|
|
Re: Reply to Nicolle
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin (warrl@blarg.net)
Wed, 18 Sep 1996 03:51:22 GMT
na716472@anon.penet.fi wrote:
>In article <51h7pp$m5l@netnews.upenn.edu>, weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu
>(Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
>> What nonsense; we don't live in a world anymore where phyiscal labor is
>> worth very much; take your testosterone poisoning to a good classroom
>> about the changes that have occured since the Industrial Revolution.
>The Author responds:
>If you are trying to make a point that females are now valued by
>labor buyers the same way men are for the very same jobs, then
>you are mistaken. Women are typically valued at 60 to 65 percent
>of the value of men doing the exact same work,
This is not true. The studies have been done.
Women who go directly from high school to college, excel in college,
go directly from college to employment, never take maternity leave or
a sabbatical or any other form of extended leave, earn essentially the
same as men who go directly from college in the same field, excel to
the same degree in college, go directly from college to employment,
and never take maternity leave or a sabbatical or any other form of
extended leave. Slightly less -- but not much.
Women who finish high school, get married, have a couple kids, enter
college when the youngest kid enters kindergarten, take seven years to
get a four-year degree because of the distraction of kids, get a job,
frequently take time off for family matters, take a maternity leave to
have another kid, work half-time (sharing the position with another
similar mother) until the kid's in first grade, somehow end up earning
substantially less than men of the same age in the same career. They
are also rather less likely to be in management. And it is, far more
often, WOMEN, not men, who have a career path like that. That fact
may be fair or unfair, but it is fact.
|