Re: Learned Helplessness, Spouse Abuse (long)

[Guest guest]

> Which leads us back to one of the rallying cries of the earliest

feminists:

> If women are genuinely incapable of being doctors, lawyers, etc.,

then

> what need is there to forbid it?

>

> We don't forbid chimpanzees from becoming doctors, after all.

> Somehow it just never seems to come up. :-)

You should see the one I saw yesterday..... Seriously though, if one

were trained to apply for a doctor's licence, wouldnt you say it would

be refused? Perhaps the bans on women resulted from cultural

experience.

( I really am joking).

[Guest guest]

> Which leads us back to one of the rallying cries of the earliest

feminists:

> If women are genuinely incapable of being doctors, lawyers, etc.,

then

> what need is there to forbid it?

>

> We don't forbid chimpanzees from becoming doctors, after all.

> Somehow it just never seems to come up. :-)

You should see the one I saw yesterday..... Seriously though, if one

were trained to apply for a doctor's licence, wouldnt you say it would

be refused? Perhaps the bans on women resulted from cultural

experience.

( I really am joking).

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 5/15/01 1:41:07 AM US Eastern Standard Time,

> ahicks@s... writes:

Hi Mona,

>

> I'm sorry, but I find this almost impossible to believe. It is

against the

> law to pay men and women differentially for the same job, and I am

aware of

> no company that does so, much less companies that " do it all the

time. " As a

> lawyer who has some expertise in employment discrimination law, I

would be

> absolutely delighted to learn of scads of situations like this,

since my

> share of the recovery would be sizable.

I will share this link with you, even though I am aware of your views

about NOW.

http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/04-08-99.html#equal

This one is good for 2-issues-in-1 as if you scroll down it shows that

the program to help women into apprenticeships in the trades was cut

to zero.

> A blatant example of this happened on my last

>

> > job where a man was hired a full year after I was and was doing

work

> > with far less responsibility than I had - yet he came in at a wage

> > that was 25% higher than my wage was. (Actually, this was another

> > chink in the AA wall, because I couldn't " turn it over " and fought

it

> > instead).

> >

>

> Sounds to me as tho this is a situation in which there is a

subjective

> difference of opinion as to what work entails more responsibility,

and should

> be more highly compensated. If you sought the same position,

knowing it paid

> more highly than your current one, and were refused consideration on

the

> basis of gender, then that is illegal gender discrimination. But it

is not

> illegal to pay a man a higher amount for a job that compensates at a

higher

> level than yours, just because some might feel your position should

pay

> equally.

What happened was that my job class was the same as his (although they

were different jobs) and I had longer seniority. The sole reason I

found out about it was because prepared an invoice where they

outsourced some of his hours. I worked a support position for a

hospice team and home infusion team, SG8 - he was a billing clerk,

SG8. They are both pretty humble jobs. However, it wasn't just a

" subjective " claim as you posit. After this they evaluated my

position and upgraded it to an SG10 and gave me a substantial raise.

So, evidently they also agreed that something was out of wack.

>

> >>This is the " concrete floor " as opposed

> to the glass ceiling, which many women are now able to penetrate. 

The

> reasons given for why these numbers are so bad are typical - that

the

> work requires strength and is dirty, etc. <<

>

> Very few women wish to be plumbers. Some do, but not nearly as many

per

> capita as males. If trade schools were discriminating against

female

> applicants in the plumbing program, that would be illegal gender

> discrimination. But the fact is, women do not, in general, aspire

to be

> plumbers.

Well, if they knew the money they were missing out on, I'm sure more

of them *would*. And how will they find out if they *never* want to

choose that anyway? (So no one bothers to point out the option).

>

> >> Yet at the same time, women

> are frequently shunted into jobs such as medical aide where the work

> is just as heavy and quite a bit dirtier.  <<

>

> Honestly, I laughed reading this. Have you ever seen plumbers

digging out a

> basement pipe clogged with huge amounts of dirt, human excrement,

piss, used

> tampons, and general gross and putrid crud? It is the single most

foul chore

> I can imagine, and I'd rather do almost anything else, including

digging out

> impacted bowels of old people as a med tech aide.

But would you rather do it for an average of **$16.00 per hour less**?

Really! Now I am the one laughing. And there is a hell of a lot

more to plumbing than this, including installing systems in new

buildings which can require much agility and smaller size. And what

about electrictians, masons, carpenters, etc.,? Body fluids are DIRTY

dirt. Of the trades, plumber is probably the *only* one that would

come into contact with it at all.

>

> If women wish to do the plumbing work, the trade schools should

allow them

> too. If they do not, that is illegal discrimination. If women

instead

> choose to become med tech aides (who is " shunting " them, are you

suggesting

> they are incapable of making their own choices?), they should be

free to do

> so.

Well, work-off-welfare programs for one thing!

>

> >>Women having children has been an excuse to pay them less, but I

don't

> follow the logic there.  Why does all of it fall to women?  Is it

all

> because of choices she made in your view?  Perhaps the ultimate

> " choice " to make here is to remain childless?<<

>

> No, no. Women are not paid less because they had children. They

are paid

> less because they opt for jobs with fewer responsibilities, and do

not

> acquire the seniority at the same level as men because some of them

drop out,

> or go down to half time, to raise children.

And why are men *never* required to make these sacrifices? Why are

they seen as completely daft if they have the temerity to take a

paternal leave when their children are born? A lot of this is

structure, socialization and learning. Even if a man wants to be

involved in the care of his children, he'll have a hard time of it.

>

> >>Women

> don't have a corner on the market on patience, or maternal

" instinct "

> (an idea that is largely BS, everyone has to learn how to take care

of

> kids, mothers included).  Men don't " opt " to work in daycare centers

> because the pay is crap and they have far better options (along with

> the cultural idea that " men don't do that. " )  Start giving those

women

> working there pay and status in our society and watch the males come

> in droves.<<

>

> There is much, much evidence from evolutionary biologists that women

are

> hard-wired to nurture babies and the young, because for most of

human

> existence the species would not have survived if they lacked the

urge and

> intense interest in to nursing them, caring for them, and protecting

them.

> There is a reason why women staying home and tending to the children

has been

> the norm in virtually every culture known to humanity. Mere

socialization

> cannot, by wild coincidence, be the reason for this, since it defies

> statistical probability.

But it can hold us rigidly to these prescribed roles even when they

don't fit and even when the other half of the equasion - the men

supposedly " bringing home the bacon " to allow the women to do the

nuturing falls through. Then, just where in the hell is she? Am I?

Because that is all that is holding us from abject poverty. And if my

husband decides that he want to use me as his punching bag, then my

" options " look very grim indeed. Before I had my kids I was a LOT

freer to leave. There are millions of women in my boat.

Also, I'm not really talking about " climbing the corporate ladder. "

I'm talking about putting a roof over the heads and food in the belly,

a living wage.

========================

Mona, where are you coming from? You have a negative opinion to the

simplist of my assertions before even ascertaining all the facts. Do

you have an agenda?

Hicks

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 5/15/01 1:41:07 AM US Eastern Standard Time,

> ahicks@s... writes:

Hi Mona,

>

> I'm sorry, but I find this almost impossible to believe. It is

against the

> law to pay men and women differentially for the same job, and I am

aware of

> no company that does so, much less companies that " do it all the

time. " As a

> lawyer who has some expertise in employment discrimination law, I

would be

> absolutely delighted to learn of scads of situations like this,

since my

> share of the recovery would be sizable.

I will share this link with you, even though I am aware of your views

about NOW.

http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/04-08-99.html#equal

This one is good for 2-issues-in-1 as if you scroll down it shows that

the program to help women into apprenticeships in the trades was cut

to zero.

> A blatant example of this happened on my last

>

> > job where a man was hired a full year after I was and was doing

work

> > with far less responsibility than I had - yet he came in at a wage

> > that was 25% higher than my wage was. (Actually, this was another

> > chink in the AA wall, because I couldn't " turn it over " and fought

it

> > instead).

> >

>

> Sounds to me as tho this is a situation in which there is a

subjective

> difference of opinion as to what work entails more responsibility,

and should

> be more highly compensated. If you sought the same position,

knowing it paid

> more highly than your current one, and were refused consideration on

the

> basis of gender, then that is illegal gender discrimination. But it

is not

> illegal to pay a man a higher amount for a job that compensates at a

higher

> level than yours, just because some might feel your position should

pay

> equally.

What happened was that my job class was the same as his (although they

were different jobs) and I had longer seniority. The sole reason I

found out about it was because prepared an invoice where they

outsourced some of his hours. I worked a support position for a

hospice team and home infusion team, SG8 - he was a billing clerk,

SG8. They are both pretty humble jobs. However, it wasn't just a

" subjective " claim as you posit. After this they evaluated my

position and upgraded it to an SG10 and gave me a substantial raise.

So, evidently they also agreed that something was out of wack.

>

> >>This is the " concrete floor " as opposed

> to the glass ceiling, which many women are now able to penetrate. 

The

> reasons given for why these numbers are so bad are typical - that

the

> work requires strength and is dirty, etc. <<

>

> Very few women wish to be plumbers. Some do, but not nearly as many

per

> capita as males. If trade schools were discriminating against

female

> applicants in the plumbing program, that would be illegal gender

> discrimination. But the fact is, women do not, in general, aspire

to be

> plumbers.

Well, if they knew the money they were missing out on, I'm sure more

of them *would*. And how will they find out if they *never* want to

choose that anyway? (So no one bothers to point out the option).

>

> >> Yet at the same time, women

> are frequently shunted into jobs such as medical aide where the work

> is just as heavy and quite a bit dirtier.  <<

>

> Honestly, I laughed reading this. Have you ever seen plumbers

digging out a

> basement pipe clogged with huge amounts of dirt, human excrement,

piss, used

> tampons, and general gross and putrid crud? It is the single most

foul chore

> I can imagine, and I'd rather do almost anything else, including

digging out

> impacted bowels of old people as a med tech aide.

But would you rather do it for an average of **$16.00 per hour less**?

Really! Now I am the one laughing. And there is a hell of a lot

more to plumbing than this, including installing systems in new

buildings which can require much agility and smaller size. And what

about electrictians, masons, carpenters, etc.,? Body fluids are DIRTY

dirt. Of the trades, plumber is probably the *only* one that would

come into contact with it at all.

>

> If women wish to do the plumbing work, the trade schools should

allow them

> too. If they do not, that is illegal discrimination. If women

instead

> choose to become med tech aides (who is " shunting " them, are you

suggesting

> they are incapable of making their own choices?), they should be

free to do

> so.

Well, work-off-welfare programs for one thing!

>

> >>Women having children has been an excuse to pay them less, but I

don't

> follow the logic there.  Why does all of it fall to women?  Is it

all

> because of choices she made in your view?  Perhaps the ultimate

> " choice " to make here is to remain childless?<<

>

> No, no. Women are not paid less because they had children. They

are paid

> less because they opt for jobs with fewer responsibilities, and do

not

> acquire the seniority at the same level as men because some of them

drop out,

> or go down to half time, to raise children.

And why are men *never* required to make these sacrifices? Why are

they seen as completely daft if they have the temerity to take a

paternal leave when their children are born? A lot of this is

structure, socialization and learning. Even if a man wants to be

involved in the care of his children, he'll have a hard time of it.

>

> >>Women

> don't have a corner on the market on patience, or maternal

" instinct "

> (an idea that is largely BS, everyone has to learn how to take care

of

> kids, mothers included).  Men don't " opt " to work in daycare centers

> because the pay is crap and they have far better options (along with

> the cultural idea that " men don't do that. " )  Start giving those

women

> working there pay and status in our society and watch the males come

> in droves.<<

>

> There is much, much evidence from evolutionary biologists that women

are

> hard-wired to nurture babies and the young, because for most of

human

> existence the species would not have survived if they lacked the

urge and

> intense interest in to nursing them, caring for them, and protecting

them.

> There is a reason why women staying home and tending to the children

has been

> the norm in virtually every culture known to humanity. Mere

socialization

> cannot, by wild coincidence, be the reason for this, since it defies

> statistical probability.

But it can hold us rigidly to these prescribed roles even when they

don't fit and even when the other half of the equasion - the men

supposedly " bringing home the bacon " to allow the women to do the

nuturing falls through. Then, just where in the hell is she? Am I?

Because that is all that is holding us from abject poverty. And if my

husband decides that he want to use me as his punching bag, then my

" options " look very grim indeed. Before I had my kids I was a LOT

freer to leave. There are millions of women in my boat.

Also, I'm not really talking about " climbing the corporate ladder. "

I'm talking about putting a roof over the heads and food in the belly,

a living wage.

========================

Mona, where are you coming from? You have a negative opinion to the

simplist of my assertions before even ascertaining all the facts. Do

you have an agenda?

Hicks

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 5/15/01 1:41:07 AM US Eastern Standard Time,

> ahicks@s... writes:

Hi Mona,

>

> I'm sorry, but I find this almost impossible to believe. It is

against the

> law to pay men and women differentially for the same job, and I am

aware of

> no company that does so, much less companies that " do it all the

time. " As a

> lawyer who has some expertise in employment discrimination law, I

would be

> absolutely delighted to learn of scads of situations like this,

since my

> share of the recovery would be sizable.

I will share this link with you, even though I am aware of your views

about NOW.

http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/04-08-99.html#equal

This one is good for 2-issues-in-1 as if you scroll down it shows that

the program to help women into apprenticeships in the trades was cut

to zero.

> A blatant example of this happened on my last

>

> > job where a man was hired a full year after I was and was doing

work

> > with far less responsibility than I had - yet he came in at a wage

> > that was 25% higher than my wage was. (Actually, this was another

> > chink in the AA wall, because I couldn't " turn it over " and fought

it

> > instead).

> >

>

> Sounds to me as tho this is a situation in which there is a

subjective

> difference of opinion as to what work entails more responsibility,

and should

> be more highly compensated. If you sought the same position,

knowing it paid

> more highly than your current one, and were refused consideration on

the

> basis of gender, then that is illegal gender discrimination. But it

is not

> illegal to pay a man a higher amount for a job that compensates at a

higher

> level than yours, just because some might feel your position should

pay

> equally.

What happened was that my job class was the same as his (although they

were different jobs) and I had longer seniority. The sole reason I

found out about it was because prepared an invoice where they

outsourced some of his hours. I worked a support position for a

hospice team and home infusion team, SG8 - he was a billing clerk,

SG8. They are both pretty humble jobs. However, it wasn't just a

" subjective " claim as you posit. After this they evaluated my

position and upgraded it to an SG10 and gave me a substantial raise.

So, evidently they also agreed that something was out of wack.

>

> >>This is the " concrete floor " as opposed

> to the glass ceiling, which many women are now able to penetrate. 

The

> reasons given for why these numbers are so bad are typical - that

the

> work requires strength and is dirty, etc. <<

>

> Very few women wish to be plumbers. Some do, but not nearly as many

per

> capita as males. If trade schools were discriminating against

female

> applicants in the plumbing program, that would be illegal gender

> discrimination. But the fact is, women do not, in general, aspire

to be

> plumbers.

Well, if they knew the money they were missing out on, I'm sure more

of them *would*. And how will they find out if they *never* want to

choose that anyway? (So no one bothers to point out the option).

>

> >> Yet at the same time, women

> are frequently shunted into jobs such as medical aide where the work

> is just as heavy and quite a bit dirtier.  <<

>

> Honestly, I laughed reading this. Have you ever seen plumbers

digging out a

> basement pipe clogged with huge amounts of dirt, human excrement,

piss, used

> tampons, and general gross and putrid crud? It is the single most

foul chore

> I can imagine, and I'd rather do almost anything else, including

digging out

> impacted bowels of old people as a med tech aide.

But would you rather do it for an average of **$16.00 per hour less**?

Really! Now I am the one laughing. And there is a hell of a lot

more to plumbing than this, including installing systems in new

buildings which can require much agility and smaller size. And what

about electrictians, masons, carpenters, etc.,? Body fluids are DIRTY

dirt. Of the trades, plumber is probably the *only* one that would

come into contact with it at all.

>

> If women wish to do the plumbing work, the trade schools should

allow them

> too. If they do not, that is illegal discrimination. If women

instead

> choose to become med tech aides (who is " shunting " them, are you

suggesting

> they are incapable of making their own choices?), they should be

free to do

> so.

Well, work-off-welfare programs for one thing!

>

> >>Women having children has been an excuse to pay them less, but I

don't

> follow the logic there.  Why does all of it fall to women?  Is it

all

> because of choices she made in your view?  Perhaps the ultimate

> " choice " to make here is to remain childless?<<

>

> No, no. Women are not paid less because they had children. They

are paid

> less because they opt for jobs with fewer responsibilities, and do

not

> acquire the seniority at the same level as men because some of them

drop out,

> or go down to half time, to raise children.

And why are men *never* required to make these sacrifices? Why are

they seen as completely daft if they have the temerity to take a

paternal leave when their children are born? A lot of this is

structure, socialization and learning. Even if a man wants to be

involved in the care of his children, he'll have a hard time of it.

>

> >>Women

> don't have a corner on the market on patience, or maternal

" instinct "

> (an idea that is largely BS, everyone has to learn how to take care

of

> kids, mothers included).  Men don't " opt " to work in daycare centers

> because the pay is crap and they have far better options (along with

> the cultural idea that " men don't do that. " )  Start giving those

women

> working there pay and status in our society and watch the males come

> in droves.<<

>

> There is much, much evidence from evolutionary biologists that women

are

> hard-wired to nurture babies and the young, because for most of

human

> existence the species would not have survived if they lacked the

urge and

> intense interest in to nursing them, caring for them, and protecting

them.

> There is a reason why women staying home and tending to the children

has been

> the norm in virtually every culture known to humanity. Mere

socialization

> cannot, by wild coincidence, be the reason for this, since it defies

> statistical probability.

But it can hold us rigidly to these prescribed roles even when they

don't fit and even when the other half of the equasion - the men

supposedly " bringing home the bacon " to allow the women to do the

nuturing falls through. Then, just where in the hell is she? Am I?

Because that is all that is holding us from abject poverty. And if my

husband decides that he want to use me as his punching bag, then my

" options " look very grim indeed. Before I had my kids I was a LOT

freer to leave. There are millions of women in my boat.

Also, I'm not really talking about " climbing the corporate ladder. "

I'm talking about putting a roof over the heads and food in the belly,

a living wage.

========================

Mona, where are you coming from? You have a negative opinion to the

simplist of my assertions before even ascertaining all the facts. Do

you have an agenda?

Hicks

[Guest guest]

Women rarely make it as firefighters because they aren't as good at

handling the big firehoses as men are. Mike.

Re: Re: Learned Helplessness, Spouse Abuse (long)

> At 02:05 PM 5/15/01 -0700, you wrote:

> >No, not bad. Fine. What we want is qualified firefighters. If only 2%

> >are female, fine. But if we were to say that only men can handle the

> >job, we potentially just reduced the pool of qualified firefighters by

> >2% for no good reason. Each time we refuse a woman we have judged a

> >particular person based on a " trend " . That's discrimination and it _is_

> >bad. And ironically enough, the " trend " is self-perpetuating, since

> >denying people based on a " trend " excludes them from future " trend "

> >data...

>

> Which leads us back to one of the rallying cries of the earliest

feminists:

> If women are genuinely incapable of being doctors, lawyers, etc., then

> what need is there to forbid it?

>

> We don't forbid chimpanzees from becoming doctors, after all.

> Somehow it just never seems to come up. :-)

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Women rarely make it as firefighters because they aren't as good at

handling the big firehoses as men are. Mike.

Re: Re: Learned Helplessness, Spouse Abuse (long)

> At 02:05 PM 5/15/01 -0700, you wrote:

> >No, not bad. Fine. What we want is qualified firefighters. If only 2%

> >are female, fine. But if we were to say that only men can handle the

> >job, we potentially just reduced the pool of qualified firefighters by

> >2% for no good reason. Each time we refuse a woman we have judged a

> >particular person based on a " trend " . That's discrimination and it _is_

> >bad. And ironically enough, the " trend " is self-perpetuating, since

> >denying people based on a " trend " excludes them from future " trend "

> >data...

>

> Which leads us back to one of the rallying cries of the earliest

feminists:

> If women are genuinely incapable of being doctors, lawyers, etc., then

> what need is there to forbid it?

>

> We don't forbid chimpanzees from becoming doctors, after all.

> Somehow it just never seems to come up. :-)

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Women rarely make it as firefighters because they aren't as good at

handling the big firehoses as men are. Mike.

Re: Re: Learned Helplessness, Spouse Abuse (long)

> At 02:05 PM 5/15/01 -0700, you wrote:

> >No, not bad. Fine. What we want is qualified firefighters. If only 2%

> >are female, fine. But if we were to say that only men can handle the

> >job, we potentially just reduced the pool of qualified firefighters by

> >2% for no good reason. Each time we refuse a woman we have judged a

> >particular person based on a " trend " . That's discrimination and it _is_

> >bad. And ironically enough, the " trend " is self-perpetuating, since

> >denying people based on a " trend " excludes them from future " trend "

> >data...

>

> Which leads us back to one of the rallying cries of the earliest

feminists:

> If women are genuinely incapable of being doctors, lawyers, etc., then

> what need is there to forbid it?

>

> We don't forbid chimpanzees from becoming doctors, after all.

> Somehow it just never seems to come up. :-)

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> This is true. Insurance companies, however, won't employ ethnicity

as a

> factor in setting insurance premiums because it would raise such a

hue and

> cry. But there would actually be nothing irrational about it if

they did so.

> Just because it is too sticky to consider this one group

characteristic it

> does not follow that the rest should be disallowed.

It does for consistency. Maybe w e men ought to raise a hue and cry to

stop the discrimination against us - but then there would be an even

bigger hue and cry to say it should go on.

[Guest guest]

> This is true. Insurance companies, however, won't employ ethnicity

as a

> factor in setting insurance premiums because it would raise such a

hue and

> cry. But there would actually be nothing irrational about it if

they did so.

> Just because it is too sticky to consider this one group

characteristic it

> does not follow that the rest should be disallowed.

It does for consistency. Maybe w e men ought to raise a hue and cry to

stop the discrimination against us - but then there would be an even

bigger hue and cry to say it should go on.

[Guest guest]

> This is true. Insurance companies, however, won't employ ethnicity

as a

> factor in setting insurance premiums because it would raise such a

hue and

> cry. But there would actually be nothing irrational about it if

they did so.

> Just because it is too sticky to consider this one group

characteristic it

> does not follow that the rest should be disallowed.

It does for consistency. Maybe w e men ought to raise a hue and cry to

stop the discrimination against us - but then there would be an even

bigger hue and cry to say it should go on.

[Guest guest]

One interesting consequence of the change was that a couple of black-owned companies were driven out of business. These companies had specialized in the African-American market, and without a pool of 'white' insureds to subsidize the higher 'black' mortality costs, they were unable to remain competitive.

It is most unfortunate that racial differences simply are factors that can be rationally considered in everything from setting insurance premiums to

employment policies and practices. Were it not for the irrational and immoral discrimination to which blacks were subjected for so long and severely, it would not be so ticklish to discuss these matters, much less to actually take race into consideration in various contexts.

I do not pretend to know what the wise and moral path is, but reality has a way of refusing to be ignored, as your above-quoted example demonstrates.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

One interesting consequence of the change was that a couple of black-owned companies were driven out of business. These companies had specialized in the African-American market, and without a pool of 'white' insureds to subsidize the higher 'black' mortality costs, they were unable to remain competitive.

It is most unfortunate that racial differences simply are factors that can be rationally considered in everything from setting insurance premiums to

employment policies and practices. Were it not for the irrational and immoral discrimination to which blacks were subjected for so long and severely, it would not be so ticklish to discuss these matters, much less to actually take race into consideration in various contexts.

I do not pretend to know what the wise and moral path is, but reality has a way of refusing to be ignored, as your above-quoted example demonstrates.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

If businesses in the South could not survive by serving whites only,

there would have been no need to pass civil rights laws because the

segregated businesses would have died a natural death. The change in social

attitudes was a result of forced integration, usually orchestrated by

Northern "troublemakers" who sought out test cases in the South (my personal

hero, a young NAACP lawyer named Thurgood Marshall, comes to mind), not the

other way around.

I think you are missing my point. Obviously many -- likely most -- southern business owners would have been bound by conventional racism in the absence of Jim Crow laws. But these laws were not regarded as merely a ratification of behavior; they were enacted because after the Civil War free blacks were being served along with whites in some public accommodations, and racist sensibilities were offended. In the absence, of such legislation some businesses, no doubt a minority, would have continued to accommodate black patrons -- hence laws to coerce those who would put business sense before mores.

Segregation cost businesses money. Many racist business owners would not behave rationally, but other racist entrepreneurs would put profit ahead of ideology. (See Tom Sowell's works on Civil Rights laws and the reasons driving Jim Crow. As you may know, some who do not like the facts he sets forth refer to him as "Uncle Tom.") Do you believe the Jim Crow laws were mere redundancies and that segregation would have fared just us well and completely without them?

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

If businesses in the South could not survive by serving whites only,

there would have been no need to pass civil rights laws because the

segregated businesses would have died a natural death. The change in social

attitudes was a result of forced integration, usually orchestrated by

Northern "troublemakers" who sought out test cases in the South (my personal

hero, a young NAACP lawyer named Thurgood Marshall, comes to mind), not the

other way around.

I think you are missing my point. Obviously many -- likely most -- southern business owners would have been bound by conventional racism in the absence of Jim Crow laws. But these laws were not regarded as merely a ratification of behavior; they were enacted because after the Civil War free blacks were being served along with whites in some public accommodations, and racist sensibilities were offended. In the absence, of such legislation some businesses, no doubt a minority, would have continued to accommodate black patrons -- hence laws to coerce those who would put business sense before mores.

Segregation cost businesses money. Many racist business owners would not behave rationally, but other racist entrepreneurs would put profit ahead of ideology. (See Tom Sowell's works on Civil Rights laws and the reasons driving Jim Crow. As you may know, some who do not like the facts he sets forth refer to him as "Uncle Tom.") Do you believe the Jim Crow laws were mere redundancies and that segregation would have fared just us well and completely without them?

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

If businesses in the South could not survive by serving whites only,

there would have been no need to pass civil rights laws because the

segregated businesses would have died a natural death. The change in social

attitudes was a result of forced integration, usually orchestrated by

Northern "troublemakers" who sought out test cases in the South (my personal

hero, a young NAACP lawyer named Thurgood Marshall, comes to mind), not the

other way around.

I think you are missing my point. Obviously many -- likely most -- southern business owners would have been bound by conventional racism in the absence of Jim Crow laws. But these laws were not regarded as merely a ratification of behavior; they were enacted because after the Civil War free blacks were being served along with whites in some public accommodations, and racist sensibilities were offended. In the absence, of such legislation some businesses, no doubt a minority, would have continued to accommodate black patrons -- hence laws to coerce those who would put business sense before mores.

Segregation cost businesses money. Many racist business owners would not behave rationally, but other racist entrepreneurs would put profit ahead of ideology. (See Tom Sowell's works on Civil Rights laws and the reasons driving Jim Crow. As you may know, some who do not like the facts he sets forth refer to him as "Uncle Tom.") Do you believe the Jim Crow laws were mere redundancies and that segregation would have fared just us well and completely without them?

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Re: Re: Learned Helplessness, Spouse Abuse (long)

[snip]

This is true. Insurance companies, however, won't employ ethnicity as a factor in setting insurance premiums because it would raise such a hue and cry. But there would actually be nothing irrational about it if they did so. Just because it is too sticky to consider this one group characteristic it does not follow that the rest should be disallowed. *** Actually life insurers did charge blacks higher rates until some time in the late 40's, when the industry decided, more or less on its own, as I recall, to stop the practice, and even to stop collecting statistics on mortality variation by race.

One interesting consequence of the change was that a couple of black-owned companies were driven out of business. These companies had specialized in the African-American market, and without a pool of 'white' insureds to subsidize the higher 'black' mortality costs, they were unable to remain competitive.

--wally

[Guest guest]

Re: Re: Learned Helplessness, Spouse Abuse (long)

[snip]

This is true. Insurance companies, however, won't employ ethnicity as a factor in setting insurance premiums because it would raise such a hue and cry. But there would actually be nothing irrational about it if they did so. Just because it is too sticky to consider this one group characteristic it does not follow that the rest should be disallowed. *** Actually life insurers did charge blacks higher rates until some time in the late 40's, when the industry decided, more or less on its own, as I recall, to stop the practice, and even to stop collecting statistics on mortality variation by race.

One interesting consequence of the change was that a couple of black-owned companies were driven out of business. These companies had specialized in the African-American market, and without a pool of 'white' insureds to subsidize the higher 'black' mortality costs, they were unable to remain competitive.

--wally

[Guest guest]

Re: Re: Learned Helplessness, Spouse Abuse (long)

[snip]

This is true. Insurance companies, however, won't employ ethnicity as a factor in setting insurance premiums because it would raise such a hue and cry. But there would actually be nothing irrational about it if they did so. Just because it is too sticky to consider this one group characteristic it does not follow that the rest should be disallowed. *** Actually life insurers did charge blacks higher rates until some time in the late 40's, when the industry decided, more or less on its own, as I recall, to stop the practice, and even to stop collecting statistics on mortality variation by race.

One interesting consequence of the change was that a couple of black-owned companies were driven out of business. These companies had specialized in the African-American market, and without a pool of 'white' insureds to subsidize the higher 'black' mortality costs, they were unable to remain competitive.

--wally

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

>

> > If women are genuinely incapable of being doctors, lawyers, etc., then

> > what need is there to forbid it?

> >

>

> That's an excellent point. It is similar to the reason for Jim Crow laws

in

> the Old South in the U.S. Businessmen were not inclined to assume the

lost

> business of blacks without being forced to do so, and neither were they

> inclined to assume the transaction costs of unrelenting segregation

without

> such laws.

>

> Irrational discrimination makes no financial sense, and must be

legislated,

> because even very strong mores and cultural norms will not otherwise stop

> everyone from behaving according to enlightened self-interest.

Mona, I think you're rewriting American history on this one.

If white business owners were concerned about losing business due to

Jim Crow laws, they had the political power to change them. After all, the

ruling class in the South was comprised of white male business owners.

Literacy tests and poll taxes kept blacks (and poor whites)from voting.

The self-interest at the time was in preserving the status quo;

businesses that were not segregated risked loss of the white clientele and

valdalism (or worse) by the Klan or other similarly motivated individuals.

Note that places like the Heart of Atlanta Motel did NOT

discriminate against blacks because they were required by law to do so; they

deliberately challenged the 1964 Civil Rights Act by continuing to

discriminate against black patrons.

Restrictive covenants in housing did not disappear because

developers found home buyers preferred integrated housing; the covenants

were overturned by operation of law. One only needs to look at the massive

" white flight " to the suburbs in the sixties to see that homes sold well in

segregated communities.

If businesses in the South could not survive by serving whites only,

there would have been no need to pass civil rights laws because the

segregated businesses would have died a natural death. The change in social

attitudes was a result of forced integration, usually orchestrated by

Northern " troublemakers " who sought out test cases in the South (my personal

hero, a young NAACP lawyer named Thurgood Marshall, comes to mind), not the

other way around.

-- Bob

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

>

> > If women are genuinely incapable of being doctors, lawyers, etc., then

> > what need is there to forbid it?

> >

>

> That's an excellent point. It is similar to the reason for Jim Crow laws

in

> the Old South in the U.S. Businessmen were not inclined to assume the

lost

> business of blacks without being forced to do so, and neither were they

> inclined to assume the transaction costs of unrelenting segregation

without

> such laws.

>

> Irrational discrimination makes no financial sense, and must be

legislated,

> because even very strong mores and cultural norms will not otherwise stop

> everyone from behaving according to enlightened self-interest.

Mona, I think you're rewriting American history on this one.

If white business owners were concerned about losing business due to

Jim Crow laws, they had the political power to change them. After all, the

ruling class in the South was comprised of white male business owners.

Literacy tests and poll taxes kept blacks (and poor whites)from voting.

The self-interest at the time was in preserving the status quo;

businesses that were not segregated risked loss of the white clientele and

valdalism (or worse) by the Klan or other similarly motivated individuals.

Note that places like the Heart of Atlanta Motel did NOT

discriminate against blacks because they were required by law to do so; they

deliberately challenged the 1964 Civil Rights Act by continuing to

discriminate against black patrons.

Restrictive covenants in housing did not disappear because

developers found home buyers preferred integrated housing; the covenants

were overturned by operation of law. One only needs to look at the massive

" white flight " to the suburbs in the sixties to see that homes sold well in

segregated communities.

If businesses in the South could not survive by serving whites only,

there would have been no need to pass civil rights laws because the

segregated businesses would have died a natural death. The change in social

attitudes was a result of forced integration, usually orchestrated by

Northern " troublemakers " who sought out test cases in the South (my personal

hero, a young NAACP lawyer named Thurgood Marshall, comes to mind), not the

other way around.

-- Bob

[Guest guest]

At 09:58 PM 5/15/01 +0000, you wrote:

> > We don't forbid chimpanzees from becoming doctors, after all.

> > Somehow it just never seems to come up. :-)

>

>You should see the one I saw yesterday..... Seriously though, if one

>were trained to apply for a doctor's licence, wouldnt you say it would

>be refused?

If some supergenius chimpanzee wants to give medical school a

shot, hiring a translator for sign language and keeping the " Ook

ook " to a minimum, who am I to stand in the way? :-)

[Guest guest]

At 09:58 PM 5/15/01 +0000, you wrote:

> > We don't forbid chimpanzees from becoming doctors, after all.

> > Somehow it just never seems to come up. :-)

>

>You should see the one I saw yesterday..... Seriously though, if one

>were trained to apply for a doctor's licence, wouldnt you say it would

>be refused?

If some supergenius chimpanzee wants to give medical school a

shot, hiring a translator for sign language and keeping the " Ook

ook " to a minimum, who am I to stand in the way? :-)

[Guest guest]

At 09:58 PM 5/15/01 +0000, you wrote:

> > We don't forbid chimpanzees from becoming doctors, after all.

> > Somehow it just never seems to come up. :-)

>

>You should see the one I saw yesterday..... Seriously though, if one

>were trained to apply for a doctor's licence, wouldnt you say it would

>be refused?

If some supergenius chimpanzee wants to give medical school a

shot, hiring a translator for sign language and keeping the " Ook

ook " to a minimum, who am I to stand in the way? :-)

[Guest guest]

At 11:29 PM 5/15/01 -0700, you wrote:

> > Irrational discrimination makes no financial sense, and must be

>legislated,

> > because even very strong mores and cultural norms will not otherwise stop

> > everyone from behaving according to enlightened self-interest.

>

>

> Mona, I think you're rewriting American history on this one.

> If white business owners were concerned about losing business due to

>Jim Crow laws, they had the political power to change them. After all, the

>ruling class in the South was comprised of white male business owners.

>Literacy tests and poll taxes kept blacks (and poor whites)from voting.

> The self-interest at the time was in preserving the status quo;

>businesses that were not segregated risked loss of the white clientele and

>valdalism (or worse) by the Klan or other similarly motivated individuals.

Even leaving the Klan out of the picture, there would be plenty of

whites who wouldn't want to eat, shop, etc., with " those people. "

And since the white folks had more money, it made more sense to

seek white business than black business. If that meant banning

blacks -- well, that was what made economic sense at the place and

time. Such a system can become self-perpetuating, by reinforcing

the idea that there's something wrong with a place which allows

anyone to come in.

That said, I tend to think that gradual social change is better in the

long run than trying to force social change with laws. The latter

leads to a lot of resentment, some of which has apparently lasted

to this day.