RE: value of education

Ted Weverka (
Tue, 16 Jun 1998 14:47:56 -0700

Marie De Santis doth say
> >Ted, I know you would like to prove that women are not an oppressed
> >class so that you can feel justified and righteous in the monumental
> >priveleges you enjoy, but throwing random numbers at the
> wall, trying
> >to make them stick, ain't going to make it so.
John Meyer wrote:
> Sort of like the random numbers abuse counseling centers
> throw around to
> make us believe that domestic abuse ravages our country and
> is unstoppable,
> rather than being a serious problem that can be stopped, eh?
Precedence: bulk

My post was not at all like the thrown about numbers.
Mine was honest, clearly labeling both the inequity favoring
one sex in full time workers, and the inequity the other way
for part time workers.
My post also quoted the original source in an easily traceable
link. Both these make my numbers not random. I didn't make
up any numbers and I left a complete trail to the source.

De Santis' accusation that I am out to deny women's oppression
is baseless. In this, as in so many of my posts, I confirm the
discrepancy by sex for both women and men. My post cites the
original source for the salary discrepancy for full time
workers as well as the original source for the salary
discrepancy for part time workers.

Contrary to the image De Santis' attempts to paint, I am the
one truly fighting for equality. Because I would recognize
and fight discrimination against both men and women,
De Santis' attempts to smear me as anti-woman. She is the
supremacist who would maintain inequities favoring women
while fighting those favoring men. I am the egalitarian
consistently supporting Equity in all issues.

Robert Weverka <>

new message to this message