eh? Nice try, but you
really shouldn't parade your intellectual laziness all over Usenet. It
doesn't do anything good for your reputation.

>-- 
> Catherine 
> _____________________________________________________________________________
>
>    "Anyone who calls a spade a spade should be compelled to use one"
>    Oscar Wilde

I have used one, repeatedly (For example, have you ever buried a cow?
Thank heaven I wasn't the only one digging :-).), and I still call it a
spade.



-- 
==========================================================================
That which is necessary is never evil. If an evil seems necessary, look
to your context; that's where its root lies.
Xref: sparky alt.supermodels:1767 soc.women:19464 alt.feminism:4298 soc.men:19196