Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    So, go for it, Mike!
    
    I want to hear your ideas, really.
    
    Pam

    I seem to have missed something ... would someone point me in the
    direction of the note that contained the statistics under
    discussion?
    
    Thanks.
    nla
    

    	RE: .7  Mike Z.
    
    	124.37>White males still fill an exceptionally disproportionate number 
    	124.37>of the best-paying jobs in our country, so in what way have the 
    	124.37>scales tipped far enough to give minorities the "heavier" side??

	> I questioned the reasoning behind it, pointing out that if it
    	> was based on ethnic or gender profiles of the community, the claim
    	> was unsubstantiated, the statistics quite meaningless.
    
    	Obviously, you aren't trying to question the fact that there are
    	more white males filling the "best-paying jobs in our country" than
    	any other group, so it isn't the suggestion of a "statistic" that
    	you are trying to challenge here.
    
    	You seem to disagree that the over-representation of white males 
    	in the highest paying jobs is "disproportionate" (read: unfair) in 
    	some way.  
    
    	Evidently, you believe that the number of white males in these 
    	positions is the result of an unbiased hiring process.
    
    	Is anyone supposed to be surprised that you hold this opinion, or
    	what?

    Ah, thank you.  I thought I'd been working too hard and become
    totally brain dead.
    
    But I just have trouble equating "a claim" and "statistics."
    I see no statistics in 124.37, not even any obvious implication.
    I see a simple statement that white males still hold most of the
    best-paying jobs in our country.  (I figured it was based on a
    simple tally; obviously, you figured differently.)
    
    I think you've started an entirely new discussion--prompted by
    that remark but not very closely related to it.  Comparing the
    profile of the work force to the profile of the community (does
    this model account for commuters?) is indeed an interesting
    proposal.  Easy enough to do in terms of age, gender, education,
    I suppose, but difficult in terms of desires and all the other
    all-too-subjective variables we can think of.  You're right--a
    profile comparison as you've described it is indeed flawed.
    
    Funny enough, in .6 you've restated and redefined Pam's question
    too.  You keep changing the subject, subtly, but there it is.
    
    I hardly know what concern to address.
    
    I think maybe I *am* brain dead today. 8*)
    
    nla
    
    

    Puhlease...I can look around the office, read the newspaper, financial
    rags, and watch the business news; women and racial minorities are
    **virtually** invisible.  You can have the statistics; I'll use reality
    for my documentation.
    
    annie  

Figure 1 - US Dept of Labor Statistics, March 1982

Job			Males		Females	    % Female   Hourly Wage

Air conditioning	166,000		  1,000		 0.6	8.37
appliance repair	 90,000		  5,000		 5.2	7.88
auto mechanics		808,000		  6,000		 0.7	7.13
auto body and fender	136,000		  1,000		 0.7	7.38
carpentry		689,000		 10,000		 1.4	8.13
electrical		589,000		 10,000		 1.7	10.48
masonry			 87,000		      0		 0	10.00
plumbing, pipefitting	376,000		      0		 0	 9.43
paint, construc, maint	248,000		 10,000		 3.9	 6.87
electric power, cable	121,000		  1,000		 0.8	10.23
welders			643,000		 35,000		 5.2	 8.35
radio/TV repairs	 80,000		  4,000		 4.3	 8.40

childcare workers	 11,000		 72,000		86.7	 3.78
clothing mfg/textiles	 24,000		710,000		96.7	 3.93
cosmetology		 29,000		163,000		85.3	 4.48
dental assistants	  3,000		 95,000		97.9	 4.58
filing clerks		 37,000		192,000		83.5	 4.80
food service workers	 76,000		163,000		68.2	 4.12
practical nurse		  6,000		256,000		97.3	 5.68
bank teller		 28,000		436,000		94.0	 4.73
typists			 29,000		772,000		96.4	 5.33

--------------------------------------------------------
Figure 2 -
percentages and wages from US bureau of labor statistics 1982

Occupation		% female	Average Weekly Salary

Electrical Eng. Techs	 9.7		$660
Secretaries		99.3		$370
Drafters		18.0		$500
Child care workers	86.0		$250
Carpenters		 1.5		$450
Cashiers		85.0		$240
Practical nurses	97.4		$307
Plumbers, pipefitters	 1.0		$520
Hairdressers, cosmetol. 85.0		$280
Machinists		 3.6		$460


    Is that a good start for statistics?  And I really don't think the
    industries have changed rapidly enough to eradicate a majority of the
    differential.
    
    -Jody
    
    
    

    
    mikez:
    
    I see your point.  Stating that "males hold a higher proportion of the
    best jobs", while true, doesn't clearly state the issue, from the
    hiring perspective.  It seems that our laws think that the entire
    problem with dissproportionate job allocation has to do with the
    hiring/firing process.  I would propose that the problem happens alot
    earlier than that.  I recently had to go through about 200
    applications.  I remember seeing 5 or 10 women's names on the
    applications.  In the group of engineers that I work in I am the only
    woman out of 8 people.  That makes 1/8 female.  10 women's names out of
    200 names makes 1/20 female.  Granted that's personal experience and
    some names are not easily identified as female.  Still very few women
    applied for the job and none were qualified.
    
    I think that the problem is with our society's attitude about what a
    woman can and cannot do.  (Think about what proportion of secretaries
    are male?  Are our hiring practices at fault or does society say that's
    a 'woman's job?)  How many women are encouraged to enjoy math and
    science?  How many little girls are told they should be doctors?
    How many are told they should be nurses?
    
    Heck, even in my family, when my Mom refer's to "that engineering
    mentality" she means the analytical, male mentality.  After years of
    correcting her, ("Mom, I'm an engineer"), she still hasn't changed.
    
    (By the way, I've said nothing about the promotion of women.  That's an
    entirely different subject.)
    
    
    Rachael
    

    Thanks Jody.

    re .13 (which I wrote)
    In retrospect the "puhlease" was probably inappropriate.  I'm feeling
    very sensitive about the entire "who gets the jobs" issue right now;
    probably should have waited awhile to add my pennys' worth.
    
    annie

    
    Re: the statistics
    
    Very true but what is the cause? I find it interesting that several
    subjects previous to this one is a woman asking for suggestions because
    she's making more money than her husband and that is upseting their
    marriage.  I wonder it that influences a woman's career choices, among
    other things.
    
    I agree that there are people who would prefer to hire white males into
    any high-paying position.  However, at my old company we were forced to
    hire our one and only black applicant because of his skin color.  I had
    recommended against hiring him because he said he didn't like
    computers.  (Most good engineers like computers.)  Our human resources
    department told us to "reconsider our decision, keeping in mind that we
    didn't have any black people working at our company and we were bidding
    on government contracts."  The man had also lied on his application. 
    Low and behold 6 months after taking the job the man quit, (after
    working and average of 30 hours per week), to go be a missionary in
    Africa.  I am sure that this man is the exception to the rule but I was
    furious!  I was forced to work my tail off to compensate for his lack
    of work.  And all because we didn't have the right numbers?  
     
    
    Also, when I got out of college, I had lots of interviews and serveral
    job offers.  I was told by my male colleages that I had gotten those
    offers because I was a woman.  I set them straight but I realized that
    they really believed that I wasn't qualified.  By giving us an
    'advantage' these laws are actually taking away our ability to say "I
    got that job because I was the BEST person for the job."  (Even if it's
    true.)
    
    Rachael
    

    Fine, Mike.  Get us the most recent statistics.  Type them in.
    
    							Ann B.

    
    Common Mike.  You must admit that men hold a most of the higher paying
    jobs.  How many couples do you know where the woman makes more than the
    man?  I know of one, me & my husband.  That's out of dozens of couples
    from ages 20-40.  How it got to be that way is a separate agrument.
    
    Rachael
    

    re: .23
>	I can see that, and if that (or something else) is the problem,
>    then let's examine it with something solid and meaningful, preferably
>    (for me, being from a science background) with data, data closely
>    related to the actions under scrutiny.

    Our opinions here, and our experiences, and the things we have seen and
    done and watched and mentally made notes of are not solid and
    meaningful data closely related to the actions under scrutiny (i.e.
    women/men populations in the workforce)?
    
>	Looking at the workforce to analyze a problem with access to the
>    necessary education doesn't tell you much, if anything, about the
>    problem or a solution.
    
    Now wait a minute.  Earlier in this topic you wanted statistics on
    workforce populations.  I put some in.  You say they're too old to be
    valid.  Now you tell us they won't help us if the problem is with
    access to education, so we need those statistics too?  Tell you what. 
    Since our input doesn't seem to be satisfactory, please enter something
    you feel is satisfactory, and then you will have proved
    something-or-other.  Yes?
    
    -Jody
    
    

    
    I dont think that anyone is saying that "men still fill ALL the better
    jobs".  I personally think that men do fill most of the higher paying,
    (note not "better"), jobs relative to women.  I think the issue
    acutally being argued about here is How Did It Get That Way?  I think
    some people think it's mostly or entirely a hiring/firing bias.  You
    think it's an education bias.  I think it's millions of biases that
    children run into every day.  Some of those biased sources are men
    and some are women.  (When I tell my 6 year old, female cousin to grow
    up and be a scientist or doctor, her mother tells her to grow up and
    marry a rich man!)
    
    Have I defined the argument correctly, people?
    
    Rachael
    

    To refresh your memory, Mike, the passage you quoted in order to
    start this note was:
    
    "White males still fill an exceptionally disproportionate number of
    the best-paying jobs in our country..."
    
    This is markedly diiferent from the "men still fill all the better
    jobs".  Please don't misquote other people; it makes you look bad.
    
    						Ann B.

    There's lies, there's Damn lies, then there's statistics--
    Mark Twain.
    
    This one I'm sure of.
    fred();

    re: .4, .5 mike z.
    Thanks for answering my questions.  Regarding .4, I still disagree that
    profile comparisons are "worthless."  
    
    I agree that they are not ENOUGH; but I don't think that means that
    they're worthless.  You can definitely see that there is a difference
    in which jobs men do and which jobs women do and how much each gets
    paid.  We could go on forever about *why* certain jobs men tend to do
    get paid more than certain jobs women tend to do get paid, and whether
    THAT'S fair, and I'm reasonably sure the words "market worth" and
    "degree of physical danger" will come into it.
    
    What I'm more interested in, though, is if you would find CONTROLLED
    studies of interest.  I think some have been reported in this file. 
    Studies like the one that showed that taller people tend to get more
    job offers and higher initial salaries than shorter people; studies
    like ones that show that women and minorities at a particular job level
    tend to be *better* qualified than white men at that same job level.
    How about studies showing that people (children, women, men, college
    students, etc.) ALL tend to think more highly of a paper written "by a
    man" than a paper written "by a women" -- even if it is EXACTLY the
    same paper.  And so on.
    
    As I remember, some men in this file have pooh-poohed studies like
    these every time they come up.  Yet they were controlled in terms of
    variables, had large sample sizes, and STILL found a bias!  Why don't
    you believe them?  Why *assume* that society is unbiased toward women
    and that we are incorrect to think that things are more difficult for
    us?
    
    To me, it is truly meaningless to conduct studies showing how many men
    want to be hairdressers.  Societal pressure is strong for men, too.
    
    About .5, same thing.  Those studies HAVE been done and have shown
    consistent biases against women and minorities in hiring.  Nobody is
    saying anything about whether it's deliberate or not; in fact, my
    opinion is that it's probably NOT deliberate in a lot of cases.  Again,
    societal pressure.  The real question is:  why do we continue to have
    this negative societal pressure, and how can we combat it?  
    
    In any case, Suzanne's original comment was that white men are
    "disproportionately" represented in the top-paying jobs.  Suppose you
    look at the business world.  I think that's easily enough supported by
    eyeballing any random sample of financial reports.  No fancy statistics
    are necessary.  Women are more-or-less invisible at the highest levels
    in the corporate world.  That is not due to lack of ability.  That is
    not due to lack of interest.  It's something else.
    
    A case in point.  My uncle and his wife started a publishing business
    *together* about 15 years ago.  It has done extremely well.  He does
    the editorial/business end; she does the computer/administration end.
    Their company was recently profiled by Forbes magazine; the entire
    article was written as though he ALONE started it.  She didn't get
    credit for being an co-entrepreneur.  Why?  Reading magazines and
    newspapers, we are all SURROUNDED by images of the successful male
    (he's an achiever), even when the reality of it is that women can be
    successful, too.  (it's just a secret, shhhh)  
    
    I've gotten off the track of statistics slightly, but I'm sure you see
    my point:  yes, comparing profiles is limited.  But I think comparing
    "desires of community segments" is limited, too, because the "desires
    of community segments" have been shaped and molded by the same society
    that says women are adornments and men are strong providers.
    
    More ideas? !
    
    Pam

    Okay, some statistics.  These will no doubt be discounted because the
    sampling is small, but what the heck.
    
    In the office I work in there are:
    4 strategic sales account managers; 3 white males, 1 black male
    3 unit managers; all white males
    4 software account support specialists; all white males
    1 branch logistics coordinator, white male
    17 customer services engineers; 2 black males, 2 white females, 13
    white males (both of the females and one of the black males are at the
    lower-pay end of the technical scale)
    6 sales reps- 1 black male, 2 white females, 3 white males
    2 sales trainees, 1 black male, 1 white male
    1 technical writer, white female
    3 secretaries, all white females               
    
    3 administrators, 2 white females, 1 white male
    1 receptionist, white female
    
    Strategic account managers, unit managers, sales reps, sales
    support specialists and the engineers at the higher end of the scale
    are absolutely the highest paid of the bunch.  All of the strategic
    account managers are college graduates; so are all of the
    secretaries.
    
    I believe this to be very representative and that breakdowns of units
    or offices or whatever organizational structure that show something
    different would be the exception, not the rule.
    
    I also wonder if geography plays a major role?  The only time I've
    spent with DEC outside of Southern Area was in training in Bedford. 
    Perhaps the picture is different there.  I have spent time in our Area
    and District offices and don't see much difference.

    .12  Well you did write "I look at the question from a different
         side."  Your method for determining fair representation is
         to determine that there is no hiring or firing bias.
    
         Again, I just disagree with you.  I don't equate representation
         with hiring/firing bias.  To me, representation, whether it be
         judged fair or unfair, is the result of past actions and
         societal influences, and current hiring/firing bias has little
         to do with it.
    
         nla

    "All the news that fits, they print." -- Hugh Downs

    And, re statistics:
    
    	Some people use statistics the way a drunk uses a lamp post,
    	more for support than for illumination.
    
    :)
    
    aq
    

    	RE: .29  Mike Z.
    
    	> What I want to convey are the myriad of ways that statistics
    	> are used to distort reality, and the ways they are incorrectly
    	> interpreted and extrapolated to arrive at conclusions, both false
    	> and true.
    
    	The problem is - my original remark (which sparked this controversy)
    	didn't mention any specific statistics!!!  You speculated about the
    	extended meaning of my words and what statistics I *MIGHT* have used 
    	to write them, then you discredited both the meaning you READ INTO
    	my words *and* the statistics YOU decided I must have been using.
    
    	And you accused me of telling YOU what you think and feel in this
    	topic.  Ha!
    
    	When I wrote that "white males still fill an exceptionally dispropor-
    	tionate number of the best-paying jobs in our country," I wasn't using
    	the word "FILL" to mean "HIRING TODAY" (exclusively.)
    
    	I used "FILL" as a synonym of "HOLD" - "white men still HOLD an 
    	exceptionally disproportionate number of the best-paying jobs in
    	our country" (which is well-known and doesn't need substantiation,
    	beyond reports such as the one Jody provided earlier.)
    
    	> I suppose that is not obvious, given how this has taken off down
    	> a narrow street, addressing just one claim.  
    
    	I'm absolutely mystified about why you would want to launch a
    	demonstration about the distortion of statistics using a remark
    	that didn't even *mention* statistics as the basis for your topic.
    
    	> Sorry about that.
    
    	Apology accepted.  Just don't let it happen again.  ;^)

    
    	One of the main reasons I dis-trust alot of statistical
    	studies is because the results aren't often what the
    	study showed. Sure they might have done the study and
    	it might even be valid, but the reporting afterwards
    	alot of times takes on the axe the author wants to grind.
    	HCI did a report based on studies done by the dept. of
    	Justice and in pushing for more controls on guns issued
    	a report claiming MOST murders were caused by guns. In
    	the report they said "a full 30% of all murders were
    	committed with guns, and only 10% were by such means as
    	rocks, baseball bats, fists, bottles, posion, electrocution,
    	etc.". What they were trying to do is point out that one
    	cause had 30%, while many, many others only made up 10%,
    	therefore it was justified to corrolate that guns were the
    	cause of most violent crimes. One may have read the above and
    	may be thinking, sure, seems valid to me. What they did leave
    	out was that the remaining 60% was also by a single cause, that
    	being knives. Now, does their above claim still seem as valid?
    	Not to me it don't, yet might have if I hadn't also heard about
    	the larger single cause.
    
    	G_B

    In .34 I did say **discounted**, not ignored...I'm still interested in 
    knowing if my breakdown of who has the best paying jobs in THIS office
    is typical or the exception, and whether anyone has any data indicating 
    that geography is a significant factor. 

    All the studies I've read about taller people being better paid for
    doing the same jobs as shorter people were studies of MEN.  I like
    being a tall woman, but I think it may even be a disadvantage
    monetarily to be much taller than average if you are a woman, while a
    taller than average man is perceived to be more powerful.
    
    /Charlotte (just under 6')

    Well, hey, Mike and G_B, I distrust statistics, too!  I MAJORED in
    Psychology and am well-trained in statistics (both theoretical and
    applied) and experimental design.  Used cautiously, statistics can shed
    light.  Raw data is useful to know where to start looking; controlled
    studies are more useful if you have a broad framework.
    
    Statistics are flawed and you have to examine them carefully.  But the
    person examining the statistics has to examine THEMSELVES to find out
    if they are finding fault with the statistical method so that they
    don't have to accept the results, agreed? I have noticed that it seems
    to be systematic that the only studies that are studied CLOSELY here
    are the ones that seem to find biases against women. 
    
    For your information, Mike, the study regarding height being a factor
    can be looked at as more than "aesthetics".  They were all business
    school graduates applying for jobs.  (No other factor -- and they
    looked at age, sex, previous experience, family background, school
    reputation, income, color -- correlated so strongly with the difference
    except height.)  The average woman is three inches shorter than the
    average man.  If people subconsciously believe taller people know more
    and are better at leading, this is a _factor_ for women's advancement
    prospects.
    
    The study regarding women and minorities being better qualified in a
    particular job level looked at job skills, education, and years of
    experience, as far as I remember (someone posted it in the file, I
    think).  Why don't you remember those details?  Why do they slip your
    mind?  I'm not trying to needle you or antagonize you, just trying to
    make you see how you are reading things selectively.  The jobs were
    supervisory/management, so physical qualifications were irrelevant.
    
    What about the study that reported scales of domestic violence (1-8),
    with severe violence defined as levels 4-8 (hitting, beating up,
    murder, and one more).  It was broken down into male and female
    perpetrators.  The findings were surprising to me, in that more
    incidents per year were reported for women, including severe violence. 
    How come these statistical findings were not questioned sharply by you,
    Mike?  For instance, 
    1. Other studies have shown that women who murder their husbands are
       most frequently doing so to escape years of beating by their husbands. 
       _Reasons_ for murders are important and can skew the raw numbers here. 
       This study didn't go into WHY severe violence was committed.
    2. How come hitting (which could be a single blow) is put into the
       same severe violence category as beating up, which is usually
       multiple blows and may need a hospital visit?  Couldn't it be true
       that the mindset that hits one blow is different than the mindset 
       that hits multiple blows?  Do women beat up husbands as often as men
       beat up wives (to the hospital point)? 
    3. Did they look at numbers of violent relationships per person?
       For instance, I can think of three people in this file (two women
       and one man) who were victims of domestic violence and whose subsequent
       relationships were not violent.  The two women's exs HAVE had 
       subsequent violent relationships.  Is this different for violent men
       and for violent women?  Or is it the same?  Do violent women who 
       murder their husbands go on to beat up and murder their next
       husbands?  Is this the same or different than violent men who murder
       their wives?  Is the pattern of violence more "chronic" for one sex?
    I don't know the answers.  I worked for two summers cataloging books
    (and reading voraciously) for the National Criminal Justice Referral
    Service, and I still don't know.  But this study seems to have escaped
    skeptical questioning, whereas other studies are disbelieved instantly and
    given a workover.  I just want you to ask yourself why...
    
    Pam 

    re: .44 Charlotte
    
    Hmm, interesting.  The study I read looked at sex as a factor, so it
    wasn't just men.  I wish I could remember where I read it...
    
    Pam

    I found the study Mike Z. put in to be bothersome at several levels.
    First, it sounded like that study which "demonstrated" that cartoons
    were more violent than even the bloodiest live action shows.
    Second, I found it surprising and (in the long run) suspicious that
    the study drew its distinctions without any reference to the laws
    on assault and battery.  Third, the order bothered me.  Allegedly
    attempting to hit someone and failing is very violent?  Throwing a
    paperback at someone is the same as throwing a knife or wrench at
    that person?  Grabbing someone by the hand and asking them not to
    leave is the same as grabbing them by the arm and threatening to break
    it?  Grabbing someone by the throat and throttling them is not very violent?
    
    Any ranking which makes it possible for Person A to murder Person B
    without being considered very violent, while Person C can fail to so
    much as touch Person D and still be labeled as very violent is a
    ranking I find deeply suspicious.
    
    						Ann B.

    re: .47 Ann B.
    
    Yes, it looks fair, but the "results" of violence are not reported.
    
    For instance, "hitting by men and by women" is counted.  "Number of
    broken jaws caused by men and caused by women" is not counted.
    
    It's just kind of hard to judge true relative levels of violence with
    what was given.  But most of the men who commented on the study assumed
    it "proved" women were more violent than men; women who questioned the
    study were considered to be not facing facts.
    
    Pam

    re: .50 mike z
    
    I don't know what you mean by saying "women can be more violent, yet
    cause less damage."
    
    What is "violent"?  What is "more"?
    
    Numbers of violent acts regardless of degree?
    Degree of violence per violent act?
    Chronic-ness of violence?
    Violence instigated and violence in self-defense equally?
    
    Since I define "being violent" as a combination of these things, I
    would have to say that I disagree.  I don't think you can separate
    damage from violence, or say that "more" violence is only numbers of
    violent incidents.  The question as posed makes no sense to me.
    
    
    So, lemme get this straight:  you posted a study that looked OK to you
    in terms of sample size and basic definitions, but that you had doubts
    about.  You didn't repeat your misgivings about the study in this file
    when you posted it.  This study and its conclusions contradict the bulk
    of *my* knowledge on the subject of domestic violence (based on the
    extensive reading of books, statistical reports, and personal accounts
    of people I know).  Do you think the flaws that I and Ann B. pointed
    out weaken the study's findings in any way?  Why or why not?
    
    Pam

    Do lets be accurate...
    
    > So, lemme get this straight:  you posted a study that looked OK to you
    > in terms of sample size and basic definitions, but that you had doubts
    > about.  You didn't repeat your misgivings about the study in this file
    > when you posted it.  
    
    Mike RE-posted the notes that someone else (Russ Pollitz, if memory
    serves) had posted in the domestic violence string in mennotes.  The
    transcription wasn't originally his (I think he made this clear at the
    time, by indicating he had the original author's permission to repost.)
    
    DougO

    re: .54 mike z
    Great, thanks.
    
    I think the flaws you pointed out in the employment surveys are valid. 
    HOWEVER, before you start crowing about how progress has been achieved,
    I will also say that I think the flaws you pointed out have their own
    flaws.  You agreed to that yourself.
    
    The problem is that both statistics and analyisis of statistics can be
    too simplistic.  Forgive me, Mike, but I think doing surveys to find
    out how many women want to be construction workers and how many men
    want to be hairdressers and whether that reflects the proportion of the
    sexes represented is COMPLETELY simplistic and COMPLETELY ignores the
    root problems, which is societal conditioning into stereotypes.
    
    I was raised to think of myself as a nurse, not a doctor.  You were
    raised to think of yourself as a doctor, not a nurse.  Don't you think
    that will have an effect on what subjects we choose to study and how
    well we think we'll do in those subjects?  
    
    So, yes.  As nla (right?!) pointed out, frequently women and minorities
    don't even apply to certain jobs, so how can there be discrimination in
    hiring?  Education, it's true.  Lack of role models from the media,
    it's true.  But FIRST you have to KNOW that not a lot of women and
    minorities apply, and you get that knowledge from statistics.  After
    you get the facts you can start picking apart the WHY; and you can go
    back and ask the facts in a different way once you start to understand
    why.  So I say raw data -- theory -- controlled study -- check theory
    -- controlled study -- check theory -- check against new raw data...
    Very little is "worthless" if you ask the right questions about it.
    
    Pam

    re: .56 mike z
    
    Well, hairdressing/construction was your example, and I didn't really
    have a question about it...  I see your point, but I was making a
    slightly different one.  
    
    My point was that you can't look at one question without looking at the
    other question.  They are interrelated, because BOTH are based on
    societal conditioning.  Women don't get hired and don't get promotions
    *sometimes* because they are women, and the person hiring/promoting has
    been socialized into thinking less of women in general.  Women don't
    become interested in certain professions *sometimes* because they have
    been trained since birth not to want to go into those professions. 
    Ditto for men.  (ODD, though, how the mostly female professions are 
    usually paid less than the mostly male professions, hmm?!)
    
    So asking a point-blank question:  do you want to be a plumber?  isn't
    really a question that's going to give a meaningful answer to the
    question of WHY job discrimination exists.  I think it's been
    established, up, down, and sideways, that it exists ... we're now onto
    WHY and HOW TO COMBAT, in my opinion.
    
    OK:  more statistics, from an article abstract I just got in the mail:
    
                            INSIDE INFORMATION
                            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
       ISSUE NO. 165                                MAY 23, 1990
    "Careers under glass"
    Charlene Marmer Solomon
    PERSONNEL JOURNAL  April 90  p. 96-105
    ".... The facts prove that the number of women and minorities in
    the work force has increased, although they still aren't being promoted
    to the management ranks proportionately.  Only 20% of top executives
    are women, and female vice presidents earn 42% less than men in the
    same jobs.  ... Glass ceilings exist for many reasons, for example:
    tradition, old-fashioned stereotypes, lack of acceptance or lack of key
    assignments.  Breaking the barriers is a complex and multi-faceted
    issue, and because organizations deal with individuals, there is no one
    answer or universal approach that will work for all companies.  
    [HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MINORITIES, WOMEN, PERSONNEL]  900515
    
    Pam

    Pam,
    
    Gee, you could have remarked upon the fabulous coincidence that,
    while most hairdressers are women, most owners of hairdressing
    salons are men.
    
    						Ann B.

    re: .58 Ann B.
    
    Yes, and the equally fabulous coincidence that once a profession
    becomes dominated by women it becomes 1) less valued and 2) less
    well-paid.  The well-known example of the jobs of secretary and typist,
    for instance, which used to be highly regarded clerical jobs for men.
    
    As Arsenio says:  "HMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!"
    
    Pam

    But have you heard what nurses (still a predominantly female
    occupation) are making, at least in the Greater Boston area?
    
    A few weeks ago, there were reports that some nurses at Boston
    City Hospital, albeit with overtime, were making around $90,000
    per year.
    
    Funny how some people who live around here, chose to ignore that
    statistic in another string.
    
      Alan

    I haven't heard about it, Alan, and considering what I know of the
    profession I'm *extremely* surprised and suspicious.  Could we have
    more details please?

    For working overtime at Boston City hospital, one should be paid
    at least $200,000. For example, you would need to pay for
    psychotherapy to deal working without supplies; being mugged
    on the way to work; coming out at midnight and finding your
    car gone; surviving the experience of working with people who 
    have so many problems that anything you do is only a band-aid 
    in comparison to their needs. And this is only the tip of the
    iceberg, from one who worked at Boston City hospital (and 
    didn't get paid $90,000).

    Actually, the news report was talking about the demand for nurses in
    emergency care vs the supply of nurses (extremely scarce) willing to
    work there. BCH was one hospital cited for extreme nursing shortages,
    especially in the emergency room.  The result is often a tremendous
    amount of overtime for nurses working there. One example was a nurse
    who worked a total of $41,000 in overtime last year, making her annual
    salary a total of $91,000. They gave 2-3 other examples, and the annual
    pay was in excess of $60K.
    
    I heard this on one of the Boston radio stations; did not see it
    written up in the paper.
    

    re: .60 Alan
    
    Aha, the exception that PROVES THE RULE!  :-)  
    
    (joke)
    
    But didn't the nurses around here just make significant union demands
    recently?  And which nurses?  Nurses on HIV+ wards?  Operating room
    nurses (open heart surgery)?  How much does the _average_ geriatric
    ward nurse make?  What's the starting salary?   
    
    And don't some police officers (a male-dominated profession) make about
    that amount of money with overtime assistance?  
    
    I'm not questioning that some nurses make a lot of money, just trying
    to find out whether the dig you made at the end of your note is really
    justified...
    
    Pam

    Now wait a minute - if they honestly earned half their salary in
    overtime - and it's a very stressful job - does that mean they should
    be paid less because of the high cost of medical care?
    
    -Jody
    

    Yes, Mark, that's what we're lamenting:  Women are paid less than
    men; women's jobs pay less than men's jobs.  Of course, you might
    be taking a more cynical stance:  Some men (like doctors) are
    grossly overpaid; they should only be paid what women are paid.
    
    						Ann B.

    
    
    So, Mike and Mark,
    
    Are you saying that:
    
    1. The only or primary reason that women are paid quite a bit less than 
       men when doing similar work is that women have less experience
       and/or are less highly skilled than their higher-paid male
       counterparts?       
    
    2. The only or primary reason that work that women do is paid
       significantly less than work that men do is that the "marketplace"
       sets a lower value for the work women happen to do than for the
       work men happen to do?   If so, why do you think the marketplace
       sets those different values on that different work?
    
    Do you think that sexism plays any role in the lower salaries that
    women get?  If yes, what percentage of the problem would you say
    is due to sexism?   (I'm not trying to get you to give a specific
    figure.  I'm mostly interested in "never" "sometimes" "often" "usually"
    "always" kind of responses.)
    
    I'm asking because from your responses to these and other notes I get
    the impression that you almost never think sexism plays a role
    in the disparity between men's and women's salaries.
    
    Justine
    
    ps of course, anyone can answer these questions, but it was mark's and
       mike's notes that prompted me to ask them.

    	Maybe one of the reasons that some men are paid much more than we
    might like is that they have very effective unions that prevent
    individuals from performing work for themselves.  The doctors union
    comes to mind.  They can't or won't give one the prescription that is
    cleary what one needs, but they can run a lot of tests and collect a
    lot of money to tell you what you knew in the first place.  ie. You are
    sick.  Maybe the nurses, secetaries etc. should work on controlling the
    marketplace to make more money.  
    	I can just see it now.  You can't put that bandaid on yourself; you
    aren't a licensed nurse.  You may not type that note yourself; you
    aren't a licensed secretary.
    	Seriously I think that there would be less inequity if artificial
    government imposed restrictions were removed from the marketplace,
    rather than adding a layer of bureaucrats to impose even further
    irrational restrictions on what people may or may not do.
    						John
    

    RE: last few
    
    Absolutely. There is no external reason (like...oh, for
    example...sexism) to explain why women get paid less, advance less
    quickly, and hit the glass cieling.
    
    One reason is that none of this stuff *exists*. Women only say it does
    so men will feel sorry for them.
    
    Either this is all a huge hoax, and women are making money
    hand-over-fist and keeping it to themselves, or they are just not
    "making it" in the world. If there's no external reason for women to not
    be making it, it *must* be because we Simply Can't Hack It. We're not
    worth it. We don't deserve it. 
    
    It's not Nasty Old Sexism, it's the AMA. (Which, of course, is one of
    the Leading Examples of Feminism in the country.) 
    
    It's not sexism, it's a Mirage. 
    
    It's not sexism, it's the lack of Time Spent in the Business World. 
    
    It's not sexism, it's that women are less 
    ambitious/competitive/business-minded/vicious/street-smart/etc/etc.
    
    There's no such thing as sexism. If one nurse can allegedly make $90K
    then every woman in the country can do it.
    
    

    Mark,
    
    You have (I think) the wrong end of the stick (for one of the
    available sticks).  It is not that the work that women are
    allowed to do is de facto work of lower value.  It is that when
    women do the work it is then *defined* to be of lower value.
    
    As Pam pointed out, in the nineteenth century, men were the 
    secretaries, and those positions were highly valued.  (Clerking was
    less valued, but there was a career path. :-)  (Read your Sherlock
    Holmes carefully, and you'll see.)  Their "skills" were the
    ability to write�, preferably legibly, and be nice.  Now, in the
    twentieth century, women are the secretaries, the positions are
    not valued, yet the required skill set is much larger (although
    the old skill set is included).  People have mapped all the factors
    they could think of, with all possible permutations, and the only
    correlation that works is that the gender change caused the reduced
    value.
    
    Let's do an experiment.  Florence Nightengale was the first woman
    nurse.  (Side issue:  Is it a coincidence that "Florence" was a name
    used only by men in her time?)  What value was placed on nursing
    before her time?  I know there was resistance to her nursing; what
    were the grounds used?  Did the value change after nursing became
    a woman's profession (as opposed to her unpaid `vocation')?  Anyone
    know?
    
    						Ann B.
    
    � I don't mean creative writing; I mean putting letters in a row, with
    punctuation.

    Re: .64
    
    Pam, I believe the Unions representing nurses did make significant
    monetary (and other) demands recently.
    
    Also, if I remember correctly, some nurses at some hospitals staged
    selective strikes, to emphasize they were serious about their demands.
    
    A few weeks ago, Chronicle (a locally-produced half hour TV magazine)
    did a story on the nursing profession. The nurses interviewed indicated
    that base salaries for those with a few years' experience ranged from
    the high $30 K's to the mid $40 K's.
    
    So, it appears that not all female-dominated occupations are underpaid
    because of sexism. In recent years, teachers have also been experiencing
    reasonable increases in their base salaries. I won't claim, however,
    that teachers - male or female - are overpaid.
    
    If there was snide in my .60 response, it was probably intentional. :-)
    
      Alan 
          

    
    
    re .76
    
    OK, Mark, so what I hear you saying is that you do acknowledge that
    sexism is sometimes or even often the cause of disparity in salaries,
    but because you see women (and men?) here focussing so much on
    sexism-as-cause, you feel compelled to point out the "other side of
    the coin."  In order to have a more balanced consideration of the
    issues, your own entries might appear to be a bit one sided, but it is
    just in response to what you see as one-sided entries from feminists.  
    I'd like to ask you to consider that many women see the world as being 
    somewhat one-sided, as not representing their voices, their experiences.  
    So just as you might focus on other (non-sexist) causes for women's
    difficult experiences in the workplace to create a balance, some women 
    might choose to find a place where it *is* possible to talk about the 
    sexist causes for those difficulties... also to create a balance.  
    
    Justine

    re: .76  Mark
    
    Thanks for your note and for explaining where you are coming from. 
    Like Justine, I saw you (and others) as assuming sexism in the
    workplace doesn't exist; as trying to grab at any other excuse
    possible.  It helps to see your approach to the subject in context.
    
    I wish you would ALWAYS provide that context, though!
    
    I also appreciate your pointing out the subtler examples of sexism at
    work, like giving Mary easier assignments than John, then promoting
    John because Mary doesn't have enough experience.  It's therefore NOT
    ENOUGH to say simply, "well, obviously women don't have enough
    experience."  Looking at WHY women don't get "enough experience" is
    crucial.
    
    
    re: .77 Ann B.
    
    It's so true that secretaries now have a MUCH more complex job than
    they did when all secretaries were men -- yet have lower social status
    and lower pay.
    
    
    Often "the marketplace" is used to explain why women are paid less.
    
    But people who use that argument rarely ask themselves WHY women flock
    to low-paying jobs.  Are we stupid or something?  Why DON'T women
    become plumbers, auto mechanics, electricians, etc. in greater numbers? 
    None of those jobs require extreme physical strength and none of them
    are dangerous or gross.  And they pay LOTS more.  
    
    I think it's society.  "Society" doesn't think women are capable or
    interested in doing such jobs; and societal conditioning makes women
    think so, too.  How would you describe such a society?  As NON-sexist? 
    I don't think so...
    
    I remember thinking:  I'd like to be an auto mechanic!  when I was in
    high school (it was part vocational high school).  I like the thought
    of diagnosing a problem and fixing it.  Then I thought about taking
    shop class and who would be in the class and would I get guff from
    everyone and gee I really hate to get my clothes dirty and I guess
    history is more my kind of subject and ... I decided not to take it. 
    (I still don't know much about cars, so maybe I wasn't REALLY that
    interested!)  
    
    The point is:  women are shut out from MANY jobs in our society for
    MANY reasons (conditioning against wanting the jobs, flak for entering
    the profession, fighting against misconceptions).  Therefore they apply
    for the "female-approved" jobs in such great numbers that the supply
    outstrips the demand and the salaries go down.
    
    So saying "it's the marketplace at work" is a simplistic answer to a
    complex question.  Saying "it's sexism at work" is a complex answer to
    a complex question...not a knee-jerk reaction as it is perceived to be.
    
    Pam

    .....and if we *ever* see the number of nurses driving Mercedes Benzes
    approach the number of *doctors* driving Mercedes Benzes�,
    I'll.....I'll...I'll buy Mike Zarlenga an autographed copy of the
    Wickedary!
    
    
    �Assuming there is no severe shift in gender bias, and nursing becomes a
    male-dominated profession, while doctoring becomes female-dominated. 

    re: .79 Alan
    Thanks for the extra info.
    
    What I hear you saying is that if nurses are making $30-$40 K, then
    obviously all female professions are not underpaid, then obviously
    there is no longer a big problem (if there ever was one) and by
    continuing to complain we're exaggerating our problems and distorting
    reality.  
    
    (I'm overstating, but, hey, if you can be snide without apologizing, I
    can put words in your mouth...!)
    
    I guess I feel that things are improving (nurses and teachers) but that
    THE PROBLEM IS NOT FIXED.  The nurse's union actions worked a) they HAD
    a union b) they had leverage because there is a critical nursing
    shortage and the hospitals had NO CHOICE.  The teacher's union actions
    are working because the state of education in this country has got a
    lot of publicity lately and the schools have been forced into doing
    something.
    
    What about other female-dominated professions that are NOT in the
    limelight, though?  Garment-workers, hairdressers, piece-work, editors
    (publishing is female-dominated at the lower levels but not the higher
    levels), secretarial...?  They're where they used to be, as far as I
    know.
    
    I disagree that the problem is fixed already, just because changes have
    started to happen in some professions.  Just because the ice has
    started to melt in the center of the pond doesn't mean that it's
    summertime and we can all go swimming.  (Only a few "polar bear" club
    members!)
    
    Pam

    And what of those professions who actively discourage women?  Who
    either actively harass them or passively prevent them from gaining the
    expertise necessary to do the job or be promoted?
    
    (like construction workers who harass female comployees, or old-boy
    network companies who hold their staff meetings at strip joints)
    
    How could these suddenly become populated with the women who may desire
    to enter these professions, but are being prevented by those already in
    the profession from doing so?
    
    -Jody
    

    
    re 146.83  I strongly encourage participants to think twice before
    using mail to blow off steam.  Unless you're really sure of your
    audience, it might be offensive to some, and it could come back to 
    haunt you.  
    
    Justine -- speaking as comod  
    

    RE: balance
    
    I still like Gloria Steinem's saying: "Equality is not when female
    geniuses are as successful as male geniuses, it's when female
    schlemiels are as successful as male schlemiels."
    
    
    How can we stop young women from automatically censoring their hopes
    and ambitions when asked what they want to do "when you grow up"?
    I remember how "nurse-or-a-teacher" fell from my lips every time
    someone asked me. And I remember how I *thought* about what my answer
    would be, and how it would be received, and to say what was the
    "correct" answer for a girl.
    
    We're past "nurse-or-a-teacher", but not *far* past. Not 25 *years*
    past, and that's where we oughta be.
    
    --DE
    

    I have started a FWO note, #154, to discuss ways of dealing with
    disparities in the workplace between females and males and the
    following note, #155, is the FGD note.  Hope to meet you there!
    
    annie

    re .86
    Two clicks and a circle, Jody...you've made a crucial point.
    
    Sexism rarely presents itself in the form of "Well, gee, you can't have
    this job or promotion or whatever...you're a WOMAN"...
    
    

    Re .65, what does orthogonal mean?
    
    Thanks,
    aq
    
    (This is what I get for feeling smug about understanding the Pervect
    references!)

    "Orthogonal" means two things are at right angles to each other.
    In this context, it means that Mark believes that the two statements
    have only a minimal relationship to each other.
    
    I disagree, in the sense that both things are in the plane of sexism,
    so that any degree of orthogonality between themselves is irrelevant.
    
    						Ann B.

Re: .76 (Doctah)

>  We hear alot about how women are the majority in a numerical sense. Well, this
> works against you when considering that women's work has a higher potential
> field than men's work, thus sealing the fate so to speak of women who choose
> to pursue those types of careers.
    
    Women are *not* the numerical majority in the workforce!  And I *don't*
    think it's fair to say that the "potential field" for these jobs includes
    women who are staying home raising their families and aren't even applying
    for jobs - and wouldn't be even if the pay of most of the traditionally
    "women's" jobs doubled overnight!

    "Crying wolf" works both ways.  You hear "sexism", "sexism", and wonder
    if it really is _this_ time; I hear "not sexism", "not sexism", and see
    some amazingly implausible argument put forth, and wonder what else could
    it be?

          re: .76  (Doctah)

          >...women's work has a higher potential field than men's work...

          What exactly does that mean?

          {"higher potential field" typically refers to a situation that
          can be described by Gauss' Law or another one of Maxwell's
          equations}

                                                  nancy b.

I'm a bit late for this discussion (jeesh leave town for a few days and
get hundreds of replies behind), but I have enjoyed it.  I have some
stats to add:

CURRENT STATISTICS FROM AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY

The ACS is an organization with ~120,000 members; they publish results from
a salary survey every year.  ACS members differ from the general population in
that they are    1) more educated (none with less than B.S. degree) and 
2) they are in relatively high demand (less than 1% un-employment).

Quoting from the survey,

"One thing clearly evident is that women chemists continue to earn less
than their male colleagues.  in part, this is because women, as a group,
have less experience.  For example . . .   But even adjusting the
salaries to account for this difference, the averages (rather than the
medians) for women's salaries are still only roughly 80 to 90% those of
men, a differential that has not changed significantly during the past
half dozen years or so.  The gap typically is relatively slight -- or
even nonexistent -- between less experienced men and women chemists but
widens markedly as their careers lengthen.

WOMEN'S SALARIES AS % OF MEN'S SALARIES*

EMPLOYER               B.S.             M.S.           Ph.D.

Private Industry       85%              87%             87%
Academic               76%              79%             83%
Government             91%              90%             80%
Other                  75%              85%             79%



*To facilitate comparison, women's salaries are adjusted for the
difference in average length of experience between them and the men.




SOURCE:  CHEMICAL AND ENGINEERING NEWS  JULY 3, 1989.





Barbi

    in re .100
    
    sure Mike, for chemists...
    
    not for women in general....
    
    Bonnie

    no Mike,
    
    the 69 cents for a dollar is an average of women's salaries
    veris men's. some women will earn above that amount and some
    below. I'd be really surprised if women with an advanced degree
    in chemistry weren't on the high end of that scale...but because
    a small group of highly educated women make almost as much as
    men with the same education, doesn't invalidate the average
    earnings for *all* women in *all* jobs.��
    
    Bonnie

    well given that women chemists are a very small �number..
    
    but yes..
    
    an average always implies that half of the group falls above
    the number and half below..
    
    I don't understand what you are objecting to..
    
    bj

    Mike,
    
    Yes, the figure of 69 cents to the dollar is outrageously low.
    However, (1) it used to be lower, and (2) that is indeed what
    the differential is�.
    
    						Ann B.
    
    �  The figures being used are those for 1988.  The 1989 figures
    should be out Real Soon Now.  Since I don't recall any headlines
    proclaiming great wage/salary gains for women over the past 18
    months, I wouldn't expect a gain of more than tuppence.

        re .105
        
>>    an average always implies that half of the group falls above
>>    the number and half below..
        
        The "median" of a collection of numbers will have half of
        them at or below it, and half of them at or above it.
        With the "arithmetic mean" (add them up and divide by how
        many) you don't necessarily have that, as a small number
        of extreme values can distort the result.
        
        For example, for 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, and 99, the median is 5
        and the arithmetic mean is 15.
        
        Sometimes it is hard to tell which method is being used
        when somebody publishes an average. I think government
        figures for things like family income use the median.  I
        don't know precisely what the "69%" (I had always heard
        it as 59% or 60%) is being said to compare.
        
        Dan

    
    Does this mean that big brother should impose a settlement 
    on employer, or should women learn how to negociate their
    own salaries?
    
    I believe the latter to be the better course... 

I saw the following article in the June Earthwatch magazine and immediately 
thought of this note.  It doesn't have any particular tie in with this note 
except that it contains some curious statistics.  Entered without any 
permission whatsoever:

	Gulls Found to Use Bizzare Mating Practices

Kaikoua Penninsula, South Island, New Zealand -- After studying the social
interactions of four generations of red-billed gulls here, last year with 
Earthwatch teams, ornithologist James Mills has discovered that although 90
percent of the males breed each year, only half the females do.  And of the 
femles who do raise young, 12 percent form partnerships with other females.
Mills assumes that to get fertile eggs, "one of the females solicits a male
from another couple or is raped."

But many gull pairs are not ultimately successful: some of the eggs don't 
hatch and many chicks die.  As a result, only 15 percent of the adults 
produce over half the next generation each year; only 8 percent of eggs result
in offspring that survive to reproduce.  How does this skewed reproductive
pattern affect gull genetics?  Is it typical of other colonial nesting seabirds?

	A friend e-mailed the following statistic:

>>	96.37% of the people who use statistics in arguments make them up.

	:-)

	Dan

    
    Along the same lines, an oldy but goody:
    
    "People frequently use statistics much like drunks use lamp posts --
    More for support than for illumination..."   :^)
    
    Scott 

    sounds numerically impossible the way I am seeing it explained.
    
    -Jody
    

> More women than men submitted applications.

But the statistics were based on percentage of applications, not on the actual
numbers accepted.

These two statements *still* seem contradictory.

The percentage of men accepted is higher than the percentage of women 
accepted for all departments in total.

The percentage of women accepted is higether than then percentage of men
for each department individually.

How can this be?

D!

Because his mother was the doctor!


oh, wrong brain teaser?....
	Mez

    Note the qualifier...which department?  none?  OK, so women who applied
    for graduate studies without specifying a department must have been
    turned away in greater percentages than did men.
    
    Or some other such explanation to complete the data is required.
    
    DougO

    Here's how it can happen
    
              Applicants       Accepted       % Accepted
              Men  Women      Men  Women      Men  Women
    Dept  1    10     1        5      1        50   100
    Dept  2    10     1        5      1        50   100
    Dept  3    10     1        5      1        50   100
    Dept  4    10     1        5      1        50   100
    Dept  5    10     1        5      1        50   100
    Dept  6    10     1        5      1        50   100
    Dept  7    10     1        5      1        50   100
    Dept  8    10     1        5      1        50   100
    Dept  9    10     1        2      1        50   100
    Dept 10    10    91        2     26        20    29
    
    Totals    100   100       44     35        44    35
    
    Tony

Thanx Tony.
	Mez

    Wow, I feel better now - I can go home and sleep soundly tonight....
    
    -Jody
    

    The sandbag, of course, is in Eric's stipulation that women had a
    "higher chance of getting in", a phrase that implies the clause "all
    else being equal, including numbers of applicants" which of course
    wasn't so.   I would have thought honesty would have compelled you to
    mention that "minor detail", Eric.  But since that would have
    invalidated your point, perhaps that's asking too much.  :-)
    
    I believe a lot of defences against being brought to book for
    sexism/racism/*ism hinge on the success of just such factitious
    reasoning.
    
    						=maggie

    From a United Nations survey of its member nations:
    
    	Women constitute half the world's population.
    	Women perform nearly two thirds of the world's work.
    	Women receive one tenth of the world's income.
    	Women own less than one hundredth of the world's wealth.
    
    						Ann B.

    Prove your assertion.

My manager has a great quote on his wall:

	"Some people use statistics like a drunk uses a lamp post ...

	 ... for support rather than illumination."

    For those who are interested, Eric's "proof" leaves out what's called
    the "standard error of measurement" and "confidence".  
    
    I'll illustrate.  Let's take a coin.  Barring something weird, if you
    flip it you'll get either heads or tails.  In an honest series of flips
    (it's a standard coin and the person flipping doesn't have any special
    skills that could rig it) it will come up heads half the time and tails
    the other half.  We say the probability of it coming up heads is .5 or
    50%.
    
    But if you flip the coin only once, you can't tell from the results
    alone whether it's an honest coin and an honest flipper.  Because you
    simply don't have enough information yet.  You can only have 50%
    confidence that things aren't on the up and up.  If you flip it 100
    times, and they all come up heads, you can have more confidence that
    there's something funny going on, and if you get heads in each of
    10,000 tries you can be very confident, virtually 100% in fact, though
    you still have no way of knowing *what* is funny.
    
    Similarly, the standard IQ test, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale,
    has a standard error of measurement of 15.  This means that someone who
    tests an IQ of 100 today could (theoretically) test at 115 tomorrow and
    only 85 the day after that.  That's all the precision the test offers,
    because IQ is such a tricky thing to measure.  But it's good enough, as
    long as you don't bet the farm on the results coming in the same each
    time.
    
    So when Eric tries to tell us that a sample of 1 "proves" something
    about probability. he either doesn't know what he's talking about or
    doesn't want to be straight with us.

    I'm so bored I'm even going to put a note in here.
    
    Ad

    I don't  have  the data any more, but this UCB statistic showed up
    on  a statistics final I took long ago. In all but one department,
    the  acceptance  rate  for  women  was statistically significantly
    greater  than the acceptance rate for men (in most case p < .005),
    and  the  acceptance  rate  for men overall was statistically very
    significantly greater than for women  (p < .0001).

    This is  an  issue  of  women self-selecting disciplines which are
    harder  to  get  into.  I  think  math  accepted all the women who
    applied, and almost all the men, but nursing accepted about 1/4 of
    the  applicants.  Why women tend to choose jobs that pay poorly or
    are  hard  to  get  is discussed at great length elsewhere in this
    conference.

    What does  this  prove? That partial statistics can be misleading,
    and  agglomerating  data  to get "better" statistics is not always
    valid.

--David

    

>    If you stay with your original choice, what is the probability you have
>    chosen the red card?  If you switch, what is the probability you get
>    the red card?

Probability of what?  Obviously the probability that you selected the
red card from the original three card deck hasn't changed.  It's still 1/3rd.

However, there are now two cards on the table, and you know that
one of them is red and one is black.  There is a 50-50 chance that
either one of them is the red-card, so it doesn't matter if you hold
the card you chose or switch to the other card.  The odds are even.

The trick, of course, is to watch the dealer.  When he selects the
black card out of the remaining two.  Watch his face.  If he looks
confused or undecided, that means you have the red card.  :-)

D!

    My reaction is that the probability of choosing the red card is the
    same before or after you change your selection - zero.

    
    re .137:
    
>    If you stay with your original choice, what is the probability you have
>    chosen the red card?  If you switch, what is the probability you get
>    the red card?
    
    Duh, am I dumb or what?  It seems obvious that if the chooser is
    playing the game correctly that there's 100% probabilty of having the
    red card (if staying with original choice) and 100% probability of
    picking the red card (if switching).
    
    It seems obvious, but I'm probably wrong, I guess.
    

>    Duh, am I dumb or what?  It seems obvious that if the chooser is
>    playing the game correctly that there's 100% probabilty of having the
>    red card (if staying with original choice) and 100% probability of
>    picking the red card (if switching).

If there is only one red card, and two cards total, how could the player
have 100% of both *having* the red card and *not* having the red card?!?!

D!

    Besides, there are three cards.
    
    E Grace

>    Besides, there are three cards.

No, there aren't, that's the trick.  There were three to start with, but one
has been turned over and we know what it is, so it's out of the running.
That leaves two to choose from, the one in your hand and the one on the table.

D!

    ooooops!  **blush**  I forgot that one card was turned over.
    
    E Grace

    Since we know what one of the three cards was (black) the odds
    are 50-50 that either of the other two is red. You don't
    improve your odds by either switching or maintaining your 
    original choice.

	I think it turns out to be better to take the dealer's card, because
the dealer has a 2/3 chance of having the red card, while you only have a
1/3 chance of having picked it correctly in the first place.

						--D

    Doug is right.

    One way to see this is that you had a 2/3 probability of picking a
    black  card at first, and a 1/3 probability of picking a red card.
    The  dealer  can always turn over a black card, so the probability
    that the card you first picked is red hasn't changed. Since one of
    the  two cards must be red, that makes the probability of the card
    you hadn't picked 2/3.

--David

    Um, guys, we're discussing three card monte here.
    
    The chances that the card you pick is red is zero.
    
        Margaret (former resident of NYC)

I assume(d) that the "three card monte" scenario was "simply a bit of
corroborative detail intended to add artistic versimilitude to an otherwise
bald and unconvincing narrative" :-) If not, I congratulate (some of) you for
thinking out of the box. If we assume as I did, that the puzzle is on the up
and up and is intended to make a point about statistics, then I will hold off
a bit longer - since I've seen this "puzzle" before, and discussed it to death.

Let me just say that it is a tricky bit in dependent probabilities, and it
even trips up people who ought to be very sophisticated in statistics. I've
usually heard it cast at the "Monte Hall problem" and the setting is three
curtains - A, B, and C. Behind two are donkeys, behind one is a Porsche (or
whatever). You choose a curtain, let's label it "A" with no loss of generality,
and Monte then opens one of B or C, shows you a donkey, and offers to let you
switch. What should you do, and why? Quantify your answer.

I love talking about this problem, so it's going to be hard to keep from
sticking my oar in. All I'll say now is "be careful - it's trickier than you
might think".

	-- Charles

    The figure about women making $.69 to men's $1.00, where is that from? 
    hasy anyone got any specifics about that?  Can someone point me to a
    real reference?
    
    Thanks,
    D!

    D!,
    
    The information in .107 I got out of "Time".  The editors got it
    (directly or in-) from the U.S. Department of Labor.  I think it's
    the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
    
    						Ann B.

    You have to check them carefully on that $0.69 to $1.00 statistic,
    depending on what point you are trying to argue, and there are
    different way to compute it.
    
    If you took the sum of all women's incomes divided by the number of
    women to get an "average women's income", and did the same thing for
    men, then divided the women's average by the men's average you
    probably get the 0.69 ratio.
    
    But if you took the sum of all incomes in a particular job class ("high
    school teacher with n year's experience" say, or "software engineer")
    and did the same computation you would get a different ratio, which
    might be higher or might be lower.  My guess is (though I haven't seen
    this done) that within most white-collar job classes the ratio is much
    closer to 1.0 than is the case with the overall average.
    
    It depends on whether you want to include the effect of woman-and-
    men-do-not-work-in-the-same-jobs-in-the-same-numbers or not.
    
    It would be interesting to see this statistic for various job classes.

    I know all about how to use stats, thanks...I just want to know *where* 
    to find the actual numbers!  
    
    In what publication does the US Dept of Labor announce it's results?
    Where would I be able to find it?
    
    D!

    I realize it means calling Directory Assistance in Washington, D.C.
    (202-555-1212) and then calling one to four strangers and feeling
    like an idiot, but you'd probably get a whole juicy document mailed
    to you for free.
    
    						Ann B.

    re .150 and following:
    
    If you want it to music, try Laurie Anderson (newest album "strange
    angels" , in the song Beautiful red dress)
    
    "You know, for every dollar a man makes
    a woman makes 63 cents.
    Now, fifty years ago that was 62 cents.
    So, with that kind of luck, it'll be the year 3'888 
    before we make a buck......"
    
    Now I dont know where *she* got her statistics from, but the message is
    clear enough...
    
    regards,
    Heinrich
    (from the country where the courts decided this week that women should
    have the right to vote on all matters, but where we nevertheless still
    have quite a distance to go untill we have same work/same pay (or should
    that be play? :-))