[Fwd: Re: International Initiatives]

Linda Purrington (lpurring@earthlink.net)
Sun, 15 Feb 1998 20:07:26 -0800

Dear Linda,
Forgive me for not getting the references to education yet, tomorrow maybe.
In the mean time let us consider occupations dominated by one sex. The
Women's Bureau of the Department of Labor defines Nontraditional occupations
for women as any that women comprise 25 percent or less of the total employed.
The Nontraditional occupations for women with over 500,000 workers are:
Sales representatives, commodities, except retail
Operators, fabricators, and laborers
Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers
Farm workers
Police and detectives, protective service
Motor vehicle operators
Grounds keepers and gardeners, except farming
Material moving equipment operators
Mechanics and repairers
Construction trades
Source: http://www.dol.gov/dol/wb/public/wb_pubs/nontra96.htm
These are all areas in which we should encourage more women. If we work on
only acheiving a balence by sex in the few white collar areas you have named,
we will be left with men dominating blue collar work and that is not equity.

Futher, There are many occupations with 25 percent or less men. Those with
over 500,000 workers are:
Registered nurses
Nursing aides, orderlies, and attendants
Bookkeepers, accounting and auditing clerks
Elementary school teachers
Waiters and Waitresses
Administrative support occupations, Not elsewhere classified
Source: http://www.dol.gov/dol/wb/public/wb_pubs/20lead96.htm

I would that we encourage men into these fields with the same enthusiam that
we encourage women into the fields in which they are underrepresented.

I find it interesting to look at this set of lists, since I think their is so
much more impact on gender equality to be had from concentrating on these
sets, merely because it affects so many more people.

Weverka quoting his UK friend:
> > Girls have been doing better than boys for about 25 years,
> > but the gap is increasing more and more and the impact
> > is inevitable.

> > The result? The future is female. The message
> > from employers is clear; no qualifications, no job.

Linda Purrington wrote:
> Purrington: We have not yet seen any reason to believe that the male
> control of top jobs will be ceded to female achievement; in fact, the
> hullaballoo against affirmative action is intended to ensure precisely
> the opposite. The fact that women are passing the bar in record--even
> majority numbers--means little if they are shunted into paralegal clerk
> positions and shouldered out of important legal work and political
> positions. At present 1 percent of school superintendents in the US are
> female; and, again, I point to the Senate.

Are more women than men passing the bar exam? Will we respond to this with
Affirmative Action programs to get more men into law schools? Do you have a
cite on how many female lawyers who've passed the bar become paralegals?
Wanta guess how many of the Senators from my state are female? If 100% of
mine are female does that mean California-male interests are not represented
in the Senate?

> Title IX was passed in 1972,
> and has never been enforced. I'm delighted with your stats; they prove
> the nonenforcment of gender equity laws and the systematic
> disadvantaging of girls like nothing else could. Now let's see your
> stats for the US.

I don't see how this follows. How does the better performance of girls in
schools prove discrimination against girls?

> Myra and David Sadker published FAILING AT FAIRNESS: HOW AMERICA'S
> SCHOOLS CHEAT GIRLS--Scribner's 1994; the American Association of
> University Women published HOW SCHOOLS SHORTCHANGE GIRLS shortly before
> that. An excellent source for research on the situation is the Wellesley
> Center for Research on Women (Wellesley, Massachusetts).

Thanks. I will go to the Stanford library this week and have a look.

Robert Weverka <weverka@optivision.com>

new message to this message