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

From: Henriette Cecile Beigh (
Date: 10/04/00

  • Next message: Jo Freeman: "Re: [sixties-l] Re: break new ground sixties and rightwing"

    Jeez, David, as I suspected, not only are you arrogant but you have NO sense of humour. It also seems to me that you did not read the entire post.
    Ever laughing at you,
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: David Horowitz 
      Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 4:11 PM
      Subject: Re: [sixties-l] Re: break new ground sixties and rightwing
      Well I guess ignorance is bliss, and arrogance is even better. June O'Neill works for the U.S. government is recognized as the top expert on these matters. Your anecdotal evidence suggests that you do not have children or did not take time off to have children, which would  explain the wage differential 
      Rita Beigh wrote: 
        I thought I'd take a stab at what it is that DH's response is really saying. This is offered as a humorous anecdote and not as a criticism of DH, whom I admire very much. 
        DH said - You could be so much happier if you understood economics 101. 
        DH meant - You are too stupid to understand rudiments of economics. 
        DH said - The labor department statistics are aggregates. They don't mean anything. 
        DH meant - The data you cite is absolute drivel, because I said so. 
        DH said - June O'Neill has shown that women already get equal pay for equal work. 
        DH meant - I'll appeal to my own expert reference. 
        DH said - 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%. 
        DH meant - And I am capable of making hasty generalizations founded on little or no substance. 
        DH said - 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. 
        DH meant - And any buffoon knows that all these women are out there making babies, barefoot and pregnant, in keeping with my own skewed stereotype of the feminine role in society. 
        Here is what I have to say... 
        1. I work in the software industry and have been working in technology for some 32 years now. 
        2. As a female Software QA Engineer, I make $64,000 a year. 
        3. This is, roughly, $6,000 a year more than the women around me, in the same job, make. This despite the fact that they have BSCS and the occasional MSCS degree, while I have an AA in Math and Computer Science. 
        Now one might wonder why it is that I make so much more than my female counterparts when I am so "outgunned" when it comes to credentials. Is it because of my experience? Possibly. Is it because I'm really good at what I do? That might have something to do with it. Or is there another factor, unknown to my peers? This is most likely. 
        Fact of the matter is, I spent my first 30 years in technology working as a male, not a female. As an M2F Transsexual, I transitioned to living full-time as a woman 2 years ago. I brought that financial edge, established during my male days, with me into the female workspace. I can only hope that my presence in the workspace will serve to encourage management to behave more fairly with respect to gender and salary. 
        I understand that my information is anecdotal. The standard in the Software industry is for a woman to take maternity leave at some point near term. This usually lasts about 3 months and then she is back in the workspace. I know several men who have taken leave when their partners have given birth. The software industry is, for the most part, far more fair than any other industry where it comes to compensation and gender. A great many of my peers have never had children. 
        Food for thought... 
        Hugs and Love, 
        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, wrote: 
        > >As to when the right wing surge 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 : 10/04/00 EDT