You could be so much happier if you understood economics 101.The labor department statistics are aggregates. They don't mean anything. June O'Neill has shown that women already get equal pay for equal work. If women earned 70% less for the same work, capitalists would fire all their men workers, hire women and instantly increase their profits by 30%. The disparity in the aggregate statistics is explained by the fact that the average woman takes time out to have children (and therefore has less job experience) or seeks flex time jobs, again to take care of children, and these are just by nature lower paying jobs. monkerud wrote: > Paula, > Reading the current issue of NY Review of Books reminds me of the spit in > the abolitionist movement over the rights of women and how that came down > to us in the movement in the 60s. Also how much more we have to go. Not > only are many men "convinced" of the "superiority" of men, but many women > buy into this outmoded concept. > > One wonders even more considering that so many women have to work to > support families. The past thirty years has been a backlash against the > ideas that were thrust forward in the 60s, just as the French and Communist > Revolutions led to backlashes. > > How much longer will it take for women to be treated equally? The latest > statistics from the Dept. of Labor shows that women today received an even > lower rate of pay compared to men than they did in the 70s! > > best, Don Monkerud > > At 4:52 PM -0400 9/30/00, PNFPNF@aol.com wrote: > >As to when the right wing surge began...at the end of the 1940s, in > >Washington DC, I could not wait to get to 5th grade, as that was when, on May > >1, we girls would get to wear beautiful white gossamer dresses and dance > >around the Maypole (younger classes did miscellaneous skits, I think). But > >then, sometime early that spring, we were told--there would be no Maypole; > >there would be May Day in the public schools there, any more, because May Day > >was (guess what) a Communist thing. > > Even in college, after anti-nuke demonstrations and support actions for the > >Freedom Rides, and so on, I was, in a gut way, shocked when a friend said, > >over coffee, "I'm a socialist"--as if she had said "I lie, cheat, steal, and > >cannot be trusted." > > To say nothing of how we thought about ourselves, the effects of so-called > >"Freudian psychology," etc. > > Could we say the rightward surge was more an attempt to keep the status > >quo, the left and variations more a MOVEMENT--that is, we had so much farther > >to go? > > And in many ways, we have won. Marty mentions disability rights. Until > >sometime after 1969, no one did. For instance. > > Paula
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 10/03/00 EDT