Re: [sixties-l] Re: break new ground sixties and rightwing

From: David Horowitz (
Date: 10/03/00

  • Next message: "[sixties-l] Re: Rita Beigh and women's wages"

    Actually Mark I wouldn't. Unless you think capitalists don't want to make money then
    discriminating against women (no matter how sexist their actual attitudes) is not in
    their self-interest. I.e., if they can get women for less and make more, they will. The
    same principle applies to flex time dads. Why pay a dad more when you can pay a mom less?
    Mark Bunster wrote:
    > David Horowitz wrote:
    > > 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.
    > >
    > To back this assertion up (beyond the implication that it's OK to pay moms less), you
    > would need to show me that fathers who opt for flex time or take paternity leave earn
    > at the same rate as women.
    > --
    > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    > Mark Bunster       **Milo Venus was a beautiful lass
    > Survey Research Lab**had the world in the palm of her hand
    > VA. Commonwealth U **lost both arms in a wrestling match
    > Richmond, VA 23284 **fighting over a brown-eyed handsome man.
    >   **
    >**          --Chuck Berry

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 10/03/00 EDT