From: hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain)
Subject: Re: Pay Discrimination for Women?
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:23:09 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.183248.10792@midway.uchicago.edu>, Ted Frank writes:
  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.

 S: Okey.  What is this "wage structure"?  Not definition-wise but does it 
really exist.  We live in a society more characteristic of 
a monopoly than Perfect competition by far (ever tried to get service for 
Cable TV! Its impossible!).  So any sort of wage structure that I see must
be pretty subjective, right?  And there is evidence to prove that: people with
the exact position in the same field probably don't make the same amount 
of money, regardless of sex.  At least in the six or so years I have 
worked, I have noticed that women in particular have made less than men 
who worked in the exact area.  Or let me put it another way, most of the women
that I know who make more than the men I know are in generally higher-up
positions (who have more experience and are probably better qualified).
However, most of the men I know that make more money than the women I know
are not necessarily in higher positions.  I know guys who make more as
bank tellers (I know since I was one once) than women who are in bank
manager positions.  Even though you insist that it is not the wage structure
I will argue that there is no wage structure.  But all in all I agree with
you on the fact that the main problem is the age-old discrimination which pops up
everywhere.  Women have traditionally been part of the "private" sphere.
Their attempts to entering the "public" and traditionally male domain is foiled
by constant reminders by the "dinosours" of their (women's) "supposed natural
place in the system.  These reminders include sexual harrassment, lack of 
child care, or maternity leave (which is particularly horendous since that
literally screams out to women about their displacement in the workforce)
That is what I have meant when I have said that the
system is primarily white (in the US that is) and male.
> 
 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.

S:  First, I am quite opposed to standardized testing.  They are not objective.
(And who needs objectivity anyway but that isn't the point).  I did terribly
on all my standardized tests.  And belive me it was not for the lack of
education.  The sports questions for example, I just skipped.  Same with
some comprehension passages.  If one has been socialized in a particular
environment in which you may have been exposed to a particular subject
in a comprehension passage
you will probably do better than someone who is not (Even though statistically
speaking, my point would be incorrect since the US has one of the lowest
SAT scores, but adjusting for the number of people that take that test, we may
be able to make a case to the contrary!).

 
> 
I'm statistically adjusting to show where reality lies. 


S:  Reality through statistics?  Come on.  Lets just look around instead.

> -- 
>                       ....................................
>                       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