Conference turris::womannotes-v1

Dumb question maybe: what was the Work Stop day protesting?  

-Rob

    Wage inequality.

    Secretaries, nurses, teachers and other women-dominated professions
    where the pay is inequitably low on par with men-dominated professions
    which require the same or less skills and training may benefit from
    this.  I don't see as clear a need for someone like myself (software
    engineer) to do it.
    
    BTW, did the one-day strike do any good?  Any changes?  I would
    guess that there must be a greater awareness of the problem in Iceland,
    at the very least.
    
    	{Ellen}

I waited the prescribed 24 hours to respond to this because I really don't
want to flame Ellen.  I was disturbed by what she said in 43.3, though, so
now that I've waited, I think I have my ideas and my emotions seperated out. 


>    Secretaries, nurses, teachers and other women-dominated professions
>    where the pay is inequitably low on par with men-dominated professions
>    which require the same or less skills and training may benefit from
>    this.  I don't see as clear a need for someone like myself (software
>    engineer) to do it.


The part that bothers me is the "I don't see as clear a need for someone 
like myself (software engineer) to do it".

A women's strike (or any strike for that matter...but let's not get into a
discussion about unions, please!) is to show SOLIDARITY with workers who
are in the "women dominated professions".

Certainly at DEC some women (and some men) encounter pay inequities. In the
world outside of DEC, many/most women still make .59 for every dollar made by a
man. Women make considerably under what we here at DEC think of as "ok"
wages (I believe that the average salary is around $9K per year).  Women own
only 1% of the world's property. 

What does all this have to do with a strike?  SOLIDARITY.  If there was a 
women's strike in this country I would hope that we would all strike for the
day (men and women) to show that we are concerned that women still face
discrimination, and to show that women are everywhere in the workplace, and 
when they are not there, getting any work done at all is close to impossible. 

In sisterhood, without flames

****andrea****

    The .59 to the dollar is a statistic and as such has the potential
    for being used to mean one thing when it really means another. 
    I believe that this statistic refers to what *all* women make as
    compared to *all* men.  Women tend to cluster in the "pink
    collar" professions of nurse, teacher, housewife, social worker,
    etc. which I believe are underpaid precisely because the majority
    of its practitioners are women.  This statistic includes those
    women.
    
    Look and see that any male-dominated profession pays substantilly
    better than any female-dominated profession.  A woman in a
    male-dominated profession would probably make more than .59 for every
    dollar that a man in the same profession would make.

    Andrea, you make a good point about the solidarity issue.

    quoted without permission from EE Times, 10th February 1986, p.63
    
    "[A] report released in December by the Office of Technology Assessment
    (OTA) charged that discrimination and stereotyping are keeping women
    away from the scientific and engineering fields. ... 'Women's salaries
    are significantly lower than men's in almost all fields of science,
    in every employment sector and at comparable levels of experience.'
    the OTA reported.  This statement was substantiated by a 1982 survey
    conducted by the IEEE's Committee on Professional Opportunities
    for Women.  It found that women EEs earn about $2600 less per year
    than do their male counterparts.  It also suggested that older women
    EEs fare even worse than younger women."
                                                                       
    I haven't the figures here with me, but as I recall (from an SWE
    seminar this spring) women engineers make $.72 on the male engineers'
    dollar.  Pretty bad.
    
    					=maggie

    Re .4, I like what you have to say on this issue.  I don't
    think that "pink collar" workers at Digital are doing any
    better here than they are anywhere else.  There have been
    times when I've complained to people about what secretaries
    are paid, and people have said, then get a better job.  Don't
    be a secretary.  But, that isn't the answer.  Even if I got
    a better job tomorrow, what about all the other secretaries
    still making barely enough to live on?  It isn't fair for
    anybody to have to work 40 hours a week and not be paid enough
    money to live on, and that is exactly the position that a 
    lot of secretaries, even at Digital, are in.
    
    It forces women to be dependent on other people to help them
    get by in life - either a man (perhaps a husband they are no
    longer happy with), or their parents, or roommates.
    
    I think that it is very important for the women who manage to
    get good jobs as engineers, managers, or whatever, to remember
    the rest of us.  We can't all be engineers.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Re .8 Maybe if you were still there you'd have a different
    opinion - if by "there" you mean not making a lot of money.
    
    Also, if we waited for the courts to make all the changes 
    in this country, we'd probably still have slaves picking
    cotton and children working in the mills in Lowell and 
    Lawrence.  The contented middle class has always resisted
    change - especially when it is change that is trying to
    improve the lot of the working class.
    
    
    I think it's to the credit of secretaries if they manage on
    to wear rags on the pay they get.  Also, new clothes, going
    out a couple of times a week, and a new car every three years
    is not much to ask of the most prosperous nation the world
    has ever known - especially from a citizen who has worked 
    a 40 hour week for the past 19 years.  
    
    Lorna
    

    I agree with you, Lorna.  When a garbage collector or assembly line
    worker makes *significantly* more than a secretary, something is
    wrong.  Secretaries deserve to be paid according to what the job
    demands, the same as other professions.

    I have to say that I am angry at reply .8.  I don't think that having
    nice clothes and an okay car and going out to dinner with friends
    is asking for too much.  It's the *inequity* in pay that makes me
    mad.  A garbage collector can probably afford those things but a
    secretary can't.
    

    
    The problem here that you (.9 & .10) are ignoring is that what a
    job pays is based upon economic necessity.  Employers pay what the
    market demands (plus or minus) to hire the appropriate numbers of
    employees.   The reason that Secretary's pay is whatever, is that
    employers can fill their needs at that pay range.  It would be silly
    to pay significantly more than the going rate.  Secretaries are
    obviously available at the rate of pay offered.  
    
    I am not trying to say that it is necessarily fair, but it is certainly
    true.  Dec Secs work for something approximating the market rate
    for secretaries (or you wouldn't be here.)  It makes no difference
    what garbage collectors are getting paid.  If you want to get paid
    that then become a garbage collector.
    
    On the other hand, if you want to improve your lot, then attack
    that problem.  Go to school, get training in an area which is more
    in demand, or at least in demand at a higher salary.  I have helped
    several women move from secretarial or clerical jobs into the computer
    field.  It is possible to raise up from clerical/administrative
    jobs into other higher-paying jobs - it may not be easy, but it
    is possible.
    
    Women have historically held lower-paying jobs than men, and it
    has certainly been at least partly due to sexism.  However, it is
    also true that women tend to go more often into jobs which are not
    in as much demand.  Don't fall into the trap -- get into another
    area.  When someone takes a job, they know in advance what the salary
    for that job is -- it doesn't make sense to me to take the job knowing
    the salary, and then complain that it doesn't pay enough.  Why take
    the job.
    
    Now before I get a whole bunch of heat, let me explain that I am
    a male who started out as a personnel clerk, then was an admin sec,
    and then because I was underpaid and had no future, I went into
    computers.  I know it can be done.  And I certainly want to encourage
    any (all) of you who want to do it too.  But do something constructive,
    don't just complain.
    
    Dirk

    Your point about supply and demand is generally well-taken, Dirk, but
    it does ignore one factor.  Generalising your experience in moving out
    of the clerical field ignores the same factor:  as a male, you were
    almost certainly seen as working "below yourself" in that field, which
    of course made your leaving it fully appropriate.  Since women working
    in that field are considered correctly employed, our attempts to move
    out of it tend to be resisted both overtly and covertly.  This
    resistance acts as a bottleneck and causes a large pool of women to be
    continuously available for these low-paying jobs (well it's take a
    clerical job or work at McDonalds or not eat, right?). So the system
    maintains itself by (as usual!) stigmatising its victims as unmotivated
    or incapable. 
    
    As someone put it so trenchantly:  "Equality isn't when a female
    Einstein makes Associate Professor, it's when a female schlemiel
    can do as well as a male schlemiel."
    
    					=maggie

    Hi, Margaret;
    
    I agree that women do have a harder time of it, but no one gave
    me my opportunities.  I had to create them for myself.  In my
    experience with DEC, I have observed that women have a fairly decent
    track record going for them (No, DEC isn't perfect, but it does
    seem to be trying.)  My point was that it can be done, and the
    individual must do it for themselves.
    
    As I indicated in my note:  I have seen several women move up, and
    I have helped a few.  My ex-wife had no skills when she entered the
    work force, so she started as clerical, but I taught her how to
    program, and she is now earning considerably more that I am.
    
    The major point I wish to make is that secretaries earn what they
    do because that's what the market requires.  Another point is that
    while secretaries are indeed an important cog in the wheels of
    productivity for their groups, it is also true that they are the
    most easily replaceable.  The skills are transferrable, so while
    a sec is very necessary, almost any secretary can be just as useful,
    while replacing the boss or one of the "technicians" would be a
    little more difficult.
    
    I am not trying to say discrimination does not exist (far from it),
    but don't blame the whole thing on discrimination either.  If your
    boss won't help you, then get a new boss.  The last 3 occupants
    of my group's secretarial chair are all working as wage class 4
    types now.  If you find instances of *real* discrimination fight
    it -- turn the sucker in to EEO.  But remember a lot of managers
    both male and female, are disinclined to help their subordinates
    climb the rungs - not because they are prejudiced, but just because
    they don't care or because they don't want to bother.

re: .11 -- "But do something constructive, don't just complain."

I have a pin on my office wall which reads, "The more you complain, the
longer God lets you live." As many people can attest, I'm going to live to
be a very old man.  

Complaining is great, but you have to do it to the right people.  If you
complain to this group, you'll get support; if you complain to your boss or
to personnel or to the compensation committee, you just might get some
changes at made Digital (of course, you might get into hot water, too); if
you complain to NOW or 9to5, you might get some publicity or more support or
suggestions as to what else to do; if you complain to your legislators, you
just might get some legislation created.

Yes, that sounds idealistic, but that's the only way to make changes.  If
enough people make enough noise, things happen.  

One thing that members of this notesfile could do besides lend support (and
flames) to each other is turn to the outside and try to effect some changes
based on the problems that are seen for women (in particular) at Digital.
If underpaid, undervalued employes make a lot of noise, they might be
ignored, but if the "really important" people join in, someone might listen.
Or the whole bunch will be fired.

    
    Re .11, you talk as though I started out in life at age 17,
    right out of high school in 1967, knowing as much about life
    as I do now when you say "when someone takes a job, they know
    in advance what the salary for that job is".  I had no idea then
    that clerical work was chronically low paid.  I also expected to
    marry and have children and didn't think that I would have to
    spend my whole life working.  I have had many rude, and some
    pleasant, awakenings since those innocent days.
    
    I have talked a lot to my 12 year old daughter about the mistakes
    I made when I was young.  I tell her that women now have to be
    like men in the sense that the top priority in life should be
    to get a good education, and then to have a high paying, interesting
    profession, so that she can support herself and never have to
    depend on a man.  Then, if she ever decides she wants to be with
    somebody just because she likes them - fine.  I grew up believing
    that the most important thing in life was to meet a man, fall in
    love, get married, and have kids.  I never thought anything about
    what I would do for a job.  I thought my husband would support me.
    Neither of my parents had gone to college.  My mother was a housewife.
    I was given no encouragement to further my education.  My parents
    had no money.  My father (who was 48 when I was born) had a heart
    attack when I was in high school and we lived on social security
    -
    he was over sixty by then.  All I could do was look for a job.
    Office work seemed preferable to waitressing or factory work (which
    I did do for awhile).  From the age of 17 to 23 my main concern
    in life was to find a husband.  I thought that once I got married,
    I wouldn't have to work anyway.  So I concentrated on getting married
    instead of getting a better job.  I got married at age 23 and was
    relatively happy for 7 years.  The last 5 1/2 years of my marriage
    were very unhappy - we had grown apart, nothing in common, fought
    all the time.  I really felt like I was "living a lie" as the saying
    goes.  For this 12 year period I didn't concentrate any energy into
    getting a better job.  I was concerned with my marriage, with raising
    my daughter, and finally I was at the last totally preoccupied with
    the fact that I was stuck in an unhappy marriage - wondering what
    to do about it.  I just didn't seem to have any energy left to direct
    towards advancing my career.  We had a house on land given to us
    by my mother, two cars, a daughter, and financially we weren't doing
    badly.  He was (and is) a software engineer at DEC and with my
    additional pay we were doing okay.  But, I was miserable because
    I didn't love him anymore and wanted to be free.  Last year I moved
    out.  I left him in the house (on the land from my mother), with
    our daughter (since he makes enough money to support her and wants
    to), took one car and left.  It wasn't easy.  I guess I'm just going
    through culture shock trying to live on my measly paycheck for the
    first time.  I miss my house and I miss living with my daughter
    (whom I see every week and talk to every day) but it's wonderful
    not to have to play the role of wife to someone I no longer love.
    Oh yes, and I miss his paycheck.  Do I ever miss his paycheck!
    But, not enough to go back.  So, now I am trying to figure out
    what to do with the rest of my life.  I hate being a secretary
    and the pay is lousy, but I don't know what I do want to do.
    Unfortunately, I have no interest in computers or technical things
    so that inhibits advancement at DEC.
    
    But, even if I do get a better job someday I still believe that
    everyone in America should be paid enough to live on.  By the way,
    I really can't see myself as a garbage collector.  And I'm not
    trying to complain,.11, I'm trying to share experiences with other
    women.
    
    The issue is not whether I can ever advance.  The issue is that
    the clerical workers of Digital and America do not earn enough
    money.  The main issue is that most men still earn way more money
    than most women!
    
    Lorna
    
    

    <--(.13)
    
    Dirk, I don't think I said or implied that anyone "gave [you your]
    opportunities".  What I said was that cultural perceptions operate
    on opportunities differently for males and females.  Most males
    tend to benefit from those differences, most females tend to be held
    back by them.
    
    					=maggie

    re 11 and 13 (?)
    
    A couple of points I'd like to make....  The Secretarial Profession
    has changed dramatically from what it was say 12 years ago when
    I began to now.  The typical secretary back then was required to
    type, have a pleasant voice, take good phone messages and make a good
    pot of coffee.  Today they want word processing (or the equivalent
    experience) and just recently we had a posting for a Sr. Sales
    Secretary and the req. was worded that they preferred a candidate
    with a 2-year college degree!  The job is demanding more now than
    it ever did and I don't thing wages have been adjusted to reflect
    that.
    
    Another thing that use to get on my nerves was never being considered
    a "professional".  A Secretary is every bit the professional that
    a manager or technical guru is.  If the term is used to differentiate
    between revenue persons and "overhead", I wish someone would come
    up with a better term.
    
    Finally, the biggest thing that bothers me about the Secretarial
    Profession is that I can think of no other profession that experience
    really doesn't matter.  For example, when I first began working
    at Digital, I had been a Secretary for over 9 years yet they brought
    me in at the bottom.  Sure, I had the choice not to take the job
    but I needed the job.  That's not the issue.  I'm saying that after
    9 years in any job I can think of, one is established, respected,
    and considered knowledgeable not to have to start at square one,
    peg one with a new company.   It's little things like these that
    when added together create the frustration.  This is not cutting
    Digital, it's thoughout the industry.  If anything, I experienced
    it less with DEC than anywhere else.
    
		Billie
    

        .17:
        
        "Professional" is definitely one of the more misused words.
        I usually take it to mean someone who's doing what they do
        as a primary life career... as opposed to a temporary or
        part-time sort of job.  In any case, omitting all secretaries
        (though some would certainly fit the category) seems a bit
        unfair.
        
        Strictly speaking, a professional is someone who gets paid for
        what they do.  As opposed to an amateur, who's basically doing
        it just for fun.  Hmmm... maybe one form of protest for
        secretaries and teachers is to start calling themselves
        amateurs, since they can't make a living from it...  maybe
        someone would catch on  :-)
        
        As for "revenue persons" versus "overhead", strictly speaking,
        the only groups in DEC which actually have revenue are the
        sales and support type of organizations, which get direct
        money from outside.  The rest of us are funded by that money,
        and so, effectively "overhead".  An engineer or a manager
        (arguably) might have a "more direct" impact on the company's
        revenue than a secretary or a maintenance person, but the
        impact of the latter groups are hardly inconsequential. 
        *I* sure wouldn't want to have to do the job of our group's
        secretary (or even just the stuff she does for me) as well
        as what I usually have to do.
        
        	/dave

        I tend to believe that our lives are what we make them, and that
        if we concentrate on how others are holding us back or on
        pleasing other people, we have surrendered our fates into their
        hands. I don't deny that women are starting from a poor position
        now, that they have pressures on them and biases against them
        that men do not share as strongly. On the other hand, I've seen
        many women who seem to be at least as held back by their belief
        that they can't win, as by they were by the forces that were
        against them. 
        
        My intent in this is not to criticize anyone or to disparage any
        claims, but rather to encourage everyone to succeed. I really
        believe that the game is not as badly stacked against you as
        some would believe. With the right attitude and support, I feel
        that each of us can win.
        
        I've been thinking about the career paths of the secretaries
        I've known in the last 6 or so years, and I think that they
        indicate that secretaries who want to move into salaried and
        so-called "professional" positions can. 
        
        Exclusive of our group's current secretary (who just moved into
        that job from receptionist), only one of my last 7 secretaries
        is still a secretary. She's an "old school" secretary--the kind
        of dedicated professional that any manager would kill for. Of
        the remaining 5, two are engineers in our group, one is now a
        technician in our group, and two moved on to non-secretarial
        administrative/managerial positions with other groups.
        
        Now this is probably a higher ratio of successfully upward-
        mobile secretaries than is necessarily typical, but it would
        seem to indicate that at least in some environments, you can win
        here at DEC.
        
        Perhaps one reason for this is the enlightened attitude that DEC
        takes towards its engineers. DEC is not very strict about having
        the credentials of an engineer as compared to the skills of an
        engineer. I know that I couldn't have risen as quickly in most
        companies as I was able to here with a liberal arts degree and 2
        or 3 computer science courses. That kind of an environment gives
        rise to a higher proportion of people willing to be supportive
        of others with aspirations, and provides more open doors.
        
        Hang in there. It won't be easy, but there are a lot of people
        around here who are willing to lend a helping hand (or get out
        of the way).
        
        JimB. 

    You're quite right, Jim, many of us have indeed internalised all
    the "girls can't..." stuff we grew up with.  Combined with the (still)
    frequently-heard "women can't..." messages, we do indeed tend not
    to strive even in situations where our striving would be rewarded.
    "Learned helplessness", well-documented.  Pernicious.
    
    					=maggie

    In re .0:
    
    Yes, there was a one day work stoppage in Iceland. However, it is
    interesting to notice that the Prime Minister of that country (who
    is a woman) did not participate.
    
    		bob wyman

    A couple of points come to mind.
    
    1	Why should secretaries have to move jobs so that they can get
    a decent wage or a rewarding job? If all people got reasonable wages
    no matter if they had a "better" job or not, then I'm sure that
    there would not be the social stigma of the so-called "lower" jobs.
    
    2   The fact that the female Prime Minister of Iceland didn't
    participate in the stoppage is not that unusual. I have seen quite
    a few females who have "made it to the top", who then start to act
    just like the men that they used to criticise before their promotions.
    
    - michael (making his first contribution to the conference)

    Could it be that the position of secretary is viewed as an entry
    level position forever?  A poor analogy is a fast-food worker at
    McDonald's.  There's always going to be enough 16-year old kids
    to do that thankless job, but they're not expected to grow up to
    be 30 years and still working the grill.  Perhaps it is expected
    that women will come in as secretaries and when they leave for a
    better career, they will be replaced by the next wave of displaced
    homemakers, newly single moms, etc.  Comments?
    

>  Perhaps it is expected that women will come in as secretaries and when they
>  leave for a better career, they will be replaced by the next wave of
>  displaced homemakers, newly single moms, etc.  Comments?

I think that if secretaries were really expected to move on, there would be
better-defined paths and more support for doing so.  I have seen a few
secretaries at Digital move into wage class 4 jobs and it seemed to take an
incredible amount of energy, concentration and perseverance to do it.  I
have also seen others balk at doing it because they had no support or
guidance from their management.

....Margaret

    Also if secretaries did consistantly move on it would create a 
    shortage of trained secretaries forcing businesses to raise their
    salaries to get/keep them - which obviously isn't happening.

    re .25:
    
>  Perhaps it is expected that women will come in as secretaries and when they
>  leave for a better career, they will be replaced by the next wave of
>  displaced homemakers, newly single moms, etc.  Comments?

    I think that until recently the philosophy was:
    
>  Perhaps it is expected that women will come in as secretaries and when they
>  leave TO GET MARRIED, they will be replaced by the next wave of
>  YOUNG LADIES IN WAITING.
    
    Corporate America has not caught up to the fact that secretaries
    are no longer working in order to pass the time until they find
    a man, get married, and have kids. That is why there are no career
    paths from secretary to higher levels.
    
    inertia is a powerful force.
    
    sm

        .27: I think you hit the proverbial nail on the head.  Only
        I'll bet the people maintaining the inertia would laugh if
        you suggested it to them.  Until they stopped to think about
        it some (if they bothered).
        
        Inertia, unfortunately, (particularly "psychological inertia")
        is a very powerful force.
        
        It's not just secretaries, though... society at large is
        just barely getting over the concept that *all* women in
        jobs are just marking their time til they get married, or
        til they have a baby.
        
        Reminds me of my wife's parents.  They were both "software
        engineers" (I suspect this was long before that term came into
        use) when they met.  The only way they could protect her from
        being fired outright when they married was to avoid telling
        anyone about it.  They stayed "single" until after she got
        pregnant and could no longer hide the fact.  This is made worse
        by the fact that from all we hear, she had made really excellent
        grades in school, and was a real hot-shot programmer; while he
        was barely mediocre (perhaps luckily for us, by the time he
        moved to Digital he was in management :-)).  When you consider
        stories like that, things really *have* improved quite a bit.
        When a woman around here gets pregnant, the only (vocalized)
        question is "how soon can you come back to work: we need you!" 
        
        	/dave

    At least in the USA, the sexism isn't quite as blatant and public as
    it used to be... It may still go on but at least it's been made
    known that it's a behaviour that is socially and legally unacceptable.
    
    The situation is different over here in France. For instance: I
    recently had a senior manager on this site (Valbonne) complain to me
    that there weren't enough "sterile" women available in the marketplace.
    This was part of a justification for why we shouldn't hire a "young"
    woman for a position that's open here. Of course, you're expected to
    grin and bear it when people say assinine things like that over here...
    The thing that really irritated me was that the speaker was an American
    ex-patriate. If he said that sort of stuff in the US he'd be in a
    courtroom before long... 
    
    		bob wyman
    

    Re .28:
    
    You mention that when a women in the office gets pregnant now,
    the only response she gets is "when are you coming back?; we need
    you."  Not true!  What I've heard from the majority of men is "ARE
    you coming back?"  And when I say "yes," they say either "WHY?"
    (incredulously) or "That's what you say now..."  My answers have
    ranged from initially explaining, to "Why did YOU go back when YOUR
    kids were born" (usually gets "I had no choice; I'd stay home and
    have someone support me if I could." ha.), to "Why NOT?" to "None
    of your business." (towards the end now).  
    
    I don't "have" to work.  We could survive--comfortably in fact,
    though not in the manner to which we've grown accustomed--if I didn't
    work.  But HE doesn't "have" to work either.  We could also live
    on just my salary.  But not one person has asked him if he plans
    to quit or take time off.  And certainly no one asks WHY he is going
    to continue to work if he doesn't "have to."
                     
    Sorry for flaming but it just seems like some people-- whether you
    know them well or not--take a growing belly as license to interrogate
    you about the way you live your life.
    
    -Tracy