Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    Of the 107,000 people who work at DEC, do you happen to know the
    proportion of women to men?
   

    Do you mean to include those secretaries who also have to have
    a second job to make ends meet, or not?
    							Ann B.

    
    Re: .0
    
    You raise a lot of questions. Do you have the answers too?
    Otherwise I fail to see the point you are attempting to make.
    Please, some facts. Not just leading quetions.

    I don't know if this is true or not, but every time I wonder that
    this one slimey, leering maintenance guy who's a lazy ****** makes
    more money than our professional, hardworking secretary, I start to
    boil.
    	-Ellen

    Re .3, I think that if nobody ever came up with "leading questions"
    whether they know the answers or not, it would take a lot longer
    for the majority of people to realize  there is a problem.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    	But even if only half of these statistics are true, it's still
    sad.  If anyone has contradictory information...I'd like to hear
    that too.  This is important stuff and it shouldn't be pushed under
    the carpet.  Is it that we really aren't willing to look at the
    "facts"?  
    
    						jean
    

    
    Re: .5
    
    Agreed. However my curiosity has been raised by all of those questions.
    I'd just like to know answers to any of them. Maybe then I could
    understand the point the person is trying to make. 
    

    re .4
    
    Personal attacks aside, your comment about the maintenance
    worker vs. secretary salary raises an important issue about
    comparability.  I think DEC does pretty well in the equal pay for
    equal job category, but what about comparable jobs?  
    
    Here's an example of what I mean:
    
    A woman I know got a wage class 2, clerical job at DEC right
    out of high school.  Her starting pay was around $6.00/hr.  Her
    brother, also right out of high school, applied for an entry-level
    job at DEC and got hired to set up A-V equipment at a much higher
    hourly wage.  Now they both went through the same personnel rep.,
    who was responsible for forwarding their resume to "appropriate"
    hiring managers.  The questions that this raises for me are:
    How come they got such different jobs when they had essentially
    the same skills?  How come their starting hourly wages were so
    different?  (The difference was more than $2.00/hr.) 

    
    	Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but the point seems to be that there
    are still a lot of women being discriminated against even here at
    DEC.  I agree, I'd like answers too.
    
    	                                          jean
    

     >How many women have received stock options as part
     >of the reward system in DEC?
    
    I don't know.  I was not aware this was part of the reward system
    for the general working population.
    
    >How much life insurance preimum does a woman pay?
    >How much does the man pay?
    
    I don't know.  If the rates are different for men then for women,
    I doubt it's Digital's fault.  Digital is not in the insurance
    business.  I am not sure if it is reasonable to assume the company
    would make up the difference because of the possibly sexist practices
    of an insurance vendor.
    
    >How many women have made lateral moves in their last move?  How many
    >men?  How many received less than 5% pay raises in this last pay hike.
    >How many men?  How many women have received two pay rasies in one year?
    >How many men?
    
    Corporate wide, I have no idea.  I don't even know in my own group.
    It isn't any of my damn business what the women doing the same job
    I'm doing are making.
    
    I know one woman in this company well enough to know about her salary.
    When she had the same job title I did, she made more than I did.
                                                                         
    
    >Compare the men's shower facilities with the women's.  Who has the
    >better set up?  For those faclities that provide basketballs, how
    >many of them have the women's basketball?  Those facilities that
    >provide more than one softball/baseball field - is one the size
    >for women and the other for men?
    
    I don't know.  I get a lot of dirty looks when I walk into a women's
    shower, so I stay out of them.  As for these sorts of facilities,
    I don't make a lot of use of them, so I'm not in a position to comment.
    
    
    >How many people belong to a Y.  Which receives more money from
    >United Way from DEC, the YWCA or the YMCA?  
    
    Does Digital have that much of a say in where it's United Way
    contribution goes?  I always thought the United Way was the arbiter.
    Again, if there are sexists running the United Way, it is not Digital's
    fault.
    
    >How is predominatly makes Child Care facility requests, men or women?
    >Do you think DEC would have this facility as part of it's organization
    >if more men pushed for it?  
     
    I couldn't really be sure here, either.  It isn't an issue I've been in
    a position to be involved with.  I'm 24, male, and terminally single.
    
    >I know in my group the men who have same title, less education, 
    >less years at DEC are earning more than me.
    
    If you have figures to prove this, you should drop whatever you're
    doing, march into your manager's office, and demand to know why.
    If you don't get a satisfactory answer, start moving through the
    hierarchy until you do.
    
    I'm not trying make light of your complaint.  I just don't have
    any answers.
    
    Any members of the community privy to how Digital is spending monies
    on things other than salaries.  Are there such glaring inequities,
    given the mix of men and women in the employee population?
    
    DFW
      

    	I must say much of .0 is little more than much ado about nothing,
    in the opinion of this male DEC employee.
    
    	If your the people of your site want a female basketball court/
    base/soft/foot-ball field, ask for one.  I doubt you will be refused
    if there is money for same.
    
    	People in the maintenance field make more money than people
    in the secretarial field simply because of supply and demand -
    there are more people applying for secretarial positions who can
    accomplish the requisite jobs than are applying for maintenance
    positions who can accomplish the requisite jobs.  DEC, or any employer,
    would be foolish to pay $6.00 per hour if capable help can be hired
    for less than $6.00 per hour.  This is one of the realities of business
    - minimize expenses to maintain a competitive edge and insure
    profitability.
    
    	Some men make more money for doing the same jobs as women. 
    Some women make more money for doing the same jobs as men.  The
    previous is true in DEC, based on my experience as a cost center
    manager.
    
    	If I were a woman or a member of a minority group and I was
    earning less than a white male who is less educated, has less
    seniority, is not as capable as I, etc. then I would bring down
    the doors of the personnel group and, if necessary, file charges
    against the corporation.  I filed a similiar case (in my case it
    was reverse discrimination) against a major Boston bank in the early
    70's and won.
    
    	Women are discriminated against in the work place but I doubt
    such discrimination exists to the same extent in DEC.  I also doubt
    the discrimination which exists in DEC would be tolerated if complaints
    were raised to the correct authorities.
    
    Douglas

    How many secretaries in your plant ? How many are male ?
    How many are female ?  Why would *anyone* take such a
    low-paying, low-image job. I don't knock secretaries but
    the position does seem much in demand among women. Not so
    many applying for Warehouser 1 or 2. Seems not too many 
    ladies enjoy driving forklifts, lifting heavy boxes, and
    working in non-airconditioned facilities. (It's 92 here
    as I write). Maybe thats why we get $9 -$13 an hour. 

    Good Morning America stated awhile back that in Corporate America,
    women were earing .61 cents to the male dollar.  Now I hear .59
    cents.  Is it getting lower or is Digital lower?
    
    I was driving around during lunch listening to the news and on WROR
    (Boston), there is an FYI segment.  The newscaster stated, "women
    who want to be successful in business need to spend approx. $9400
    to get ready for promotions.  This includes speech classes, business
    attire and accessories, hair and nail grooming and membership at
    health spas.
    
    What a crock!!!!
    
    It also stated that taller men with MBA's earn an average of $600.00
    more salary per inch over 6 feet.  Another crock!
    
    Where do they get these studies and why did I listen?  Because I
    wanted to hear if women will ever make the money they deserve for
    the work they do.  Right now, in the job that I'm doing, I deserve
    the money I am making.  I also don't like my job and that's MY fault.
    I deserve more because I deserve a better job with better pay.
    Now, as far as making more or less, I don't know.  I don't make
    the rules on payment.  I feel that Digital is pretty competitive.
    Someone once said to me: "Oh, Cathy, you could be making $2000 more
    per year if you worked in Boston and I asked: 'does the job have
    the benefits (and I proceeded to list them) that Digital has, does
    it have payroll deductions (and I listed all the things you can
    have deducted)'.  On most of these, the answer was no.  
    
    I don't know, I haven't really given this issue much thought.  It
    scares me to think that some day, I may be up against a man for
    a position in DEC and when the mgrs "know" they can get away with paying
    "me" less, I'll probably get hired, which is not fair, if it indeed
    happens this way.  I know that if your pay is on the high scale
    of your present job and you take a job that is a promotion (WC2
    to 4), you will be brought up to the minimum or left at your present
    salary if it falls between the new range.  As for whether or not
    this happens to women and not to men, I doubt it.  I think this
    is equal no matter what.
    
    It's the STARTING pay I'm worried about......
                                         

  Renee, some people have asked you for clarification and you have not yet
  gotten around to providing it.  I read in your introductory note that
  you are a senior manufacturing engineer.  Are you saying that you,
  personally, make 61% of the average senior manufacturing engineer's
  salary?  Or are you making the more general observation that women, on
  the average, make about 61% of a man's salary, all other things being
  equal?  (I don't think anyone is asking for proof -- we just don't know
  quite what you are saying.)

  In .0, you made an observation that really suprised me:

  >  I know in my group the men who have same title, less education, 
  >  less years at DEC are earning more than me. 

  You never said you were more capable than these men.  Surely you are not
  suggesting that you be paid more just because you have more education
  and more time at DEC!  Are you?  

  JP

    Whoever said that much of the problem is in starting salaries
    was right.  How many women are not even considered for jobs that
    are considered "man's work", even in DEC (remember the high school
    graduates example)?
    
    When I was 17, I was looking for my first job.  No one taught me
    how to look (and I needed to be taught!).  I wore a dress to impress
    people, and applied everywhere in town, I felt.  No job.  Finally
    someone taught me to be persistent, but not obnoxious (fine line
    sometimes).  I got 2 jobs in one day.  The first offer I received
    was working at a gas station.  The men there laughed at me the first
    several times I showed up.  This was very hard on my ego.  I had
    been taught how to work on cars by my father and believed I could
    be good at the job.  They had never heard of a woman/girl doing
    this and tried to make me go away by telling me that I would get
    dirty!  The job I accepted was one that paid more and had nicer
    people there: I was a sacker/baggirl at a supermarket.  It was still
    a "boy's job" and some people (mostly men) would not ask help from
    me since they thought it would make them look bad.  Almost every
    day when I had to run get a 50 pound bag of something then customers
    would try and stop me from doing this, and would suggest that I
    get "one of the boys" to help me.  I had to learn to not only do
    the work, but to do it better than the males.  I used to *run* with
    those 50 pound bags on my shoulder.
    
    It is not much different today, even at DEC.  Even my manager commented
    the other day to 2 women trying to move a file cabinet that they
    should not be doing that, but should get some of the guys to do
    it.  And my manager is a woman!  Women who try and take on men's
    jobs often do not get the opportunity, and when they do they often
    have to work twice as hard, not because it is harder for them to
    do the work, but because it is harder for them to get others to
    *believe* they can do the work.  If women are put into starting
    salaries of $14,000 and men are put into jobs with starting salaries
    of $21,000 then how much longer will it take for the women to catch
    up to the men?
                              Carol
    

    Notes like 331.0 leave a bad taste in my mouth.  Why?  Because most
    of these "questions" either have perfectly reasonable answers or
    are irrelevant to the topic.
    
    From everything I've seen here at DEC, women and men are not
    treated any differently as far as employment opportunities, pay,
    benefits, etc. go.  Most of us can't answer the questions you
    pose specifically because we don't have access to the information.
    Your implications that there ARE distinctions don't have any obvious
    basis, nor are you providing any.
    
    I'll point out in the specific case of my group, our senior manager,
    half of our development managers, and a third of our supervisors
    are women.  There don't seem to be any limitations placed on women
    in DEC from my perspective.
    
    As for some of your less relevant questions:
    
      Shower facilities - at every plant I've seen, the facilities
      are identical for women and men.  (I understand the women's
      are even nicer in many cases.)
    
      Basketballs - the facility provides the equipment, and doesn't
      give a damn who asks for it.  Any actual "teams" are set up by
      the employees themselves.  If you want a women-only basketball
      team, why don't you start one?
    
      Baseball fields - I've never seen a case where a DEC facility
      designated inferior recreation resources to women.
    
      YMCA vs. YWCA - DEC has no specific say in how this money is
      allocated.  Another reply talked about a "check off" - I've never
      seen one that allowed me to select one over the other.  If you
      don't like the way United Way allocates its money, contribute
      directly to the YWCA instead and DEC will match your contribution.
    
      Child care - Many men, myself included, are vocal about requesting
      some assistance with child care.  But the company doesn't want
      to touch it.  As a father, I actually resent the implication that
      child care is a "women's issue".  Without competent, affordable
      and convenient child care, I could not work.
    
    If you have some evidence to show that you, or women in general,
    are discriminated against by DEC, then say so.  Otherwise all
    you seem to be doing is whining, and it's not winning you any
    sympathy.

    Now if what you REALLY wanted to discuss was that, taken as a whole,
    women in the US earn an average salary about half of men taken
    as a whole, you're right, but that is a pretty meaningless
    statistic taken by itself.  Yes, there are obstacles to women in
    some parts of our society, but they are disappearing, and are
    mostly gone in our own field.
    
    Competence counts.  Make it work for you.
    
    				Steve

    Are there any men out there who *do* think that women are treated
    unfairly at DEC?  It just seems to me that whenever a woman offers
    an example of sexism that she has observed OR experienced, a large
    number of men jump in to contradict.  I just wanted to get a sense
    of whether or not any of the male womannoters have observed women
    being treated unfairly.  In all fairness, I should tell you what
    my opinion is first.  I think DEC treats women better than most
    large corporations, but I do think women are often paid less than 
    men.  What do you think?
    
    justine

       The 59  cents number is an old canard. It was the percentage of
       men's  annual  income that women made (on average). Among other
       problems, it is not corrected for hours worked (many women hold
       part time jobs), education (at the time more men than women had
       college  degrees), or experience (many more women than men took
       time away from the job market to raise children). Last I heard,
       when  those  corrections  are  applied, women's income was just
       over 90% of men's. 59 cents persists in the folklore, partially
       because  of  a  Fred  Small  song by that name. The more recent
       figure is 61 cents, but both are meaningless.

       This still  doesn't  correct for self-selection of lower paying
       (possibly  more  comfortable)  jobs.  (I can't speak for anyone
       else,  but  personally  I  will  accept lower salary for better
       working conditions or more interesting work. It is claimed that
       more  women  than  men feel this way.) It is probably true that
       even with this correction women are making less money than men.
       That  is  unacceptable, but making extravagant claims about the
       extent  of  a problem helps neither to solve it nor to increase
       your credibility.

       Our cost  center  manager  told us that personnel must check to
       see  that  there  are  no  disparities in pay between similarly
       qualified and performing men and women. How well this is done I
       don't know, but DEC has a reputation for being better than most
       companies on this sort of thing.

--David

RE: .24

Yes, I think women are probably treated better by DEC than many other large
corporations, but I still can see large-scale disparities that to me seem
unfair. I don't have the statistics to back up this belief, admittedly based
on a relatively small sample.

Don.

    
    rE:24....twas just thinking the same thing myself!
    
    a lot of professional men (those that .0 claims are treated with
    preferential favor!) are quite aghast that anyone noticed and equally
    positive that the allegations are unfounded.
    
    them:	one need but be more persistent and work harder harder harder
    them:	and you, too, will reap the big rewards.
    them:	why, you can become a cost center manager! and make almost as
    them:   much money as male cost center managers!
    
    	and when you become a cost center manager they'll hire some
       19 year young female at.....oh....15k per year...to do the work
      that you had been doing for 17.5....(referring to secretaries here)
    	their base justification for continuing to underpay a whole
    profession/sex is that woman can move up from this position into
    something more lucrative...financially.

    	the facts exist.
    	woman do indeed make 59-61 cents for every male dollar.
    	and i'm far from convinced that the average man is worth more
    than the average woman...i don't care what their job title is...!!
    
    of course, i wouldn't stop at...woman/men...secretaries/professionals......
    as far as i'm concerned the starting salaries for too many professions
    is far too low....
    	cooks
    	janitors
    	operators
    	secretaries....
    and the increments there after are insulting!
    
    	though i think  a male/female problem does indeed exist it is
    just part of the bigger picture which includes class distinction/
    seperation problems between those who have and those who want.
    
    i can see some of the next replies....
    	well, rik....in this country everyone has the right to work
    hard and write their own success story
    	that's just the way it is...
    	nothing you can do about it...
    
    	i'd like to know what it is about SOME woman that, once they
    don suits and start acting like men, they forget about the plight
    of the average woman while continuing to think of themselves as
    such...or as an above average woman...
    	is that it?
    	the successful woman must be an above average woman...
    	an above average woman = a male.....?
    
    
    

The problem is that Renee never said the "magic words:"

  Renee:               That man has less education than I and makes more money.

  Men_of_womennotes:   Yawn.

  Renee:               I've been with DEC longer than that man and he 
                       makes more money.

  Men_of_womennotes:   Snore.

  Renee:               I do a *better job* than that man and he makes more
                       money.

  Men_of_womennotes:   What can we do to help fix that?

  So how about it, Renee?  Do you do a better job than these people?  Or do
  want more money because you've been here longer and have a better
  educational pedigree?  I don't want to put words in your mouth, which is
  why I asked for clarification, but it sounds as though you want to become
  a female member of the old boy network.
  
  Sorry to cast this discussion in terms of men on one side and women on the
  other.  "Men_of_womennotes" is what you might call poetic license...

  JP

    "Women's salaries are significantly lower than men's in almost all
    fields of science, in every employment sector and at comparable
    levels of experience"
    
    report of the Office of Technology Assessment
    released December 1984
    quoted in EE Times, 10 February 1985

    
    I, for one, was paid less than my male counterparts in my first
    job here at DEC.  My experience at the time of hire was on a par
    with other new hires and yet I was paid much less.  As time went 
    on, I surpassed many in expertise and still made much less (it's
    impossible to catch up).  After three years, with no opportunity 
    to move ahead in that same field, I decided to do something 
    entirely different: I quit and went back to school.  I have a better
    feeling about my new group, now that I'm back.
    
    You don't necessarily get what you want just because you work "hard
    enough" (whatever that means).  It's extremely discouraging to work
    hard and not reap the rewards.  And, aside from the fact that it's 
    not easy to move on, it can also be interpreted (by prospective 
    employers) as a lack of stick-to-it-iveness, determination, and/or
    stability.    
    
    CQ

    For the experiences of one person. When I was hired at Dec my
    first salary offer was X. I happened to be talking to a man
    who had been hired at the same time from the outside who had
    less education but slightly more business experience (i.e I had
    12 years teaching college and he had been a temp and worked
    on an assembly line, I had an M.A. he had a B.A. and a number
    of computer courses.) His initial offer was significantly higher
    than mine. When I found that out I went and talked to my supervisor
    and asked him what initial salaries were based on. When I then asked
    why Mr Y was getting z more than me I got a second offer within
    two days. So my immediate reaction is that in at least some cases
    asking questions produces reasonable answers.
    
    Bonnie J

    I believe that women are discriminated against at Digital, both
    individually and collectively. I've seen it. I still see it.
    
    Not all women, not all the time, but yes there is discrimination
    at DEC. It's much better than many other companies I've worked for,
    and worse than (a few) others.
    
    Those people who claim that a competant woman will be paid what
    she's worth and promoted as appropriate are either naive or
    unobservant. Indeed MOST OF THE TIME this is true, but we can't
    stop pushing this issue until it is true ALL OF THE TIME.
    
    Until the idea of discrimination on the basis of sex is as silly
    as discrimination on the basis of hair color we cannot become
    complacent. People who claim that the problem is solved are deluding
    themselves. There is still sexism at DEC, it's getting better, but
    we can't stop yet!
    
    By the way Bob (Holt), have you ever ASKED this woman engineer you
    admire so much if SHE feels if she's been discriminated against
    at DEC? You might. If you do, would you let us know what SHE thinks?
    
    	-- Charles

    If one woman complains, maybe one or two people will listen.
    If several women complain, justify complaints, and work toward
    a goal of equality, then perhaps more people might listen.
    
    In my present job, I have NOT seen discrimination so I have no
    reason to complain.  BUT if I ever did see discrimination I would
    be very smart about how I dealt with the people at hand.  I would
    also look for *SUPPORT* along the way.  And I wouldn't let people
    dismiss my complaints so lightly.  If you can justify your complaints
    then think intelligently about the best way to deal with your
    adversaries.  Have CONCRETE evidence.
    
    Example:
    
    She: I do the same work that Bob does but I make $3000 less on a
    yearly basis.
    
    Boss: But Bob has been here longer than you and Bob has completed
    his degree and you are still working on yours.
    
    She: The following are responsibilites common to Bob and I:
    
        1. Weekly Cost Center Spending Summary of Variances
        2. Monthly Operations Reporting
        3. Development of New Software System
        4. Weekly Reports to Corporate                         
    
    These are based on standard reporting formats that I developed.
    
    I am also working on a number of things that Bob knows little about
    including new procedures for Inventory Aging and new Procedures
    for introduction of Capital Equipment.
    
    Therefore, I feel that I am doing MORE than Bob so my salary should
    be comparable if not MORE than his.  
    Can you give me any reasons to the contrary?
    
    Boss:  Ummm, er....
    
    She: I'd appreciate it if you could discuss this with Personnel.
    
                                                                    
    I think a scenerio like this would quite effective.  If "She" could
    not get resolution from the "Boss" then "She" has heavy ammunition
    for Personnel.  And "She" should not be alone.  If "She" is a bright
    businessperson then "She" probably has a network or support group
    in the wings to help her out if she needs help.
    
    I only wish I was this smart six years ago.
                                               
    
    Just my two cents,
    
    Nancy

    Some background info:  I have been at DEC for just over 8 years.
    I have had 8 salary reviews/increases.  I have always gotten
    either a 1 or 2 rating (I include this information to allay any
    comments on competence.) I came in at a level 4 position and am
    now in a level 12 position, so I have covered a fair distance on
    the "ladder".
    

    The point that I want to make is that I have done pretty well but
    I have not been moved up the corporate ladder because I was seen
    to be competent and rewarded for it.  I had to fight tooth and
    nail for my advancement:  

    Several years ago I had a boss who told me he was so pleased with
    my performance that he was going to give me a several-level
    promotion, a big pay raise and a 1 rating.  What actually
    happened was that he gave me a 1 level promotion, a mediocre pay
    raise and he looked the other way when someone actually went into my
    personnel folder and, using white-out, covered up my 1 raiting
    and penciled-in a 2 rating.  I was furious and tried to settle it
    with him.  He stonewalled me for a few months so I took it to
    personnel who, after approximately 6 months, pushed it right up
    to the group manager who gave me a retroactive 6% raise on top of
    the percentage increase that I received at review time to bring
    me up to the percentage increases that 1-ratings were getting at
    the time.
    
    Now, I have no proof that this happened to me because I am a
    woman.  After all, a survey was done to show that the group as a
    whole had lower salaries that other workers in the same field.  My
    gut feeling, however, is that this particular boss felt that all
    that was necessary to reward me was to pat me on the back, make a
    promise of a big reward and then point the finger at other groups
    (i.e.  personnel) and outside influences (i.e.  the economy) when
    the promises weren't delivered.
    
    Well I showed him, didn't I.
    
HEAVY SARCASM ON:

    All that it cost me was six months of pain, frustration,
    and extra-long hours to get my work done so that my 9-5 time could
    be used to push this issue to the point of satisfaction.

HEAVY SARCASM OFF.

    Are there any men out there who have had to go to this extreme to
    reap the rewards of their labor?
    
....Margaret

     The day you get your performance review, make a photocopy
    and have your boss sign and date it. If someone alters your
    review after you sign it you will have positive proof. I
    would have gone after the person responsible for that 'til
    I had their badge.
    
    12th Commandment : Thou shalt not leave thy a** uncovered.

    
    re: .35 Yes, but not with this company. 

 According to a field employee survey published this week in "New Hampshire
View" (the in-house newsletter for NH), around 45% of field employees believe
that others are being paid more for the same job than they are. (I don't have
the paper in front of me, so can't come up with the exact number). 

About the same percentage believe that they are being underpaid for what they
do, based on experience, qualifications, etc. 

 Is there an overall trend for people to believe that other employees are doing
"better" in the company? 

 The report on the survey which I saw didn't break down the reponses by gender 
or location, so I'm not sure how (if at all) this applies to the topic under
discussion.

				Nigel

    {NH VIEW NOTES}
    
    What's interesting in the NH View article is that 90% of surveyed
    employees agree that woring relationships between men and women
    are usually good at their site.
    
    41% feel there is a direct correlation of pay/performance.
    
    44% believe wages are comparable with employees entering Digital
    at the same level.
    
    And, of course, the 45% that believe their wages compare favorably
    with other employees' wages in the same function.
    
    The survey was sent to the US Field population, but not broken
    down any further.
    
    In 11 years at DEC, I've had a number of raises; one was lower
    than a man's because "he had a family to support"; notwithstanding
    the fact that I am also married, with a child.  This was many years
    ago, but my bloodpressure rises whenever I think of it.
    
    I went and found a new job that was a promotion and paid more,
    within the co., so I vindicated myself that way.
    

    One thing DEC (or any company) could do to let us know where we
    stand is to publish our salaries. I suggested this to personnel
    once (it didn't seem a big deal, the city jobs are posted like this)
    and they acted like I had suggested bombing the parking lot. At
    CXO we can't even (legally) get a copy of the pay scale for any
    job more than one level above our current postion. What do they
    think they are protecting me from? liesl

    re .42
    
    The subject of publishing salaries and/or ranges has been discussed
    at length recently in the DIGITAL conference on HUMAN::. 

        In response to the question as to whether men have had to fight
        for accuracy or fairness in their reviews, I can say that I
        have. I don't intend to go into the details but many years ago a
        supervisor gave me a review that I felt had substantial errors
        of fact in it and didn't show it to me until nearly three months
        after I'd gotten the not so hot raise. I refused to sign a
        post-hoc and falacious review and posted a cover letter into my
        personnel file explaining the issues. More details available by
        the simple expedient of becoming my boss or PSA. 
        
        Later when I was in F&A I spent 13 out of 18 months below the
        bottom of my salary range including a 7 month straight stretch.
        In theory there is no way to stay below for more than 6 months
        in a row, and a total of 13 months caused serious mayhem once I
        managed to get back into Engineering where Personnel cared about
        little things like the rules of the game. 
        
        Over all, I have risen pretty rapidly from associate engineer to
        principal, however. A lot of that is because I kept after my
        bosses, even the very good ones, to make a clear definition of
        precisely how far across the Mill pond I had to walk for the
        next promotion and then did it and then did it again. Sheer
        aggression has had its place in my getting promotions. 
        
        My salary has usually been pretty poor for my job title though
        because I came in for your basic chicken feed, and starting
        salary times 100+n% year after year works a lot better if the
        starting salary is high than if it is low.
        
        I encourage others to be aggressive about implementing their
        career goals as do many of the others who've responded here.
        also fight pretty hard for the people around me and on the
        project I lead. This is important for a couple of reasons. 
        
        First of all, when we get to be successful, and I think I am
        more-or-less, we have somewhat of a moral obligation to our
        fellows. Women often chastise one another not to leave their
        "sisters" behind as they rise up the ladder. I agree this is
        important but only as a subset. Men shouldn't leave their
        "sisters" and "brothers" behind either.
        
        Second is that the way that our salary scheme works encourages
        competition--stealing from Peter to pay Paul. Once salary
        forecasts are set the pots are relatively fixed and thus to give
        an unexpected raise to one you have to take from another. When
        there are people as aggressive as I am in the area, we can rise
        at the cost of others. Team-work is crucial to good engineering
        and to most jobs, and it suffers if you are competing with your
        team-mates. I think therefore it is important for those of us
        who are pushy to push on the behalf of our fellows in order to
        make sure that the whole forecasts go up so that the pot is as
        big as possible and as little as possible has to be stolen.
        
        I have a lot of pride in my work, but I also make very sure that
        my supervisor and managers for at least two levels know how much
        pride I have in the team and in the guys and gals in it. I take
        on large responsibilities regularly, but I also make sure to
        create opportunities for the others in the project I lead, and
        to point out the valuable contributions of the support people
        who make it possible to pull off the accomplishments.
        
        My advice is to be aggressive both on your own behalf and on
        that of your coworkers. Concern for the people around you is
        both morally and practically the best course.
        
        JimB. 

	After reading every response in this file, through 10-Jun-1987
13:40 EDT, and offering one quick response on 9-Jun, I have gone back
over the notes kept during employment at various companies and in
different levels of responsibility.  Nothing new has come to the fore
as a result of this effort.  There was discrimination in every company
I experienced - sexual, racial and religious.  There is still 
discrimination in those companies with which I maintain contact -
sexual, racial and religious.  But, where the discrimination was once
centered around company philosophy (Thom McAn, Nashua Corp., and
State Street Bank to name three) it is now a reflection of the people
who comprise the companies and is against the philosophy of the
companies. 

	I doubt it is possible to remodel the existing people in our 
societies to remove discrimination.  The solution to this moral dilemma 
will come through the education of the younger generations and those
to follow.

	But what is discrimination?  Surely paying the going rate for
specified labor is not discrimination is it?  The cost of raising a
family of four might be $40K but does that mean we should pay
secretaries who are unmarried heads of households $40K because they
have three dependents?  Should we pay the janitors $40K because they
are in a similar position?  I certainly hope not.  We, as a society,
should make up the difference between the going rate for the position
and the poverty level for the size of family.  Who of us will be the
first to accept the 10% increase in state or federal taxes?  Yes, we 
all know how unfair the existing tax rates are what with loop holes
and whatever.  If you want to correct the problems with the existing
tax rates before you accept the tax increase then I question your
dedication to solving the problem.

	The United States of America is not a socialist country, yet.
We have a few (I believe too many) social programs at the federal 
level.  Do we now need social programs at the corporate level?
Should DEC say to hell with the competition and pay $40K for $12K
positions?  If DEC did, how long would we be in business?  We, DEC
and the U.S.A., are competing with companies and countries with
minimal social overhead.  We, as the employees and citizens, can
opt to pay additional taxes to correct the social inequities without
further jeopardizing our trading position - provided we do not demand
higher salaries in compensation for increased taxes, or we can 
continue to bemoan the fate of those less fortunate while doing less
than is required.  But we can't sit back and simply say there is
discrimination in DEC therefore the salaries for certain jobs should 
be increased by X %.  

	Do we fully realize one of the major economic problems we are
facing is our propensity to spend more than we earn?  We the people,
not WE the government.  The average family in the U.S.A. owes upwards
of $10,000 in revolving debt (the 18 percent interest kind) and is
showing no inclination to decrease this amount (it is rising, in fact).
We have one of the poorest rates of saving in the world (the worst 
among the developing nations).  

	Another major economic problem we are facing is the degree to
which we accept our disposable society.  Rather than demand better
products from the world's manufacturers or fix the products we
own which can be fixed, we throw a large piece of our economic future 
into the trash and buy new 'junk.'  By throwing so many fixable
products away we waste BILLIONS of dollars and increase our debt while
decreasing our rate of savings.  We act as if it is one of our inalienable
rights to squander, live beyond our means or the means of our country 
and our world.  Do we need the number of cars in each family?  Do we need
the washing machines, dishwashers, dryers, microwave ovens?  Do we need
to buy new models of these products as often as we do?  Is it necessary to
have the latest technology when playing our records or watching TV?  Why
do we package our garbage in plastic bags?  Do we know the long term effects
on the ecology of burying or burning millions of plastic bags?  What percent
of the oil used in the U.S. goes into such necessities as plastic garbage
bags?

	I heard an employee complaining after a business trip that the
soap in the hotel bathroom was not changed every day.  What happens to
all those once used bars of soap?  What has it cost future generation
for us to produce them and what is the long term impact of discarding
MILLIONS of them into land fills every day?

	Yes, there is discrimination.  Yes, there are laws against it.
If you are discriminated against use the laws and fight for your rights.
But, please don't continue the argument that secretaries who are earning
a competitive salary are experiencing financial discrimination at the
hands of their employers or managers.  Argue that many people in our
society receive insufficient financial remuneration to maintain a
dignified life style and present viable economic alternatives to aid
them.  I suggest we all keep in mind a simple fact, life isn't fair -
never has been and probably never will be.

Douglas

    
    	No. I don't believe women as a whole make 59 cents to the male
    	dollar. WHY ? If that was the norm, don't you think the women
    	that have a say in th matter, (i.e. personnel, managers, corporate
    	managers), would do something.  Do YOU know the quality of the
    	work that these other women at DEC do.
    
    	If you want to get into insurance, do you know that women pay
   	less car insurance, and are considered expert drivers when they
    	turn 25, and males when they are 29, unless they get married.
    	How many women have made lateral moves in their last move.
    	Probably as many as men, where the company is upholding 
    	only promotions within the group (unless extenuating circumstances)
    	say different). Do YOU know how many men or women have gooten
    	two pay raises in one year before 1983. (before 1983 it was
    	common in manufacturing to give a promotion and raise every
    	six - 9 months, therefore making it possible for 2 raises
    	in a year).
    
    	As far as womens basketball, there both the same. About softball
    	fields, one the size for men, and one size for women....I don't see what
    	the problem is here....
    
    	I know inmy group, I have the same education, more years, do
    	the same job, but I have a lower title, and lower salary,
    	I figure I have to prove myself more....I complain, but in the
    	long run, who has to do the work....ME....

    
    		I wish people would be happy the have a job....some
    		people don't....I have two work two jobs to survive,
    		but then I think I'm glad I can get two jobs, some can't
    		get one.....
    
    				Mike
    

    Re .10, .11, .12, .13, I've been too busy so far to read all of
    the responses to this note.  I've only gotten thru .13.  These are
    the types of responses that make me really feel like I hate men.
     And sometimes I really HATE men!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    Re .11, blah, blah, blah, etc.  With your attitude we'd still have
    child labor and 12 hr. work days.  Your attitude of it's up to you,
    just better yourself, to hell with reform, makes me sick.  It makes
    me want to go out and join the Communist party.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re: .48
    
    I don't understand your consternation with what .11 is saying.
    Could you offer a different point of view? Or is YOUR attitude
    of hating men your primary motivation? Now I am not trying to
    antagonize you. But I do agree with much of what he says.
    
    When I was growing up the key thing I was taught was that my life
    was in my hands and I would be responsible for the way it turned
    out. If I encountered situations that were unfair, discriminatory,
    or whatever, it would still be up to me to handle them. I was
    taught to make my own breaks as no one else would be watching out
    for me. Who taught me all of this? My mother.

    Yes, you have to work hard to advance.  Yes, you have to go
    to special efforts to demonstate you're better than the next
    person.
    
    BUT, when Person A must put in level N of effort to do that,
    and Person B has to put in level M of effort to get the same
    effect, where M is greater than 1.5 N, and the only difference
    between A and B is sex, then something is wrong.
    
    							Ann B.

    WHOA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    You know what makes me mad?  That secretaries are considered $12K
    a year and a manager is $60K a year?  Why?  Do you know how many
    male managers (some females but I've seen more men) get a high salary
    and DO NOTHING?????  There are so many secretaries that RUN the
    office.  They know what is going on.  They break their backs everyday
    answering phones and the questions that go with them.  They even
    TRAVEL!!!!!  Secretaries in this corporation have to learn the software
    products and the computers that go with them.  A good secretary
    in this company has to KNOW IT ALL!!!!  And what do they get?  A
    low salary.  Sorry folks I just don't buy.  You can't compare a
    secretary here to one in a doctor's or lawyers office.
    
    Okay now let's take some of the managers I've seen who make megabucks
    compare to a secretary salary.  Who love to take long lunches almost
    everyday (how's 11:30 - 1:30)  Who come in at 9:00 am.....and also
    who leave at 4:00!  Great hours huh????  Yes, I know sometimes they
    do work overtime and don't get paid for it and have to travel but
    THEY knew that when they took the job.  Okay now for secretaries
    who try that.  Sure I know a few.....but do you know how many of
    them get docked of pay?????  If I go to a dentist or doctor it comes
    out of my salary or I have to make up the time.  Etc. Etc.
    
    Fair??????   NO!!!! I think if your a secretary or a manager you
    should be given salary on PERFORMANCE and not title.  Sure if your
    a manager you should be  making more money than a secretary BUT
    they should also do their job.
    
    

    
    
    	First, I find it hard that secretaries get 12K a year.  Clerks
    start out at that rate.  Second, What did the male manager do to
    get to that position making 60K a year, and what has the secretary
    done to get to her position.  My mothers a secretary here at DEC,
    I know the hours she puts in, the work she does, I wouldn't take	
    anything away from the secretary, but does the secretary make the
    decisions, that the manager makes, does she/he decide that the 
    product isn't going today at 3:00, but tommorrow at 2:00.  Is she/he
    ready to take the heat from the his/her manager for making a abd
    decision.
    
    	As much as the managers taking a position, knowing what is
    expected,	the secretary took the position knowing what was expected
    of he/she.
    
    BTW, I know of female managers/supervisors from years ago, that
    did the same thing.....
    
    			Mike
    
    

    Here is my concern.
    
    There are lots and lots of female secretaries, probably making between
    16K and 23K in the northeast.  The "ladder" seems to go secretary,
    senior secretary, administrative secretary and executive secretary
    (which is actually on a different "ladder", being w/c 3).  
    
    Secretaries can make the jump into w/c 4 if they are 1) lucky 
    2) well-educated in something DEC needs (=B.S. or higher) 
    3) have a great manager or 4) are aggressive as hell.  Some women are 
    happy where they are and like secretarial work and think they are paid 
    what they are worth, I suppose.  Others take a great deal of
    responsibility for amazingly low pay.  Others hate it, and can't seem
    to get out. Still others would like to develop themselves, but see no clear
    career path.                                 
    
    Many secretaries would like to have the opportunity to do the work
    that their male and female co-workers are doing.  They would also like
    to have the benefits and rewards and training opportunities which go along
    with those jobs.  Most secretaries are women.
    
    Most individual contributors and managers would not like to have
    the opportunity to do the work that their female secretaries are
    doing!  They would not like the rewards or lack of training
    opportunities which go along with most of those jobs.  Middle level managers
    and individual contributors are both male and female.  Upper level
    managers and individual contributors consist of a very large percentage
    of males.
                                              
    There is a problem here, unless we agree that as a society women
    are less capable and deserve less.
    
    --------------------
    
    I would not like to give up the phone support I receive from our
    group secretaries.  I would not like to have to place my own orders
    and figure out travel arrangements and understand how all the forms
    in DEC work and which one is used when.  
    
    I do think that if secretarial work is going to be used as an entry
    level position, clear career path choices should be given to people
    in it.  Men and women should both do it.  There should be a clear
    distinction made between professional secretaries (who get paid
    well to handle a lot of responsibility), clerks (people who do very
    concrete tasks for low-end pay), and people who are coming into
    DEC, learning about the industry, and who clearly intend to move
    on, but who are providing an essential service while they learn.
    
    There should not be large gender gaps in any of these groups!
    (Except of course the professional secretaries--there are so many
    women in this group it would take a while to train men to work well
    at this level...:-)  )
    
    The current system feels like a charade, and is an offense to
    professional and highly trained secretaries.
    
    Holly                      
    

To me, it seemed that the 3rd and 4th rung-on-the-ladder secretaries [I 
think they are 'administrative' and 'executive'] should be on WC4.

I've seen the job they do.  They have earned the 'slack' that WC4 can 
sometimes allow.  They also seem to have no qualms with putting in the 
overtime that WC4 sometimes requires.

Then again, I've always been a supporter of 'official' comp time.

    
    Re: .49
    
    I did read 14.15 as you suggested. I have one question regarding
    what I read. Are you telling me that you are victims?
    A simple yes or no will suffice.
    
    Also, if I may ask another question......
    When you sign things "in sisterhood", aren't you participating in
    the same kind of sexual separatist thinking that you so dislike
    in society? 
    
    Now I understand that this is a womans conference. But isn't this
    discussion about ending discrimination on all accounts?  
    
    

    Re .49, I guess we had different mothers.  Besides, your mother
    was raising a son and my mother was raising a daughter.  The world
    that my mother thought she was raising her daughter for doesn't
    exist anymore, and I'm afraid she did very little to prepare me
    for the world that does exist.  I don't blame her, though.  It would
    have been very difficult for someone in her position in life to
    forsee the economic/social changes about to take place in our society.
    
    Re .54, thank you, Holly, for explaining the situation to some of
    the less enlightened of our readers.
    
    I think one of the biggest problems is the *difference* in pay levels.
     I am not saying that managers do not deserve $60K or $80K.  I am
    not trying to deny them the rewards of having their Ph.D.'s or
    whatever.  What I do think is that jobs dominated by women are lower
    paying than jobs dominated by men.  If a woman wants to earn more
    money she has to do a job normally done by men.  (One person suggested
    driving fork lifts.)  I don't think that anyone who works for Digital
    should be earning less than $20K a year based on the cost of living.
     (Haven't you ever read about starvation wages?  That is going on
    right now in the country with such low, unrealistic pay.)  I see
    my pay - less than $20K a year (admin. sec., with DEC almost 12
    yrs.) - and I see what male technicians in my group are earning
    - no college degree but over $30K a year plus overtime and I don't
    think it's fair.  I really don't think they are worth that much
    more to the company than I am.  I just think we need to raise the
    bottom on the salaries that are paid to be more realistic with the
    cost of living.  I also don't think it's fair that I hardly earn
    any more, and in some instances no more, than 18 yr. old high school
    grads just being hired on.  It makes me see that my 11+ yrs. of
    secretarial experience at DEC are not valued at all.
    
    Lorna
     

        RE: .46
        
        Your note seems to imply that my note (.44) involves the world
        in general, other industries or other companies, and is off
        topic for this discussion. I'm sory if I was unclear. The stuff
        I was talking about in the first half of my note (about my own
        experiences with reviews and below level pay) all happened at
        DEC. I am, admittedly, not a woman, but an earlier note had asked
        if men at DEC had to fight to get reviews and salary problems
        corrected the way that the woman who wrote the reply had had to.
        I thought I was being responsive to that question. 
        
        The second half consisted of my personal opinion that each of us
        needs to be aggressive in our careers and at the same time be
        aggressive for our fellows and juniors. It has always been my
        practice to stand up in the ways I could for the proper
        treatment and valuing of support people--secretaries, research
        assistants and secretaries. I think that those of us, both men
        and women, who have advanced have a responsibility to do that.
        We often hear how women should support other women. I merely
        feel that men should as well, especially as they may often be in
        a better siytuation to do so.
        
        I'm sorry if I appeared off-topic.
        
        JimB. 

    I've been hearing the phrase "life's not fair" a lot in this topic
    and that's a flimsy excuse used for keeping the status quo.  Just because
    life's not fair is not excuse for *you* not to try to make it fairer
    and even things out where you are.  Usually the ones who use that
    phrase are the ones who are making enough money.  Try to put yourself
    in others shoes.  Is it *really* that hard do do?  Am I asking for
    the sun, the moon, and the stars to get some of you people to show
    any degree of understanding?
    
    I agree with Lorna about job classes.  The question isn't how come
    managers make more than secretaries.  The question is how come
    entry level maintenance people and technicians earn more than
    highly experienced secretaries?  I can't believe the jobs I've seen
    them do are any inherently harder than the jobs I've seen secretaries
    do.
    
    	-Ellen

    re: 60
    
    I agree Ellen and I should of used entry level maintenance as an
    example than managers.
    
    I guess what I'm trying to get across is secretaries are not just
    paper pushers......and we deserve to get credit on our performance
    rather than our title.  And BTW I do know some secretaries that
    make DECISIONS for their bosses because they know them so well they
    are allowed to do that!  Some secretaries do more than just sit
    behind a desk.  And as for some managers who says they all make
    decisions????  Alot of them pass the buck down to another co-worker.
    Alot depends of management style and who the person is.
    
    bs
    

>    At
>    CXO we can't even (legally) get a copy of the pay scale for any
>    job more than one level above our current postion. What do they
>    think they are protecting me from? liesl

    That seems to be the corporate standard. my cost-center manager showed
    me the entire range for software engineer, because she doesn't buy the
    rule there.  She tried to explain the rule to me, but it didn't make
    much sense.  The best I could figure it, they didn't want people to
    seek to advance based on the raises it might get them.  who knows...

    Mr. Holt, I think there's a rather large difference between saying,
    "X seems unfair," and "You ought to make it fair."
    
    Short of working for unionization, the only thing any of us can
    do is work for change in our own spheres of influence... in whatever
    way we can.  But while we're working, and I would include defining
    the problem and its ramifications as work, I think it's valuable
    to find a forum such as this one for letting off steam or "sharing
    war stories."  Does that make you personally uncomfortable?
    
    Just wondering...
    
    Justine

Just out of curiosity, with the secretary vs entry level maintenance example,
would DROPPING the entry level maintenance to that of the secretary be 
acceptable?  Why or why not?

Has anyone looked at the other people in the groups with entry level people?
Are the new people making more than 'old timers'?  In past jobs that I held
that was just about always the case.  Has this sort of thing been 
'compensated' for in the examples mentioned?

Does anyone really know the way that job offers are made (How ARE those 
numbers actually decided upon when an offer letter goes out?).  Obviously
there are pay ranges, but who (and how) are the original positions in this
range decided?

-Joe

>Just out of curiosity, with the secretary vs entry level maintenance example,
>would DROPPING the entry level maintenance to that of the secretary be 
>acceptable?  Why or why not?

Preferable to current inequities, but not the best solution.

>Has anyone looked at the other people in the groups with entry level people?
>Are the new people making more than 'old timers'?  In past jobs that I held
>that was just about always the case.  Has this sort of thing been 
>'compensated' for in the examples mentioned?

New hires in the same class code still usually make more.  It's easier to
justify a large salary to  a new hire, than for a large raise (I beleive it
comes out of a different budget).  I know that in some groups, however, they
try to even these inequities by giving the new hire a lower percentage
during the next salary planning cycle.  This of course is difficult when
they're doing a good job, but there usually isn't enough money in the pool.

>Does anyone really know the way that job offers are made (How ARE those 
>numbers actually decided upon when an offer letter goes out?).  Obviously
>there are pay ranges, but who (and how) are the original positions in this
>range decided?

Usually personnel decides on a figure they consider the average competitive
salary.  Then the person's previous salary is taken into account (you can't
offer them less, and if they're good you have to offer them a decent
percentage increase in order to entice them).  Then, depending on how bad
you want to hire them, you usually negotiate with the person.  Sometimes
extra benefits are offered in lieu of salary.

...Karen

    I agree that new hires usually get significantly higher salaries
    than "old hires" with the same position.  This is mostly because
    the "belt tightening" over the years have cut salary increases within
    DEC to a much lower figure than much of the competition.  Also,
    as previously suggested, salary planning for existing employees
    encourages raises that are non-competitive and unrelated to
    actual (versus predicted) performance.  But this happens for men
    as well as women.
    
    I still don't buy the notion that there is systematic salary
    discrimination against women in Digital.  (Now that we've stopped
    arguing about basketballs.)  I'd wager that for every case you can
    drag up where a man is getting paid more for what looks like the
    same job or less, you could find a similar case where a woman is
    getting "unfairly" paid more.  The examples in Renee's earlier note
    seemed like fantasies to me - they're out of line with what I
    see people really being paid (at least myself and a few others I
    am familiar with).
    
    Yes, it's unfortunate that we don't have access to the information
    that would help prove the point one way or the other.  I maintain
    that it's therefore an impossible task to be truly convincing that
    there's systematic sex discrimination.
    
    Lastly, I find the notion that one has to "take a man's job, such
    as operating a fork lift" to get a decent wage to be just plain
    silly.  There are PLENTY of jobs within Digital that are "brain"
    jobs, equally available to men and women, that pay decent wages.
    Engineering is the one that is most familiar to me.  Yes, engineering
    has been TRADITIONALLY a man's job, but that's changing very rapidly
    today.  All I have to do is look around me (and at my supervisor
    and group manager) to see that.
    
				Steve

    	Sometimes I wonder which is more productive in a notesfile
    	like this one:  1) blowing off steam about the injustices of
    	the world, or 2) comparing notes to see if there are things
    	that we can do (as individuals) to make our own situations
    	any better (especially if we feel that social reform is a
    	ways down the road at best.)
    
    	It's not right or just that most women have to make a truly
    	gigantic effort to be successful.  However, in the times that
    	I live in, I'd rather make the effort and attain the goal than
    	be a good judge of the injustice of it all (and be poor.)
    
    	Another important point to make is the fact that our opportuni-
    	ties as women are increasing precisely *because* so many women
    	*are making* the gigantic effort to overcome discrimination in order
    	to prove to society that 1) we have what it takes to do the
    	work, and 2) we are committed to our goals.
    
    	I realize that this doesn't have a whole lot to do with what
    	constitutes a fair salary for secretaries.  We are possibly
    	talking about two separate issues here.
    
    	When I first got into the work force (after getting my degree),
    	the biggest concern that I had was that I would not be given
    	the chance to work in the career that I most wanted (and was
    	qualified for) because it was in a male-dominated area.  After
    	pushing very hard (along with an army of other women in the
    	world), I've been able to get some good opportunities and feel
    	that I've been treated fairly (at least in DEC) in terms of
    	salary.
    
    	In the state that I am from (Hawaii), it has been a reality
    	for as long as I can remember that very few men could afford
    	to support their families on one salary.  The vast majority
    	of women have been in the situation of being economically forced
    	to work for generations (due to the high cost of living over
    	there.)
    
    	My guess is that New England has now fallen into the same sort
    	of situation (as have certain other areas like Santa Clara.)
    
    	When I lived in Santa Clara, I was a Field Service Engineer
    	with DEC and could not afford an apartment.  My son and I lived
    	in a garage for 8 months (and subsequently rented a small room
    	in a communal house where we both slept with our cats until
    	I could get a transfer to a state where we could afford to live
    	on my salary.)  When we moved to Colorado 4 years ago, our
    	situation improved dramatically (and I have worked *hard* for
    	the 3 promotions I've had since moving to Denver and then
    	transferring down here to Colorado Springs.)
    
    	So now we own our own 4 bedroom house (when it was just 4 years
    	ago that we had to flee Santa Clara because we couldn't afford
    	even the tiniest real apartment that we could find out there.)
    
    	When I joined DEC 5 and a half years ago (in Santa Clara), I
    	knew right off the bat that I would not be able to afford to
    	live on the money DEC was paying me.  But it was the going rate
    	for Field Service Enginners (male and female), and I knew that
    	I had a good future with DEC.  So we lived as best we could
    	and were patient waiting for better times (and the better times
    	*DID* come along after a couple of transfers and hard work.)
    	Now we both agree that it was worth what we went through to
    	get to this point.
    
    	All I'm trying to say is that there are sometimes real solutions
    	to these real problems (if we are willing to put in the effort
    	on a personal level.)  The injustices *are* there, but I fear
    	that many of us may end up losing sight of *REAL* opportunities
    	because we are so concerned with the fact that our situations
    	are often so unfair.
    
    							Suzanne...

re .0
	What does seem to be the case however is that women tend to
	be less good at assertive bargaining for salary and promotion
	(according to a report published buy the National Union of Teachers
	in the UK) The effect of this would be obvious,  but not DECs fault,
	except for the fact that starting salary does affect later salary
	under DECs policies and that IS DECs fault.

	I should recommend that women and men too read "When I say NO I feel
	GUILTY" by Manuel Smith PhD.  WHich is an excellent self-help book on
	the subject.

re .3
	Leading questions may not get you through the Oxford University Entrance
	General paper,  but they seem a good way to provoke discussion.

re .4
	Suggestion:  If a woman feels that the lazy maintenance guy is earning
	more money,  then why not become a maintenance gal?

re .6
	Where *are* these statistics and what is the source?

re .10
	(insurance) if the insurance is discriminatory then isn't there
	a law in Massachussets (I read about in SOAPBOX) that has been
	implemented to fight against commercial discrimination?

	I remember that one woman did rather better than her male
	colleagues too in the same job in DEC and if it were valid
	to take such examples then I would therefore have the converse view.

	re. showers.  In Germany there is no "Mens and Womens" showers
	generally.  This particular hang-up doesn't seem to exist in
	Scandinavia and Central Europe.  Don't ask me why the behaviour
    	is different though.

re .42
	I agree.  What is even worse (according to what I was told by
	a nameless person) is that employees (at least here in Germany)
	are not even allowed to discuss their precise salary with other
	employees.  Perhaps DEC is protecting itself against fair
	bargaining?

re .48  (...Communist Party)
	OK Sorry you sometimes hate men,  but under communism,  i.e. "from each
	according to their ability and to each according to their need"
	you'd get equality all 	right:  Equal poverty and equal ripping
	off by the state. But I applaud your honest expression of feeling!

re .52
	Everyone has or should have an equal opportunity to become a manager.
	If they can get away with being lazy,  good luck to them,  but
	this means that the organisation is failing.

re .60
	That a job is harder should influence salary is so in an
	economic sense,  but only provided people in general go for the
	job which is easier for the most money!  This would mean
    	that correct supply and demand would function for this
    	criteria.  I suspect that in practice most people would
    	rather do a difficult job because it is more challenging.

re .64
>    Short of working for unionization, the only thing any of us can
>    do is work for change in our own spheres of influence...

	I would say the reverse:  Working for unionization is unlikely
	to help and if enough people go for their own sphere of
	influence to get more money then everyone will be better off,
	provided salary is open information.

re .66 >    (I beleive it comes out of a different budget).

	Yes and this is a failing of the company on several counts.
	First the company creates the conditions under which people
	cannot regain parity within the company,  then it creates
	all kinds of incentives for people to leave the company rather
	than stay.  It seems bass ackwards to me.

	Of course most companies consider what the person earned
	previously,  but that does not mean that this is sensible.
	A person's employment worth is best decided by simple
	bargaining.  It seems that too complex policies make life
	difficult for both the company and the employees,  however
	well intentioned they may have been.

    Simon
    

    I believe PERCEPTION plays a large part in this "Are you REALLY
    better than the male, or do you just think you are?" stuff.
    
    When I taught physical education, the classes were co-ed for about
    the last 5 years or so. At the end of our unit on volleyball, we
    had each team (co-ed, equal #'s of boys and girls) pick two players
    for an all-star team to play against the all-over winner from the
    class. Unless I specified one male and one female "all-star" from
    each team, the teams would send two boys, without fail, ***EVEN
    IF THE BEST PLAYERS WERE BOTH FEMALE***
    
    The perception was ALWAYS that the boys were better, even if it
    wasn't true. And what really galled me was that *the girls bought
    it, too*. The ones I talked to who KNEW they were better never said
    a thing, mostly cuz they "didn't want to make a big deal/problem,
    etc."
    
    I would not be one bit surprised to find out that this same process
    is at work in the workplace.
    
    Dawn
    

    No, we don't have access to the information that would settle this
    question but we DO have access to the people who DO have access
    to the info.  You just have to get one to talk candidly and definitely
    "off the record".
    
    So I asked one about sexual discrimination at DEC.
    
    He smiled, looked away and said DEC has ALWAYS been a white man's
    company and it still is.
    
    I asked him why inequalities in pay and promotions still run rampant
    in DEC if he had the weight of the law behind him.
    
    He looked away again and said "There's only so much you can do".
    
    This personnel person's primary function is to mediate.  He knows
    more about this culture than you or I and he says he KNOWS that
    DEC discriminates fairly regularly, but no more than anyone else!
    
    It makes no difference what job a woman actually holds.  What IS im-
    portant is how much that job deviates from her desires and capabilities.  
    That's why a man saying he knows non-secretarial women, (as I've heard
    men say in more than one reply), proves nothing in my book.  A female 
    manager is nice, but not if she's got the capability of a Grace Hopper!
    
    When a man does a great job, it makes him look good.  When a woman does 
    a great job it makes the job look easy.

    The personnel person agreed with that observation.
    
    Boys are taught that if they have the ability and desire and work
    hard enough, the rewards will come.  Hearing men in this topic echoing
    that just makes me smile.  Stop for a minute and just absorb this
    fact:  Such is NOT the case if you are a woman.
    
    You must have the ability and the desire and work hard but if you
    are a woman you must ALSO be extremely aggressive, extremely vocal,
    extremely diplomatic, (gotta keep the men THINKING they're still
    better).  And you must also be extremely patient because you have
    a centuries-old attitude to overcome.
    
    But I don't think it's outright nastiness as much as it is ignorance
    and the definition of what you call sexism.  I do believe that managers
    DO recognize ability in women and if we just stopped at that then it
    would seem there IS no sexism.  This is as far as I think the men in
    this conference who say they don't see sexism are looking.  If a woman
    employee is good, the manager knows it AND may even desire to reward it.

    BUT!

    Men reward men with money.  But men tend to reward women with praise and
    friendship.  If you are a star perfomer and you're female, your boss
    will most likely "like" you as your reward and sincerely believe you
    are being treated fairly.  He will call you the star, tell others you're
    the star, but it just doesn't translate into cold, hard cash the way it
    does with men.  I really don't think they THINK of women as wanting/
    needing/actuallly working for - CASH!  That phrase "Raises not roses"
    is not just an empty slogan.  A man would NEVER send a male employee
    flowers because he wants to relate to him as a MAN.  The downside is
    that when he sends a female employee flowers he is relating to her a
    a WOMAN and that's the problem.  He should be relating to both as em-
    ployees, period.

    Discrimination in the workplace is not THE problem, but just one mani-
    festation of the real problem, which is that men, (and the women who
    believe them), simply don't see women as capable or as deserving as
    men, plain and simple.  Naturally that's going to translate into less
    money on payday.  The mistake a lot of feminists are trying to make is
    to try to FORCE men to deal with women fairly DESPITE what they, (the
    men), think.  I'd like to see the thinking change because once it does,
    paying women less money for the same job would finally sound as silly,
    pointless and nasty as it now does to women.

    And HOW do we change their thinking?  Any behaviorist will tell you
    that you first need to set up a "deprivation situation" but to do that
    you must have something they want that you can withold.  I can hear
    you cringing and I know what you're thinking but you're only partly right.
    
    We cannot and should not be out to change our superiors but what we CAN 
    change is the men in our private lives and that includes other women's 
    superiors.  Women put up with far too much male superiority in their
    private lives and I believe it's in this arena that men decide what women
    are and are not.  A man who can push around his mother, his sister or his 
    girlfriend or wife is probably going to develop attitudes about women
    based on that and carry them to work with him.  The more passive women he 
    meets, the stronger his belief that women are helpless whiners, however
    educated, who can do nothing and will get nowhere without a man.  Given 
    this conditioning, even a Radcliffe PhD is going to be "still" a woman in 
    his mind.  

    The next time the men in your life give you sexist crap and you take it,
    you are reinforcing his belief that women deserve what they get - nothing.
    And the women he works with and whose careers he is responsible for will
    suffer because of this attitude.

    Women must demand respect as human beings from ALL men, not just their
    bosses.  Their bosses can have wimpy sisters and passive wives and there's
    nothing you can do about him.  All you can do is be sure that YOU are not
    anyone's wimpy sister or passive girlfriend or wife and show the men you
    CAN affect that women are real people who buy real groceries, and have
    real needs for self-satisfaction.  THOSE men will treat their female 
    underlings with the respect and fairness that their women have taught
    them.
    

    	RE: .-1
    
    	The things you said about a man rewarding man for money is true
    - oh so true! And the things you stated about a man rewarding a
    woman with praise only is also true! But have you ever stopped
    to think about a woman rewarding a woman? I'm in the situation...
    and all I've gotten is praise...and a few extra bucks. But that
    doesnt help. I want MORE. I want to be NOT ONLY  recognized for
    the work I do, but RESPECTED for it too. And respect doesnt come
    in the form of a pat on the back, and just a couple of extra dollars
    in my wallet.
    
    	I agree with all of you secretaries out there, you do one hell
    of a TERRIFIC job. If it wasnt for you, the managers wouldnt be
    getting their work done. Being a secretary is NOT being a second-
    class worker - far from it!
    
    	I am not a secretary, but I have been on the lower end of the
    pay scale in my present job for a long time (2 years to be exact).
    I've been promised a promotion - but someones reply far back mentioned
    something about a boss promising a bonus and promotion and not foll-
    owing through on it - I certainly dont want that happening to me.
    
    	I dont see WHY we have to fight for ourselves, however. To me,
    its hard enough being excellent - do I have to be petty, aggressive
    and political too? If I'm doing a good job, I shouldn't have to show 
    someone that the whited-out and re-marked performance evaluation isn't
    the "original" evaluation given to me. I should just have to work,
    throw some hints around, and let my work show that I know what I'm
    doing. Maybe that's whats wrong with this company  -  too much in-
    fighting! My performance should PROVE that I am capable of bigger 
    and better things....!
    
    Linda
    

    
    
    Just a question:
    
    	What does the term "work hard" mean?
    
    _peggy
    		(-)
    		 |   The Goddess knows I work hard.
    

    re [-1]
         
    
    Well, if you're a man, working hard is getting the job done right
    and on time.
    
    If you're a woman, working hard means getting the job done right
    and on time, taking on extra work, never coming to work late, 
    ocassionally skipping your lunch to prove your dedication, (which
    you never really prove but always must try), and smiling through it all.

    re: --1 (also)
    
    	For a woman, working hard also means that you have to do all that, 
    and still try to manage to find the time and energy to handle your
    home and family too!
    
    

    A supervisor told me that all of the salary planning for his whole
    organization had to be re-done because "all" of the men were planned
    to get a higher percent raise than "all" of the women (including
    both wage class 2 and 4) in the organization.
    
    This tells us two things:
    1. The mentality is still there that women should not/must not make
       more money than men.
    2. DEC is trying to overcome that mentality and will not "officially"
       accept it as policy.      
    

    Re .80, I think we're still suffering the effects of a society that
    traditionally felt that females lived at home until they married,
    and that, therefore, either parents or husband really provides for
    them and they only need their income for mad money or to help out.
     Men, even ditch diggers or gas station attendants, were acknowledged
    to need to make enough money to support a family.  People know this
    isn't the case today, but the way things are actually done hasn't
    caught up with the realization yet.
    
    Lorna
    

    It's hard to shake those ingrained attitudes, isn't it?  One place
    I worked before I came to DEC told me as they informed me I was
    being laid off that it was "OK because we know your husband still
    has a job"!  Right!  I wonder what they told the men they laid off
    at the same time??  Come to think of it, all the people I personally
    knew there that got laid off at that time were women...

RE: .80

    Well, I'm encouraged that someone noticed the discrepancy and made them
    re-do the planning! 

    I don't think the problem is as straight forward as thinking that men
    need more money etc.  I suspect that a lot of managers try very hard to
    be fair.  It's just that they don't perceive the women as being as
    good.  When they compare Joe and Sally, they honeslty feel that Joe
    does a better job (hey, it's possible a man is better :-) ).  It's just
    when you notice that *all* the women are rated lower, and see a trend
    forming.

    I think it's very hard to compare people since everyone has different
    styles of working.  The largest problem is that stereotypes have
    developed for what qualities make up positions.  Its *very* hard to get
    promoted if you don't fit that stereotype; if your workstyle is
    different.  I believe that a lot of these stereotypes include male
    characteristics.   I'm not sure, but maybe a lot of women have different
    work styles due to societal influences.  I know that when deciding
    whether to promote someone into a position, management tends to look
    around at others who are already in that position to see if you're like
    them.  What if there aren't any or are very few women in that group?

    My point being that it's usually not intentional discrimination, it's
    often not being able to value different work styles, or just the
    pervasive feeling that women are not as good that is not conscious on
    the part of those rating them.  It's the same as assuming women make
    better support personel.  That's why management has to look at the
    statistics of where women work in their groups and keep asking
    themselves why.  Why is it that most of the software support positions
    are filled by women?   Why is it that women don't get promoted as
    quickly as men do?  Why is it that most of the one-person projects are
    staffed by women?  Why are all the secretaries women?  Why are there so
    few women managers or consulting engineers?

    Now who's going to keep the statistics, and can we trust them to do
    something about it?

    ...Karen

    Of course, it's also very hard for Sally to know if she's really not as
    good as Joe, or if she's being discriminated against.  Which could be
    why few women do anything when they are discriminated against.  It has
    to be pretty blatent.

        First of all, I believe that we do still have quite a ways to go
        before all of the inequalities of the world are fixed, on the
        other hand, I think that in part the perception of how men get
        ahead at DEC expressed by a number of women here is either a bit
        falwed or they are observing a different part of the company
        than I and are drawing different conclusions.
        
        A couple of women have said that in order to get ahead as a
        woman at DEC you have to not only do the job, but be aggressive
        and political as well. Well, let me tell you, I as a man have
        gotten ahead much faster during years when I was aggressive and
        political than in years when I just did the job. One of the
        things that got me to be aggressive and political was being
        unfairly dumped on and being below the bottom of my salary level
        for more than a year in a period of a year and a half.
        
        From my experience, it is true of men as well as women that you
        need to be aggressive, cheerful, and play politics to get ahead
        at DEC. It is my experience that in parts of the company what
        you'll get if you don't is a load of crap. In others, what
        you'll get is run-of-the-Mill raise which means that the new
        hires will be slowly catching up to you.
        
        Seems to me that at least some of what you say women have to do,
        men do too. Of course we don't have to put up with a lot of
        other stuff. I've never felt I was sexually harassed at DEC, but
        many women can't make that claim. Similarly, I've never been
        mistaken for a secretary or sent for the coffee. Of course I
        HAVE been mistaken for an opereator and given orders by my
        juniors, but it IS less common a thing to have happen to a man.
        
        Now that I've said that and sounded like a typical head in the
        sands man who just doesn't understand, let me stick my neck out
        a little more... 
        
        Karen Sullivan in note 331.83 suggested that you have to have a
        specifica work-style to get ahead. Furhther, she suggested that
        some of the work characteristics that are required are male
        characteristics. This echoes some of what's been said by others
        to the effect that for a woman to get ahead she has to act like
        a man or become agressive and that aggressiveness is a male
        behavior.
        
        Well, if there really are differences between men and women, if
        there are male characteristcs, if being agressive is easier for
        men or unnatural for women, then is it really discrimination to
        pay and promote women differently? Or mightn't it just be that
        in the competition for a job the male characteristics are better
        suited? It seems to me that you either have to claim that there
        are NO differeences or allow for the possibility that one sex
        may be better suited for the job statistically speaking.
        
        Personally, I'm not sure if men are naturally more aggressive
        than women or whether they have any other characteristics that
        are of particular value. But, I hear several women in this
        conference deriding "male values" and extolling the virtue of
        "female values". I hear women not wanting to act like men. All
        of these things seem to indicate that these women think that
        there are differences inherrently between men and women. If that
        is true, doesn't that open the door to treating or rewarding
        them differently?
        
        I understand that what I've said may sound terrible sexist.
        Please understand that I'm just asking questions. I'm pondering
        questions for which I have no answers and for which there may be
        none. I only hope that I've written enough in this conference
        and otherf places to show that I don't approve of mistreating or
        undervaluig anybody, and that I personally often fight for those
        I feel deserve or need it.

        JimB.

    We are supposed to be reviewed according to how well we perform
    our specific function, not according to how political and aggressive
    we are.  If being political and aggressive are qualities that are
    so valuable to management they should include them in all of our job
    descriptions.  This place would be a chaotic zoo if everyone who
    worked here was political and aggressive (sort of like the
    government_:-).
    
    Being rated according to how well we do our job isn't a bad system.
    Why can't management follow it?  Perhaps what we need is to improve
    the quality/competence of management. 

    >perhaps what we need is to improve the quality/competence of
    >management.
     
    And who's going to do that?  Their white male bosses?
    
    The higher up the power ladder you go, the more likely you are to
    encounter a white male in the 40-60 year old range.  Those males are most
    likely to have grown up, dated, married and become professionally
    successful in a comfortably sexist society.  They are probably the
    least likely to see any "need" for change.
    
    We don't have "men" on our side.  Not our bosses, not their bosses.
    All we have working for us is ourselves and the weak legal protection 
    we've been so GENEROUSLY given by the white male decision makers in 
    government.  Men are the problem - not the answer.
    
    Women are the answer and if we have no power to affect change in
    the corporate boardroom, (and I think most of us agree that we don't),
    then we have to do it where we DO have power - in our homes.
    
    Our men get their ideas about women's needs wants and rewards from
    US.  When we let our men placate us with "I love you" while they do as 
    they please, we send them a STRONG message that all women really want
    is a man's attention, a man's love.  When we see our mothers or
    ourselves ALWAYS subjugating themselves, (or ourselves), for our men
    we are telling men that MEN are the more important creatures in
    this society.
      
    Don't you think men see it?  Don't you realize that men's ideas of
    the relative worth of men and women are formed long before they take 
    their first jobs and that those ideas are formed by the women in their
    personal spheres?
    
    Now, years later in a managerial position when he meets with a woman who 
    is dealing from a more equal idea of the relative worth of men and
    women, he will see her as different from the women in his life and
    therefore "different", period.  And "different" can be dangerous.
    
    Being "different" could easily make her seem LESS desirable in his
    mind.  Not only is she a woman, but she's a woman he has absolutely no 
    idea how to deal with.  A passive woman could very well get a job more 
    quickly than she because the rules of how to deal with her are  very 
    familiar.  Smile at her, send her flowers on her birthday and take her 
    to lunch every now and then.  Easy.  Hire her.  
    
    It's no secret that men can be personally intimidated by some
    "hot-shot" chick with sterling credentials and since men tend to deal 
    with women in business more personally than professionally, it's
    not hard to realize that a woman's drive and qualifications can
    easily be WHY she's getting nowhere.  He's not ecstatic about her
    potential contribution to his staff so much as he's nervous about
    "having her around".  He thinks about her personally and so she gets
    the traditional "polite" letter in answer to her interview.  "Thanks
    for your interest, we're very sorry, blah, blah, blah."
    
    I know dealing with "our own" men seems too indirect to have any
    benefit to us personally in our current situations but it's better
    than nothing and nothing is what we have if we try to change the
    men at work.  They still hold the power for the last laugh and rarely
    fear any ultimatium you can give them.  Their wives, daughters, 
    girlfriends and sisters have the power to affect them profoundly
    however.  THEN all we have to do is get rid of their dual vision
    of women - their women vs 'women'.  You know the attitude wereby they
    will defend "their" women's rights but consider "women" to be a
    generic collection of desirable or undesirable potential sex partners
    that includes all women but "theirs".
    
    This attitude is illustrated in one topic in this conference where a man
    made an obscene remark to an unknown woman and she silenced him by informing
    him that it could, (and often does), happen to his sister and how
    would he like THAT?  "Their" women are always a "different story".
    
    Well that's US!  We ARE their women!  We are a VERY different story
    to a lot of men and it's these men we need to convince that not
    only are we as capable and deserving as men, but that we are also
    like ALL women - capable and deserving as men.
    
    Any man brought up and/or now living in a household with strong women
    who have self-respect is pretty unlikely to view his female co-workers
    as mere decoration hired to handle the low-level tasks and provide a pretty
    little landscape and fantasy for the boys at work.  
    
    Do "your" men view women this way?              

    Hate to tell you this pal but I'm not anybody's woman.  I'm my own
    person and have been for a very long time.  The men in my household
    are their own people too.  
    
    I understand where you're coming from but I disagree.  A good business
    man wants whats good for business.  Stupid, blind prejudice is bad
    for business (yes I believe this).  Men aren't the enemy, men are
    just men.  They are as much victims of the social mores that have
    developed in this country as we are.  I truly believe that when
    shown a gross inequity, most intelligent men will act in an ethical 
    manner.  Men take pride in their work and acting in the capacity
    of supervisor, they are measured on how ALL of their employees develop
    and produce.  If all of the woman in their groups are unhappy that
    will be reflected in turnover and productivity and it will reflect
    on themselves as supervisors/managers.
    
    Most people who work for DEC take great pride in the fact.  One
    of the reasons is that DEC has always made an effort to let its
    employees grow and develop.  Many of the professional woman at DEC
    came up through the ranks (me included) through the old FEM TECH
    program, PTP, Sales Training or others.... woman weren't excluded
    from those programs.  A lot of woman in this company got their first
    break because a man was willing to fight for them (also me included).
    Don't sell the men at DEC short, working together there is a lot
    we can do to make life better for us all and to make the corporation
    a continued success.  

re: .87
    "If all of the woman in their groups are unhappy that
    will be reflected in turnover and productivity and it will reflect
    on themselves as supervisors/managers."
I think this would only be true if a majority of the group is female.
And I can't imagine that this sort of situation would occur often. Either
a manager inherits a group, or forms it. If they form it, and have problems
with a specific gender, they won't hire that gender. If they inherit
it, there's often some turnover due to conflicts in vision, personality,
group direction, etc. If 1 out of 10 of the group members is a woman,
and she leaves, there's no strong indicator to upper management that
this person can't work well with women (if indeed that is the case).
	Mez

    >Hate to tell you this pal but I'm not anybody's woman.  I'm my own
    >person and have been for a very long time.  The men in my household
    >are their own people too.  
    
    I'd think you'd be proud to state that and not hate it.  Perhaps you're
    hearing a personal accusation in there?  Sorry.

    >A good business man wants whats good for business.  Stupid, blind 
    >prejudice is bad for business (yes I believe this).  

    I believe it too.  But it doesn't mean stupid, blind, prejudice doesn't 
    exist and it doesn't mean that that's NOT the reason for the gross
    inequitites women face in the work world.

    >...men are just men.  They are as much victims of the social mores that 
    >have developed in this country as we are.  

    True, but we're not discussing the general "social mores".  We are 
    discussing money and men have not suffered financially because of the
    "social mores".  They benefit from them.  That's why they created them.

    >I truly believe that when shown a gross inequity, most intelligent men 
    >will act in an ethical manner.  

    But who's definition of "a gross inequity" are we going to use?  Perhaps
    you are 100% right except that your're assuming that what YOU think is
    a "gross inequity", everyone thinks is.  The manager described in one of
    these replies didn't think it was a "gross inequity" that all of the men
    were planned for a higher percentage than all of the women.  Someone had
    to call him on it and explain to him what a "gross inequity" that was.
    He THEN acted in an ethical manner.  Not a minute before.  Everything was
    just fine before.

    >If all of the woman in their groups are unhappy that will be reflected 
    >in turnover and productivity and it will reflect on themselves as super-
    >visors/managers.
    
    In my career, no one has ever shown the least bit of interest in my 
    "happiness".   Is your "satisfaction quotient" routinely monitored by
    your bosses?  Women DO have a high turnover.  I've left many a dead-
    end job.  So what?  That just contributes to the impression in male 
    managers that women are "unreliable - unloyal".  I doubt very much that
    female turnover is considered an indication of a male manager's level of 
    success in his job.  If the men start leaving, I believe due notice
    is taken.

    >One of the reasons is that DEC has always made an effort to let its
    >employees grow and develop.  
     
    No, not always.  I can guarantee it but not in notes because my facts
    will involve real names and real situations.

    >Many of the professional woman at DEC came up through the ranks (me 
    >included) through the old FEM TECH program, PTP, Sales Training or others..

    And many, many more women simply do not "come up through the ranks" at 
    all.

    >A lot of woman in this company got their first break because a man was 
    >willing to fight for them (also me included).
    
    Exactly.  So what MAKES a man willing?  Where do you find willing men?  
    Can you mold a willing man?  Do men have to search far and wide for
    such a rare bird for their jobs?

    I firmly contend that most, (MOST not ALL!), women who get good jobs get 
    the interview based on their qualifications but actually get the jobs 
    because of luck or love, (the "willing man" syndrome).  

    Luck encompasses the situations where the manager has to fill an EEO 
    quota, (reverse discrimination), or has simply no male candidate.  I be-
    lieve that most, (MOST not ALL), men hire women when they have to.

    And love comprises the personal side of things.  The manager gives the 
    woman a chance because he likes her or loves her.  I think of Debbie 
    Fields, the chocolate chip cookie baker whom people like to hold up as a 
    female success story.  What they don't tell you is that Debbie would be
    answering phones right now if she weren't married to an investor who gave
    her $50,000 to start her business.  I doubt very much any bank would have 
    done that!

    >Don't sell the men at DEC short, working together there is a lot
    >we can do to make life better for us all and to make the corporation
    >a continued success.  

    Yeah?  Name a few.

    I don't WANT to sell the men at DEC short.  I want to believe that every-
    thing you have said is true, but how can I when the opposite has been
    proven to me time and time again?  Am I to ignore what I see and just be-
    lieve in general statements like "...when shown a gross inequity, most 
    intelligent men will act in an ethical manner"?  Should I ignore my feel-
    ings and assume that I must be being singled out for sexism?  Should I
    believe that my career is nowhere NEAR where it should be because I'm
    really not that capable?
    

>>And many, many more women simply do not "come up through the ranks" at 
>>all.

Many PEOPLE do not come up through the ranks at all and some of those 
PEOPLE don't deserve to.l

>>Exactly.  So what MAKES a man willing?  Where do you find willing men?  
>>Can you mold a willing man?  Do men have to search far and wide for
>>such a rare bird for their jobs?

What makes anyone willing to reach out a hand to help another person?
Perhaps because they have some faith that they person will succeed.

>>Luck encompasses the situations where the manager has to fill an EEO 
>>quota, (reverse discrimination), or has simply no male candidate.  I be-
>>lieve that most, (MOST not ALL), men hire women when they have to.
>>And love comprises the personal side of things.  The manager gives the 
>>woman a chance because he likes her or loves her.  I think of Debbie 
>>Fields, the chocolate chip cookie baker whom people like to hold up as a 
>>female success story.  What they don't tell you is that Debbie would be
>>answering phones right now if she weren't married to an investor who gave
>>her $50,000 to start her business.  I doubt very much any bank would have 
>>done that!

This is the most chauvinistic statement I've heard in a long time.  A manager
gives a woman a chance because of "personal" reasons, because he "loves" her?
As difficult as it seems for you to except, SOME of us have gotten good, well-
paying jobs without being "loved" by anyone but perhaps family.  We have make
it by virtue of our own ability.  

>>Should I ignore my feelings and assume that I must be being singled out for 
>>sexism?  Should I believe that my career is nowhere NEAR where it should be 
>>because I'm really not that capable?
    
Instead of using your feelings this time, use your head.  Perhaps your career
is nowhere NEAR where it should be because you have an attitude problem.  
Perhaps you have an unrealistic idea of where your career should be?

    RE: .84
>        Karen Sullivan in note 331.83 suggested that you have to have a
>        specifica work-style to get ahead. Furhther, she suggested that
>        some of the work characteristics that are required are male
>        characteristics. This echoes some of what's been said by others
>        to the effect that for a woman to get ahead she has to act like
>        a man or become agressive and that aggressiveness is a male
>        behavior.
>        
>        Well, if there really are differences between men and women, if
>        there are male characteristcs, if being agressive is easier for
>        men or unnatural for women, then is it really discrimination to
>        pay and promote women differently? Or mightn't it just be that
>        in the competition for a job the male characteristics are better
>        suited? It seems to me that you either have to claim that there
>        are NO differeences or allow for the possibility that one sex
>        may be better suited for the job statistically speaking.

    I never meant to imply that aggressiveness was the male characteristic
    that was needed to get ahead, nor did I mean to imply that these male
    characteristics that are seen as what makes a good engineer were
    inherent characteristics.  Just as women get socialized into certain
    roles, so do men.

    I'm trying to indicate that people do not look at just how well the job
    is done when promoting, but try to see if the person meets that
    indifinable quality that they see in all people of that job code.
    It's hard to convince them that different types of people with
    different types of skills and job styles can be in the same job code.
    As a sort of reverse example, a lot of women are seen as perfect for
    support jobs (probably because of the myth that women are better at
    nuturing, and that quality is needed for support).  If I look around at
    people who do software support in my group, they are predominately
    female.

    My other point though is that discrimination can be so subtle that you
    can't tell if you're being discriminated against or if you are being
    someone who discriminates.  Which is why a lot of time statistics are
    so important.  Is there a trend?


    ...Karen 

re: .89

> I think this would only be true if a majority of the group is female.
> And I can't imagine that this sort of situation would occur often. Either
> a manager inherits a group, or forms it. If they form it, and have problems
> with a specific gender, they won't hire that gender.

Not necessarily.  I once worked for a manager who griped to me on several
occasions that one of the women in the group counted as a minority because
she was black, so he didn't have enough women to make his percentages.  But
he didn't treat us fairly (as one of the men in the group kept pointing out
to me), and my next manager had to give me a helluva big raise to position
me correctly.

    	RE:  .92
    
    	Funny how a word can have such different meanings in another
    	part of the *same company*!!
    
    	Out here, "support" is considered (by most of the people who
    	work in the Customer Support Center, hopefully :-)  as being
    	a very professional and prestigious thing to do.
    
    	The hardware support engineers are primarily men (with several
    	of *us* exceptions, of course) and the software support specialists
    	appear to be somewhat evenly split (but in no way is hardware
    	support *or* software support considered to be a stereotypical
    	woman's job.)
    
    	Are the support personnel (male and female) performing their
    	jobs in a "nurturing" way?  Well, I can't speak for everyone,
    	but I think that the CSC manager hopes to heck that we are!!!
    							      :-)
    
    	The point I'm trying to make is that I think we are possibly
    	overusing a word ("support") in a demeaning way (as if it
    	somehow implies being subservient.)  There's a big chunk of DEC that
    	sees this particular concept quite differently (i.e., that we are
    	cheerfully and professionally acting as providers of technical
    	expertise to other DECies and customers.)

    	It has not been my experience that many or most people have
    	a preconceived idea of what professional people look like. 
    	There are too many "types" to choose from (aside from a man-type
    	and a woman-type.)  Aside from possibly IB*, I know of no other
    	computer company that strives for lookalike/dressalike/actalike
    	robotic employees.
    
    	Like my Dad used to say,  "Aren't people wonderful -- they come
    	in all shapes and sizes."  ;-)  I think DEC and many other
    	companies see our differences as wonderful, too.
    
    						     Suzanne... ;-)

RE: .94
	Well, gee Suzanne, I never said that software support was a demeaning 
	position.  Where did you get that idea? :-)  But you are right that
	in this area, support is not looked on as highly as development, even
	though it is a very important job.  I'm glad it's not looked down on
	in your area.  Perhaps the difference is between internal and external
	support.  Our customers are non-(directly)-revenue generating internal
	Dec employees, whereas yours are real paying customers of Dec.  Could
	it be that suport is not considered as prestigious becuase there are
	more women in it?

    	RE:  .95
    
    	Well, actually, I was thinking more about how I keep reading
    	that jobs like waitresses and clerks are being called "support"
    	positions -- whenever I read in the file that we need and should
    	pay more for "support" jobs, I do a double-take because I think
    	of support as something different.
    
    	In my group, "Support" is not compared to development.  We are
    	compared to the rest of our (what do you call all the other
    	people who are under the same Vice President?)  In comparison
    	to *our* part of DEC, "support" is the most prestigious thing
    	you can possibly be!!
    
    	As for the number of women who do my job, I've only known a
    	small handful who hold my particular rank.  After my next promotion
    	(which I will have to take a Technical Proficiency Review Board
    	to obtain), I will be a rank that has even less women.   As
    	a matter of fact, in all my years in DEC I have never yet met
    	a woman (in person) with this particular rank.  They do exist
    	(but are rare.)
    
    	I'm prejudiced, of course, but I happen to think that it is
    	a pretty neat distinction (not the rarity of women, but just
    	the job and the title itself.)  Men of this title are fairly
    	rare, too.  It's something many of us enjoy striving to
    	achieve.
    
    	I don't think it is considered neat because so few women do
    	it.  I think we consider it neat among ourselves because we
    	know what we had to do to get to this point (and so far, the
    	statistics show that women are still a small -- but GROWING
    	-- percentage of this group.)

    	If many, many women join the ranks of this group in the next
    	decade, I'll be tickled (and I don't think that it will lessen
    	the distinction of the title in the least to have more women
    	in it.)
    
    						      Suzanne... ;-)

    
    	P.S.  By the way, my T.P.R.B. is coming up in the next couple
    	of months.    <me nervous?  no way.  I always have this tic>
     
    
    						    Suzanne... :-) :-)
    

    re: support
    
    I did TOPS-20 support (SPRs/bug fixes, HOTLINE) for a number of
    years.  One of the nicest things I ever heard came from one of the
    developers.  We were at a party where one woman there (gasp) didn't
    work for DEC, in fact didn't work in the computer industry.  The
    developer was introducing others at the party.  He said, (pointing
    to himself and several other developers) "We just write the stuff." 
    He then pointed to those of us who worked in support, saying, "They
    have the hard job, they make it work!"  I never forgot that, and
    I hope repeating it here brightens up the day for everyone else
    who is or has been in support.
    
    Rita_who_is_now_takin'_it_easy_as_a_developer ;^)
    

>Many PEOPLE do not come up through the ranks at all and some of those 
>PEOPLE don't deserve to.

Agreed.  And some of those people don't want to.  But I'm talking about
the ones who DO deserve to.  Of that batch, I'll bet the rent the over-
    whelming majority are women.  Very few ambitious, capable men are 
    stalled for long.

>What makes anyone willing to reach out a hand to help another person?
>Perhaps because they have some faith that they person will succeed.

Right.  The question we're tackling here is not whether managers ever
have faith but rather what gives them this faith?  To a white male in the 
40-60 range, (the bulk of hiring mgrs, yes?), who was brought up in a com-
fortably sexist society, a male candidate is going to give him more of a 
warm and fuzzy feeling than a female candidate, all things being equal.  
Her resume might look just as good, but the mgr has a tendency to have
more "faith" that the male will be the more successful employee.  I'm
not arguing the presence or absence of faith, but the criteria that de-
termines its existence.

>This is the most chauvinistic statement I've heard in a long time.  A manager
>gives a woman a chance because of "personal" reasons, because he "loves" her?

Of course not.  You read it wrong.  A woman is successful because of luck OR
love, not love or nothing.  If the hiring manager, (or the bank loan officer),
HAS no personal connection to the female, (the most common situation), then 
she must rely on the hope that no male candidate of equal qualification is 
competing against her, or hope that this mgr, (loan officer), has an EEO quota 
to fill.  Sure it sounds chauvinistic but that's not due to my words!  Don't 
shoot the messenger!

>As difficult as it seems for you to except, SOME of us have gotten good, well-
>paying jobs without being "loved" by anyone but perhaps family.  We have make
>it by virtue of our own ability.  

That's not difficult at all for me to accept.  I think you are looking at ab-
solutes and I'm looking at trends.  I know full well that there are deserving
women who have actually GOTTEN good jobs based on their qualifications.  So
we agree.  Where we differ is that you feel that this is proof that sexism
does not exist in the workplace.  That's like saying you don't think rape
exists because you personally have never been raped.

The very few deserving women who have actually gotten good jobs based on their
qualifications is far and away the exception, not the rule, regardless of
whether or not you personally are an exception.  Thank your lucky stars but
don't let it lull you into thinkig that every secretary you see has aspired to 
being a secretary and has risen to the level of her competence.

>Perhaps your career is nowhere NEAR where it should be because you have an 
>attitude problem.  

Perhaps, but not if you talk to the bosses I've had.  I get plenty of acco-
lades and rewards - the female kind.  Lunches, praise, flowers, attaboys
and friendship.  A bad attitude is just another strike against a woman who
already has plenty going against her.  I'm venting my frustration here but
don't assume my managers and would-be managers are ever privvy to my pesonal 
perception of their attitudes.  I keep the personal side of things out of
it, like I wish men would.

>Perhaps you have an unrealistic idea of where your career should be?

Nope.  Even DEC Personnel is puzzled that my "great" resume gets me nowhere.
The only thing unrealistic about my career plan is that I expected my sex 
wouldn't have anything to do with it.  So far, every step of the way, it
has.  Maybe I AM being singled out for sexism.  My SO calls me an obvious
target because I'm small and blonde but that's another avenue I might ex-
plore with a new topic.

Sometimes I can just sigh and resign myself that I can't change a society I 
didn't build and certainly can't change the men who did, but sometimes, 
usually when I see younger, less educated males getting nice titles and buying 
shiny new cars and taking vacations, I have a "stronger" reaction.
    
                          

>>Agreed.  And some of those people don't want to.  But I'm talking about
>>the ones who DO deserve to.  Of that batch, I'll bet the rent the over-
>>whelming majority are women.  Very few ambitious, capable men are 
>>stalled for long.

How does one measure something like this Sandy?  Everybody (male and female) 
thinks that they should be one of the ones who DO deserve to.  You seem to 
think that professional life is so easy for men.  Men have the same doubts and
fears that we do.  Many ambitious and capable men never reach a point where 
they are comfortable with their career.  Being born male is no guarentee of
success.  That discrimination against women exists in industry today is a 
given.  Using the limitations of society as an excuse for our own 
limitations or for the random circumstances of our lives is far more 
destructive in that it makes us feel as though we don't have a chance so why
try.  The truth is we do have a chance and we must never stop trying.


>>Right.  The question we're tackling here is not whether managers ever
>>have faith but rather what gives them this faith?  To a white male in the 
>>40-60 range, (the bulk of hiring mgrs, yes?), who was brought up in a com-
>>fortably sexist society, a male candidate is going to give him more of a 
>>warm and fuzzy feeling than a female candidate, all things being equal.  
>>Her resume might look just as good, but the mgr has a tendency to have
>>more "faith" that the male will be the more successful employee.  I'm
>>not arguing the presence or absence of faith, but the criteria that de-
>>termines its existence.

This is a generality that I am sure has some basis in fact, but it is a 
generality none-the-less.


>>Of course not.  You read it wrong.  A woman is successful because of luck OR
>>love, not love or nothing.  If the hiring manager, (or the bank loan officer),
>>HAS no personal connection to the female, (the most common situation), then 
>>she must rely on the hope that no male candidate of equal qualification is 
>>competing against her, or hope that this mgr, (loan officer), has an EEO quota 
>>to fill.  Sure it sounds chauvinistic but that's not due to my words!  Don't 
>>shoot the messenger!

I truly believe that "luck" is a factor in EVERYBODY'S career, and it is 
probably a prime factor.  Why are some people luckier than others?  One would
think that a woman would be more likely to follow her instinct than a man
and would consequently be luckier (assumming of course that instinct is indeed
a factor of luck).  To say that a woman is successful because of luck OR love
and for no other reason is selling all of us short.  So many other factors 
figure into it; timing, intuiton, judgement, risk-taking, perseverance, keen
insight.  Men as a rule don't assume that other men made it because they were
lucky or because they were loved.  Men look to their role models and learn from
them.  What I'm hearing you say is that there are no women role models because
those women who made it didn't REALLY deserve to,...they were simply lucky or
they were loved.  This attitude does more harm to the women's movement than
all of the overt chauvinism in the Old Boy's Club because this attitude is
what REALLY holds a lot of us back.

>>Where we differ is that you feel that this is proof that sexism
>>does not exist in the workplace.  That's like saying you don't think rape
>>exists because you personally have never been raped.

Go back and re-read my notes Sandy.  I never said this.  You are making 
assumptions again.

>>The very few deserving women who have actually gotten good jobs based on their
>>qualifications is far and away the exception, not the rule, regardless of
>>whether or not you personally are an exception.  Thank your lucky stars but
>>don't let it lull you into thinkig that every secretary you see has aspired 
>>to being a secretary and has risen to the level of her competence.

I never said that it would be easy,...but nothing worth doing is easy.  Life
itself isn't easy.  There are no free rides...not here or anyplace else.  
Everybody pays their dues, one way or another.  If you want something badly
enough you won't stop until you get it and if you find a manager who offers
you friendship, please stop and realize that most mentors begin as friends.

    	Sandy,
    
    	I'm wondering if you feel that it is so unlikely that most
    	women will become successful that it is not worth trying.
    	I wonder if you feel that it is good for women in general
    	to be told that the women who make it on their own
    	merit are incredibly few and far between.  Don't you think
    	that this attitude tends to validate what society has told
    	us all along (i.e., that women don't have what it takes to
    	compete in the real world)?
    
    	We often complain about society telling us over and over that
    	we can't do it.  What difference does it make if *we* then
    	turn around and tell *each other* that we can't make it.  Aren't
    	we just playing into the hands of the societal entity that
    	sought to hold us down in the first place?
    
    	Men read this conference.  If you tell all of us over and over
    	that we can't do it, what effect will it have on the men who
    	read your words?  What if they believe you and decide not to
    	give a woman a chance because we've already let them know that
    	we can't make it?
    
    	Whatever your personal experience has been, I sympathize with
    	you if you feel that you have been discriminated against.  I
    	truly doubt that your size and hair color have anthing whatever
    	to do with it (as I have known many, many small women with every
    	hair color imaginable who have been very successful.)
    
    	As obvious as it is that there are many (by their own standards)
    	"successful women" in this conference, I often wonder why you
    	don't appear to take the opportunity to ask some of our fellow
    	noters in this conference for some tips on how to get ahead
    	(rather than tell us how impossible it is when our experience
    	has been that it is anything *but* totally impossible.)

    	As much as I support the idea of being able to voice our
    	frustrations and all, I sincerely hope that your articulate
    	notes are not discouraging some women (including yourself)
    	from *trying* to succeed.  If you *try*, you may or not make
    	it (the same is true for men.)
    
    	If you *don't* try, then the outcome is far more certain (that
    	you defintely *won't* make it.)  That much is true for all of
    	us (no matter what we seek in life.)
    
    						   Suzanne... ;-)

    Suzanne, 
    
    I can't quite believe you did that, but your last note essentially
    told a woman that the only reason she wasn't getting ahead was because
    she wasn't trying hard enough!!!   I'm beginning to think that one
    of the worst thing about sexism is getting anyone to believe an
    individual who faces it.    Do you folks truly think that sexism
    *only* happens 'out there' among people that none of us know???
    
    Tamar

    	RE:  .102
    
    	That isn't what I said at all!!
    
    	I said that if you *don't* try, then you surely will not make
    	it.  Am I wrong about that?  Did Digital chase you down at the
    	supermarket or at your last job begging you to please give them
    	a chance?  
    
    	I also said that we *ALL* face the risk of failing even if we
    	*do* try (men and women.)
    
    	There are no guarantees in careers (except for the one that
    	says that if we refuse to try, we are only hurting ourselves.)
    
    	The only real chance any of us has (male or female) is if we
    	***TRY***!
    
    	Do you disagree?
    
    							Suzanne... ;-)

    	RE:  .102
    
    	Never have I understood how one makes the jump in logic from
    	"Yes, you are smart enough -- you can [read "have a chance to"]
    	make it if you try" to thinking that it means "You did not make
    	it because it is *your* *fault* and didn't try hard enough."
    
    	They are *clearly* different sentiments entirely!!!
    
    	Whether or not sexism exists (and I do believe in it -- I do,
    	I do!) -- no one is going to show up at our feet with engraved
    	invitations to success.  We *still* have to reach out for it
    	(no matter who we are!!)  Unless you were born rich or are the
    	child of a famous person.  Most of us weren't and aren't.
    
    	What is the point of deciding that it is so incredibly, impossibly
    	hard to make it?  Is it so that we'll have an excuse not to
    	try?
    
    							Suzanne... ;-)

    I think there's some confusion here.  Please correct me if I'm adding
    to it with my attempt at explanation.
    
    Suzanne is saying "It's always hard to succeed, and never guaranteed,
    but it is also always possible, with the likelihood varying as a
    function of the effort made." 
                                
    Sandy is saying "It's harder to succeed if you're female than if
    you're male, and the likelihood of success does not always vary
    as a function of the effort made".
    
    						=maggie

    The social psych. literature still indicates that a woman's success
    is seen as the result of (in order) 
    	(1) luck 
    	(2) favoritism based on sexual services 
    	(3) skill
    while a man's success is seen as the result (again in order) of 
    	(1) skill
    	(2) favoritism based on "brown-nosing"
    	(3) luck                                                 
    
    In each case, the number 1 reason is considered to account for the
    vast majority of successes.
    
    						=maggie

    It is harder to succeed if you're female,....and if you're gay,...and
    if you're black,...and if you're handicapped, and a myriad of other
    factors.  The point is... these factors of discrimination will most
    effect you if you allow them to influence your own perception,
    sense-of-self, thoughts, and behavior.  Its not a question of 
    acknowledging their existence, ... we all know they exist,..all kinds
    of evil exists.  And there will always be those who discriminate
    against someone, against anyone.  To make it IN SPITE of the woe's
    of the world is the challenge.  To refuse to accept the limitation
    the world puts upon us is the easy part.  To refuse to accept the
    limitations we put upon ourselves is much harder....and that is
    the battle that we really must win.

    	I support Sandy's contention, as I understand it.  Many of the
    men I know (most?) in the 40 to 60 age bracket tend to equate blond
    with dumb and attractive blond with very dumb.  They are wrong,
    of course.  Many of these same men will hire a male before a female
    and a white male before a male of color.  To do otherwise, some
    of them believe, is to venture into uncomfortable water - take a
    chance they prefer not to take.  This is also quite wrong.
    
    	Unfortunately, being wrong does not stop them.  A very good
    friend of mine, not in DEC, only promotes Italian males who were
    raised in a major city.  His logic is simply that eh wants people
    working for him whom he understands.  His actions are wrong.  He
    knows his actions are wrong.  He will not change until the system
    forces this change.
    
    	I worked for a company until 1978 which had no females in
    supervisory positions, let alone management positions.  The unwritten
    philosophy was to push males and hold back females, obviously. 
    This same company was proud of never having hired a male with a
    beard.  I have had a full face beard since being discharged from
    the military.  When I was told I would not be hired because of my
    beard, I shaved it off the morning I started and began growing it
    back the same day (never shaved again).  Too bad it wasn't as easy
    for the woman to get around the ignorance.
    
    Douglas

    To all of you lambasting Sandy:
    
    I *never* heard her say that she's "letting" anything hold her back.
    I did not hear her say she's not trying to move ahead in her career.
    
    1) You have to acknowledge there is a problem.
    2) You have permission to get angry about injustices and unfairness.
    3) You have to combat or find a way around problem.
    
    Guess what?  You can do all three at the same time!
    
    Sandy is trying to get some of us to see the problem and get angry
    about it.  That in *no way* says she has not moved on to #3 in her
    professional life or that she hasn't been at #3 all along.

    	-Ellen

    	RE:  .108
    
    	Yes, men like the ones you mentioned *do* exist.  And men
    	that don't care if your hair is blonde or not -- they exist,
    	too.
    
    	Before I joined DEC, I interviewed for a job as a technician
    	with a company that made small micro-computers (not exactly
    	a competitor that Big Blue or anyone else would have to
    	lose sleep worrying about.)
    
    	They gave me the toughest technician interview ever given at
    	that company (I know this cuz the chief design engineer who
    	gave it to me said that the interview was the one he used to
    	give to design engineers just out of E.E.)  He told me to my
    	face that he would tell the president of the company that I
    	definitely knew my stuff!!
    
    	The head of the company jerked me around for 3 weeks and then
    	finally burst out, "I just can't bring myself to hire you as
    	a technician [for the whopping $15,000 that the job paid in
    	1981] -- but I'll hire you as an assembler for a couple of years
    	and if you work out well, we'll see."
    
    	I told that man to take his job offer and shove it.  Who the
    	heck would *WANT* to work for an *sshole like that and spend
    	two years proving anything to him.  No thanks.
    
    	So I just moved on to other job opportunities (looking for a
    	company that *didn't* have a president that couldn't *BRING*
    	himself to hire a qualified woman.)  I didn't let his attitude
    	discourage me in the tiniest bit.  Sure, I knew he was a sexist
    	-- well, that's his problem, not mine anymore.

    	Sure, there are unfair attitudes and discrimination.  If we
    	decide that we are defeated, then we truly are.  If we stay
    	and press on, then we may make it.  We *do* have chances.  No
    	guarantees, and maybe less chances -- but there are still
    	chances, nonetheless.
    
    							Suzanne... ;-)

    	RE:  .109
    
    	Ellen, I asked an honest question of Sandy this morning
    	(in friendship) that basically asked if her line of reasoning
    	was constructive for women who are finding it difficult to
    	make it in the career that they would like.
    
    	I'm still waiting for suggestions from Sandy as to how she
    	thinks we can overcome sexism.  I don't think it is realistic
    	to solve the problem by the way we treat men at home.  It may
    	be a very long term solution (long term as in generations),
    	but what about now?
    
    	As smart and articulate as Sandy obviously is, I have no
    	explanation for why she has not succeeded the way that she
    	wants to (other than suggesting that whatever avenues she
    	has explored are not working for her.)  I'm not suggesting
    	that she isn't trying hard enough.  I'm saying that maybe
    	she needs to find out from others about some methods that
    	*DO* work.
    
    						    Suzanne... ;-)

    <--(.107)
    "
    The point is... these factors of discrimination will most
    effect you if you allow them to influence your own perception,
    sense-of-self, thoughts, and behavior.
    "
                                                         
    I would certainly agree with you on this point, Mary.  But I would also
    argue that the "forces of evil/ignorance/thoughtlessness/tradition" are
    quite powerful enough to blight our lives even without our consent...
    and indeed against our determined opposition!  
    
    We do indeed need to preserve and enhance our self-esteem, but as the
    members of the other devalued groups you mentioned (people of color,
    lesbians & gay men) have learned, women need to be part of a community of
    people who can offer the validation and support that the larger world
    regularly denies us.
    
    						=maggie 

    <--(.111)                     
    "    	
        I'm still waiting for suggestions from Sandy as to how she
    	thinks we can overcome sexism.  I don't think it is realistic
    	to solve the problem by the way we treat men at home.  It may
    	be a very long term solution (long term as in generations),
    	but what about now?

    "
    
    Suzanne, I agree with you that working on men close to us (spouses,
    siblings, parents, etc) is likely to be a long- rather than short-term
    solution, insofar as we're talking about general solutions.  But
    I didn't hear Sandy suggesting that she meant it to be a general
    short-term solution.  I heard her saying that no matter what we
    do short-term, nothing fundamental will change until we've brought
    our case home and convinced the men in our lives that "those women"
    are *us*.
    
    						=maggie

    It is nice to be part of a support group Maggie but what if you're
    not?  We've got to stop being such wimps.  The stereotypical image of
    women says that when the going gets rough we curl up in a corner with 
    a bottle of valium and bemoan our helplessness.  There are numerous
    jokes about how women "can't even go to the bathroom" alone, they
    must go in groups.  The most important thing we can do for ourselves
    is to respect ourselves as individuals and be strong and proud and
    use every ounce of brainpower we have and don't EVER take accept 
    the roadblocks.  If you can't go through them or over them then
    go around them but KEEP ON GOING....even if you go alone.

    	Many people (including myself) have mentioned that one advantage
    	men have over women in business is the fact that many of them
    	have played team sports from early childhood on up.
    
    	What did they learn from team sports that *we* haven't learned?
    
    	Let's suppose that we are playing on a football team right
    	now (playing against a team that is bigger, more experienced,
    	has a better coach and nicer uniforms.)  Let's say that we
    	are already 10 points behind.
    
    	We also have our own cheerleaders.  What do we want them to
    	yell at this point?  How about, "Hey, you guys!!  You don't
    	stand a chance in hell of winning so don't feel bad.  It's
    	not your fault!  They are bigger than you and have been playing
    	longer!!  You never had a chance to begin with -- it's totally
    	unfair!  Rah, rah!"
    
    	How about, "Fight, team, fight!!!"  and  "C'mon!!  You guys
    	can do it!!  Yay!!!"
    
    	Even when the odds are totally against them, little boys are
    	taught to play to win ****REGARDLESS****!!  If they don't win
    	that particular game, they are back out on the field the following
    	week (giving it their all and playing as if they think that
    	they *DO* have a chance, even if they don't.)
    
    	Some teams eventually *DO* get good enough to win.  Some teams
    	don't.  But only the teams with absolutely no heart at all refuse
    	to show up to try.
    
    	That's what little boys learn and we don't.
    
    	I know sexism exists -- I am only questioning what we want to
    	say to each other from the sidelines.
    
    						      Suzanne... ;-)

    re -1:
    
    I *totally* disagree with the statement that we are wimps if we're
    part of a support group.
    
    I am not a wimp and neither are the other women in this conference.
    
    A support group gives you the skills, confidence, and connectedness
    to *make it* as a whole person in the world.  I do not see how
    belonging to a support group gives *any* credence to the belief that
    of a stereotypical image of women as being helpless.  Joining a
    support group *is* a positive step in helping oneself.  Could you
    explain your reasoning, please?
    
    Don't call an incest or rape victim or a battered wife searching for
    a support group a wimp.  Please!

    	-Ellen

    And one more thing, if you all want to wait for the women of the
    world to convince the men in their lives that its ok for you to
    have a chance at life, go right ahead,.... 
    My time is too valuable to waste waiting for that and (frankly),
    I don't give a twit whether or not the men in other women's lives
    choose to approve of me.  I won't wait for their help and I won't
    wait for their approval.

	re .99:
		
>Right.  The question we're tackling here is not whether managers ever
>have faith but rather what gives them this faith?  To a white male in the 
>40-60 range, (the bulk of hiring mgrs, yes?), who was brought up in a com-
>fortably sexist society, a male candidate is going to give him more of a 
>warm and fuzzy feeling than a female candidate, all things being equal.  
>Her resume might look just as good, but the mgr has a tendency to have
>more "faith" that the male will be the more successful employee.  I'm
>not arguing the presence or absence of faith, but the criteria that de-
>termines its existence.

	And it just might be that the "faith" should go the other
	way... You non-baseball fans will have to be patient with me
	on this...
	
	In this year's Baseball Abstract, Bill James did a study to
	determine what factors can predict how successful a player
	will be given his rookie year record. The basic methodology
	was to pair off players that were virtually identical except
	for the factor which was being compared (typically a stat like
	the number of home runs hit in his rookie year, also he used
	age as a factor). It wasn't his original intent, but out of
	curiosity he ran his data using race as a factor. Much to his
	surprise, he found that the black players in the study
	generally ended up having much more successful careers than
	the corresponding white players. He re-checked things
	carefully, tried different sample sets, altered his
	methodology for more accuracy, but it always came out the same
	- the only more significant factor in predicting a player's
	career was a two- or three-year age difference (and one of the
	major conclusions of the study was that a one-year age
	difference was very significant). Given two players of the
	same age, with the same rookie year stats, the one you would
	prefer on your team is the black one.

	His conclusion: that most blacks, having faced discrimination,
	and in many cases economic hardship, all their lives, were
	better equipped than most white players to face adversity, to
	meet the challenges faced at the key moments of their careers.
	I can't see why the same wouldn't apply to women. In a MAIL
	conversation with a WOMANNOTER, she said to me,
	
	"I think that we *all* have intestinal fortitude when we
	really need it (if we are willing to use it.) Women just get
	more opportunities to overcome obstacles, that's all.  :-)
	So, in a way, we are lucky to *have* to work so hard to make
	it."
	
	Just something to keep in mind if you're faced with a choice
	between two equally qualified candidates for a job you're
	offering...
	
	Mike

    	RE:  .116
    
    	I realize that my note snuck in before yours (and you were
    	referring to the one before mine.)
    
    	Just wanted to add one thing -- although I think support
    	groups are *great* (I really do) -- I question how much
    	of a percentage of time should be spent on "Poor us, let's
    	all tell our stories" versus "We don't need to feel defeated
    	by what has happened.  What do we do *NOW* to make things better
    	for ourselves?"
    
    	Both are necessary -- if we stick to the "Poor us" and never
    	get past it, then we are feeding our defeat and playing into
    	the hands of those who have hurt us.
    
    	When I went to Al-Anon (years ago because of my alcoholic
    	spouse), I couldn't believe how upbeat everyone was.  I wanted
    	to cry and tell my story!!  Well, I did quietly sob, and then
    	let a few pieces out later.  But soon, I went into those meetings
    	as upbeat and optomistic about life as the best of 'em.
    
    	It was the upbeat side of the support group that really helped
    	me.
    
    							Suzanne... ;-)

>>I *totally* disagree with the statement that we are wimps if we're
>>part of a support group.
>>I am not a wimp and neither are the other women in this conference.
>>A support group gives you the skills, confidence, and connectedness
>>to *make it* as a whole person in the world.  I do not see how
>>belonging to a support group gives *any* credence to the belief that
>>of a stereotypical image of women as being helpless.  Joining a
>>support group *is* a positive step in helping oneself.  Could you
>>explain your reasoning, please?
    
>>Don't call an incest or rape victim or a battered wife searching for
>>a support group a wimp.  Please!

Its very simple Ellen.  I never said that.  Support groups are fine for those
who have special problems and need them.  They are not however, a pre-requisite
for success nor are they necessary for all women.

What I did say was that we *can* and some of us *are* able to stand on our own 
two feet and function as an independent thinking human being without a support 
group.  I also implied that we seem to have a tendency to look for easy 
answers and special treatment or to use the existence of discrimination as 
a crutch to avoid the responsibilities and challenges of society.

    Suzanne, do you have siblings?  (I can't remember if you've ever
    said)  If you do, what flavor are they and what's the ordering?
    
    						=maggie

    	RE:  .128
    
    	My brother is oldest of 3 of us.  He has his PhD. in Physics
    	(and is an Experimental Astrophysicist.)  He has worked for
    	NASA (his specialty is "falling particles in space") and
    	also worked for several years at the Johns Hopkins Applied
    	Physics Lab (where he worked on a secret government project
    	that had to do with space.)  Not SDI (this was several
    	years ago.)  He now works for Honeywell on more secret
    	government projects.
    
    	My sister is second and has two degrees (the first in
    	English and the second in Nursing.)  She plans to become
    	a college professor in a school of nursing in the near
    	future.
    
    	I'm the youngest by several years.  When I was a kid, my
    	older siblings "played school" with me by teaching me nearly
    	everything at least a year before I saw it in real school.
    	My brother taught me some intricate math when I was 12 that
    	he liked to call "neat math tricks."  ;-)  It wasn't until
    	years later that I realized what it was.  Needless to say,
    	I did well on all my 8th grade math tests.  ;-)
    
    	We were *all* told that we would need to have an education
    	so that we could support ourselves.  So far, none of us has
    	learned when to stop (I'm also working on a second degree.)
    
    						  Suzanne... ;-)

    <--(.129)  
    
    Sounds like you had a *lot* of support and encouragement at home,
    Suzanne.  Tell you the truth, I'd've been willing to make a small
    bet on you being either an only kid or at least the eldest, since
    that follows the statistics pretty well, but I really didn't expect
    you to be the youngest.  Normally the youngest kid isn't the high
    achiever, but with a family like yours maybe even *your* success
    is "small potatoes".  Clearly you come from an unusual family. 
    
    
    <--(.130)
    
    Renee, this is sorta a nit but I wasn't suggesting to Sandy that she
    "come out and play" or offering her any suggestions, really I wasn't.
    Mostly cuz I know she's *already* busting her butt to get ahead.
    
    						=maggie
    

    	RE:  .131
    
    	The main advantage I received from my family (that is the
    	most similar to one of the biggest advantages that men
    	have over women in the working world) is that my family
    	taught me to ***EXPECT TO SUCCEED***.
    
    	My parents didn't pay for all of our educations and didn't
    	hold our hands much past the age of 17 (which is how old
    	I was when I left home.)  My brother got school on the GI bill
    	(and from fellowships for graduate school.)  My sister went
    	into serious debt with a record-breaking number of student
    	loans.
    
    	I went to a state university as a resident of the state
    	(University of Hawaii, class of 1976.)  *AND* I took out
    	some straight-to-the-school tuition loans.
    
    	The idea of "expecting to succeed" -- that's what I've
    	been trying to say all day.  If we expect to fail, chances
    	are more than even that we will.  If we expect to win, then
    	all the major and minor setbacks *cannot* seriously hurt us.

    	It probably sounds arrogant as hell (especially coming from
    	a woman.)  But it's a psychological edge that is very much
    	like the edge that men have.
    
    	If any of you remember me from Human_Relations last year,
    	I don't sound like this all the time.  I have other sides
    	that are much mellower and softer.  But when it comes to
    	going after things that I want (in terms of career) -- I
    	don't hold myself back.
    
    	P.S. Maggie -- "small potatoes," eh?  Just give me time...
    	I'll catch up.   ;-)  ;-)  ;-)
    
    						   Suzanne... ;-)

re Suzanne:

>    	I'm wondering if you feel that it is so unlikely that most
>    	women will become successful that it is not worth trying.
 
No the possibility for success is VERY worth trying for.  If you are
driven, you can't NOT try.  You may feel like you're beating your 
head against the wall, (as I do!), spinning your wheels, but you have
to keep trying because you're relying on luck.  It COULD happen.
Pretty durn unlikely, but it could.

>   	I wonder if you feel that it is good for women in general
>    	to be told that the women who make it on their own
>    	merit are incredibly few and far between.  

Are you advocating hiding real life from women?  Should we know it but
not tell our daughters?  Does anybody really NOT already know it anyway?
Who are we kidding?

>Don't you think that this attitude tends to validate what society has told
>us all along (i.e., that women don't have what it takes to compete in the 
>real world)?

This attitude IS what society is telling us.  I am talking about society's
attitudes and how that affects hiring managers' perceptions of women.
 
I am in no way saying that I believe women don't have what it takes.  I'm 
saying I believe the most common type of hiring manager in this country
doesn't believe it.  As I've said in another note, women will succeed and
fail, be brilliant and ignorant in exactly the same ratios as men will.
What we lack is equal opportunity to do either and the benefit of the doubt
if we fail.  This is not so for men and I believe it is the absolute
vital groundwork - the opportunity to succeed or fail - that is routinely 
denied to women.  The bigger the stakes, the less likely it will be an
opportunity for a woman.


 >	Men read this conference.  If you tell all of us over and over
 >   	that we can't do it, what effect will it have on the men who
 >   	read your words?  What if they believe you and decide not to
 >   	give a woman a chance because we've already let them know that
 >   	we can't make it?
  

Ahem, think about this for a minute.  I advocate changing the thinking of
the men closest to us and you and others have said that's a long term 
solution, (with which I completely agree but it still needs to be done).  
Now you're concerned that just reading a note in a notesfile will cause a 
man to possibly act sexist in a situation where he otherwise wouldn't have?  

But then it IS so much easier to "make" a man sexist than to "make" one
liberated, no?  Just try doing all the cooking and dishes for one week.
He'll be yelling at you to get him a beer in no time!  ;-)

>I often wonder why you don't appear to take the opportunity to ask some of 
>our fellow noters in this conference for some tips on how to get ahead
>(rather than tell us how impossible it is when our experience
>has been that it is anything *but* totally impossible.)

Gee, Suzanne, don't know why you assume I haven't.  I do.  Routinely.


re:  BEES::PARE

>    It is harder to succeed if you're female,....and if you're gay,...and
>    if you're black,...and if you're handicapped, and a myriad of other
>    factors.  The point is... these factors of discrimination will most
>    effect you if you allow them to influence your own perception,
>    sense-of-self, thoughts, and behavior.  


No.  The point is who then is DOING all this discriminating?  Able-bodied, 
white males, that's who.  Who is doing the hiring and money-lending and raise 
giving and corporation running and policy making and, and...

The same group.  Do you see any potential for problems here for a non
able-bodied, white male?  Do you see any further problems for a certain
TYPE of non able-bodied white male that the white males specifically en-
joy but during their leisure hours, (aka women)?

I don't understand why you think these things are influencing my own per-
ception, sense-of-self, thoughs and behavior.  I am striving and looking
always to better myself, just as I would be doing in a world with no dis-
crimination.  I AM doing what I need to be doing - trying to get to a place
in life where I too can buy a few things and sit back for a moment and feel
satisfield.  The difference is my striving gets me nowhere.  I didn't
say I've thrown in the towel, far from it.  What little chance I have I
have while I'm young.  We're just discussing our views of the world out
there, aren't we?  I'm saying what I feel I'm up against - not what I do
or have done about it.  I'm pretty proud of most of my reactions to the
blatant sexism I encounter daily.  I think I'm better equipped than most
women to handle sexism because I feel I understand it completely.  I have
NOT played into the hands of my oppressors, far from it.  I'm here because
I need to eat and the POSSIBILITIES look good.  I'm still trying to turn
those possibilities into MY possibilities and soon I will have to make a
decision whether or not I ever will be able to.  For right now, you bet
I'm trying.  My views in this subject come from the results of my efforts,
not from the lack of effort.


re: maggie


>    The social psych. literature still indicates that a woman's success
>    is seen as the result of (in order) 
>    	(1) luck 
>    	(2) favoritism based on sexual services 
>    	(3) skill
>    while a man's success is seen as the result (again in order) of 
>    	(1) skill
>    	(2) favoritism based on "brown-nosing"
>    	(3) luck                                                 
 

This blows me away.  I KNEW it!  Luck or love!  This is exactly what I am 
saying.  Women who get jobs SIMPLY because they were the best qualified
candidate for the job are far and away the exception in this society.

What can we do that will have a positive effect on the problem right now?
We have the law behind us, weak as it is, and we need to use it.  We have
the power of our own sense of self worth and we need to use that too. 
Suzanne, you mentioned one job you turned down because the guy couldn't
bring himself to hire you as anything but an assembler.  But you DID find
a better job, didn't you?  I've had a guy actually tell me "Hell would 
freeze over before he'd put a woman in that job" and when I quit it was
pretty much no different elsewhere except the men weren't always so vocal
about it.  After awhile you get hungry and you have to take a job.  I
spent a lot of time as a temp so that I could really explore the possi-
bilities.  There were none.  After a year of being uncomfortable about
having no benefits and the no-work-no-pay of temping, my continual job
hunting efforst resulted in a job offer as a secretary.  I could have cried 
when I said yes.  It at least didn't look at all dead-end and of course I
was encouraged by everyone, hiring mgr included, (who admitted that I was
"cut out for better things but..."), that the foot in the door would at
least help me toward my goal.

Then the "foot-in-the-door" turned out to be the foot-down-the-manhole, as 
no one wanted to interview a "secretary" for anything but secretarial work.  
ESPECIALLY a little blonde secretary.  I had dug my grave because I wanted 
to eat and be a little secure.

This was some of the past and suffice it to say I'm still not overly excited 
about the leaps and gains I have made.  The strippers in the cheapest bar in 
Worcester make much more than I do.  It's no wonder men fear "comparable worth" 
so much, because then they'd have to face what they value!

Men so often say "Don't blame me because I just happen to be male.  I didn't 
create this and I'm not going to take the blame".  I say how come then that
I must accept discrimination just because I "happened" to be born female?

Why do men have the right to not only generalize but also act upon those 
generalizations to hold ANY female back, and women must always be careful not 
to point the finger at ANY male simply because he "happens" to enjoy the
fruits of being male?  Again, men can control our lives with their general-
izations but women must be ever careful to not even mention a generalization
about men.  

It's always open season on women.  We're all fair game for them.  We just have
to learn to duck and cover and get what we need in spite of them.  Since they 
run the world, it really doesn't surprise me that very VERY few women sneak by
them.  I'm doing my best.  I'm praying for luck.  I won't turn down love.  But 
I'm not holding my breath.
    

>    The social psych. literature still indicates that a woman's success
>    is seen as the result of (in order) 
>    	(1) luck 
>    	(2) favoritism based on sexual services 
>    	(3) skill
>    while a man's success is seen as the result (again in order) of 
>    	(1) skill
>    	(2) favoritism based on "brown-nosing"
>    	(3) luck                                                 
>>This blows me away.  I KNEW it!  Luck or love!  This is exactly what I am 
>>saying.  Women who get jobs SIMPLY because they were the best qualified
>>candidate for the job are far and away the exception in this society.

It says that the social psych. literature still indicates that a woman's 
success IS SEEN AS the result of .... not that it IS/WAS a result of...  
What this indicates is the chauvinistic attitude still prevalent in society.  

>It says that the social psych. literature still indicates that a woman's 
>success IS SEEN AS the result of .... not that it IS/WAS a result of...  
>What this indicates is the chauvinistic attitude still prevalent in society.  

 So you don't believe the social psych literature?  They say it seems
    that way but you disagree.  My guess is they've studied the issue
    pretty thoroughly.  It seems this way to me, too.  
    
    What do you think is meant by "is seen as"?  "Every indication points
    to?"  "The people we've asked have told us?"
    
    You seem to be taking issue with this idea and your final statement
    sounds like what you think should be interpreted INSTEAD of the
    way we're interpreting it as in this "indicates is the chauvinistic 
    attitude still prevalent in society".  Well isn't that what we're
    trying to say?  If I agree that chauvinistic attitudes are still
    prevalant in our society and I think so too, then are you saying
    you don't think the EFFECTS of these attitudes are as terrible as
    I am saying they are?
    
    Do you think chauvinism exists as just a philosophy?  We all know
    men think about it, know it exists but most of them don't actually 
    TREAT women that way?

    
    Please forgive this intrusion, but if I may go back to the 'team
    sports' analogy: What should the cheerleaders say? "they're bigger
    and stronger, oh no!" and "rah, rah, yay, go get 'em!" were suggested.
    I believe what the cheerleaders would yell if they were taking
    Ms. Ciccolini's view would be:
    
    "LOOK OUT, THE OTHER TEAM IS CHEATING!!"
    

        There are in this file and others various people who seem to be
        angry a large amount of the time. In the last few dozen notes we
        have been discussing and addressing one woman who comes across
        that way, but there are others. There are other women whose main
        notes show anger against men, or salaried employees. There are
        men with similar angers against those they see as having
        advantage. There are also certain guerilla noters who always
        seem angered at how they are mistreated, and men who have great
        angers against women and strike out at them. 
        
        On the surface it would appear that they are angry because they
        have been mistreated. I would like to suggest that it is the
        case that the anger often causes future mistreatment. 
        
        A couple of people have spoken about what little boys learn from
        sports. Well, I was not very sports oriented, but controlling my
        own fate by controlling my reactions is a lesson that was
        drummed into my head. When the other kids were picking on me, my
        parents kept telling me to not get angry, to not strike back
        wildly, to not let them distract me or derail me. It took years
        to understand it. In the end I suddenly decided that I wasn't
        going to put up with it any more. I suddenly realized that "I
        don't have to take it!" 
        
        Now, this sudden decission to not put up with being beaten
        sounds a lot like anger. You'd think that when someone says "I
        won't put up with your abuse." would be saying it in anger. But
        that was not the case. In fact, what I became was determined,
        and for the first time since it started I wasn't angry. And then
        it stopped. 
        
        J. White suggests that the cheerleaders should shout "Look out,
        the other team is cheating!" From my meager experience playing
        High School soccer, cheerleaders would never and should never
        yell any such thing. Spectators might boo when the see it. The
        manager or coach may complain or yell at the official about it.
        But The players would be told not to pay any attention to it, to
        do their job, which is playing the best game they can, and
        without cheating. The cheerleaders would be told to do their
        job, to encourage the team to excell. If the team allowed
        themselves to be distracted or the cheerleaders were to distract
        them, the other team would be bound to win.
        
        If the other team is cheating, it will be harder to win. It may
        even be impossible. But if it is possible to beat them, it will
        only be done by by beating them, coldly, determinedly and with
        skill. Anger will only waste energy and increase the probability
        of defeat. If someone is going to get them to stop cheating it
        will be the officials, the league or the coach (by dealing
        through the officials). The cheerleaders can't stop them and the
        team can't stop them. Both can only make them feel smug.
        
        JimB.

    	RE:  .137
    
    	You said "beating them, coldly, determinedly and with skill."
    	That is precisely how I see it, too (and I think it unfortunately
    	*does* come across to many as quite cold.)  But I don't see
    	any other way to fight sexism ("cheating").
    
    	A team that yells "cheater" after every play will eventually
    	find itself in a situation where no other teams are even willing
    	to tolerate us on the field.
    
    	The real satisfaction comes from winning the game after the
    	other team pulled every dirty trick in the book (and it *is*
    	possible to win against cheaters!)
    
    	Being realistic, we aren't playing in a game where 100% of the
    	other players are cheating.  In my little corner of DEC, I don't
    	even see 5% of the players blatantly cheating.  The episodes
    	of sexism are extremely rare (and most of them are not clear-cut
    	cases that can be easily proved to management or personnel.)
    	They are not career-limiting, but rather mildly annoying.
    
    	What goes on in other corners of DEC, I can't say.  But what
    	I *am* trying to say is that living with sexism on a daily
    	basis (the kind of blatant sexism that holds a talented person
    	down purely for reasons of sexual discrimination) is *NOT*
    	supposed to be part of the DEC experience and is certainly not
    	the case at every single site throughout DEC.  It is *ALSO*
    	clearly against corporate policy.
    
    	In other words, we don't have to put up with this sh*t (if it
    	is indeed the case that blatant sexism is being practiced all
    	over DEC.)
    
    	If the sexism isn't quite that blatant after all, then we need
    	to take stock of our positions and reevaluate our current game
    	plans.
    
    	I'm proud of women and I don't see us as complainers.  I see
    	most of us as *more* than capable of winning despite the
    	obstacles that society at large has presented to us over the
    	years.  I have seen the proof that we *can* win and *are*
    	winning every single day.
    
    	To those of us who still *aren't* winning, maybe we should put
    	our heads together to figure out a better game plan for those
    	individuals.
    
    						     Suzanne... ;-)

    
    		T entative
    
    		E nigmatic
    
    		A mbivilent
    
    		M undane
    
    	Yes, fellow noters, any one of us can reach the lofty heights
    of success if we work hard enough and 'have what it takes.'  The
    catch is 'have what it takes.'  Tell the Irish who lived behind
    the walls erected around Boston's North End that they could 'make'
    it if they tried hard enough.  Tell India's untouchables they can
    make it if they try hard enough.  Tell the blacks in South Africa
    they can make it if the try hard enough.  The first of these groups
    achieved success via the ballot box.  The others, I suggest, will
    fail by trying hard enough as individuals because they don't have
    what it takes - the correct social station (untouchables) or the
    correct skin color (the black South Africans).  I believe any of
    us can list individuals in these groups who made it on their own
    but what of the majority?  And, what did it cost the individuals
    in terms of their self respect?
    
    	I have a good deal of difficulty with the sports metaphors,
    partly because I am not a team player and find most athletes and
    sports boring (not to mention racist - professional baseball and
    golf).
    
    	The group will succeed if and only if the group unites.  (Together
    we stand, divided we fall.)  Unity of purpose, however, does not
    quarantee success.  And success is not always sweet.
    
    	The individual stories of personal success make me feel warm
    and happy.  The common elements in most of these stories appear
    to be determination and a belief in the self.  But is one woman's
    success a true breakthrough for all women?  I don't believe so.
    The success of an individual often becomes a token - 'She's proof
    that I (the male?) do not discriminate.'  The individual's success
    might give others the strength to push ahead.  I believe if it is
    explained this way, the success, it will do more good.  Don't tell
    the world how hard you worked or how successful you are as a result
    of a good support system when you were 10 years old.  Teach the
    world how each of its citizens can advance from where they are and
    with the skills they have.  Who is more valuable than a good teacher?
    
    Douglas

    REading the last volley of replies to this note, I was suddenly
    hit by the perception of a whole bunch of recent notes being connected
    by the subject of "team play". I can't remember exactly which note
    it is, but very recently someone said (in essence) "we women really
    need to get our act together and support each other".
    
    Gad! This is what "sisterhood" is, fer cryin out loud. That term
    has been so maligned, even in this file, as some kind of sappy,
    gooey, cry-on-my-shoulder, claptrap.
    
    Well, what it is, is: Hey! We're on the same team. I may not like
    you particularly, I may not be your best buddy, but by God, I will
    support you as my teammate and we will present a united front to
    the "other" team. I may not be able to stand your company socially,
    but by God, I respect the unique contribution that you make to our
    team. And if you get promoted to varsity before I do, then I'll
    respect your success and work like hell for my own, til the coach
    notices me. (No, I will not assume you slept with somebody to get
    your varsity spot. I will not entertain any thoughts that divide
    my loyalty to the team, and to you as a team member) Your success
    is my success.
    
    So what's so bad about THAT? If it were "the guys", the solidarity
    and brotherhood would bring a tear to the eye ("win one for the
    Gipper") - but if it's women, and we're talking sisterhood.....well,
    somehow it doesn't compute.
    
    I think we need to MAKE it compute. Yup, the ol' "team spirit",
    "esprit d'corps", call it whatever sounds good. But we really need
    to DO it.
    
    Dawn
    

    Has anybody noticed how sports terminology permeates the workplace??
    The early influence of sports on males has definitely HAD an effect
    (in case that's not clear by now :-))
    
    "I;ll touch base with you this afteroon."
    "Boy! He really dropped the ball""
    "Couldn't get to first base with that customer"
    
    The sports background and team play has a definite effect.
    
    Dawn
    

    <--(.141)
    
    Right ON, sister!

    
    
    Flame on:
    
    	Society does not encourage women to work together.
    	If women work together we would be a whole majority
    	instead of a splinted majority.  Who works the hardest
    	to keep women apart from one another?
    
    Flame off:
    
    	Peggy		(-|-)
    			  |	Through Sisterhood
    			  |		one finds the
    						Goddess in Women
    

    
    Sorry to keep beating a dead horse, but it should be pointed out
    that in real life the 'referees' that are supposed to stop the
    'cheating' (sexism) are, in fact, THE OTHER TEAM (men). I personally
    would much rather have my cheerleaders acknowledge that I was playing in
    an unfair situation than mindlessly egg me on. Furthermore, 'real
    life' is the only game in town. You can't pick up your marbles and
    go home. (and by analogy, the other team can't go play with anyone
    else) So imagine playing an eternal game against a more experienced
    team, that also CHEATS and where even the referees are members of the
    other team!! If you can conceive of that, you can understand why
    some people on the losing side are going to say 'what's the point?',
    and, in addition, will merely get irritated at arguments of the
    form: 'all you have to do is work hard' or 'if I can do it so can
    you'. Again to paraphrase Ms. Ciccolini, the only hope is somehow
    to convince the other team to stop cheating FOR ITS OWN SAKE. *Then*
    we can talk about the luxury of 'all you have to do is work hard'.
    
   
    
      

    Re: .146
    
    Ok, so what do we do?  How do you convince the "other team" to
    play by your rules?  What can those of us who are really on your
    side do to help? 
    
    Also, why is it assumed that only men discriminate against women?
    It should be fairly obvious that there will be cases of women
    discriminating against women (the Phyllis Schlafly syndrome).  Are
    the tactics different in such cases?

    Lastly, I had a conversation with a woman I know who works as a
    software specialist for DEC, and worked for government contractors
    before that.  She says that, in her experience, discrimination against
    women at DEC is almost nil compared to her former employers and
    the contractors she has to work with every day in her current
    capacity.  Yes, this is only one example, but it (along with other
    noters and women I know) supports my earlier contention that
    discrimination is not rampant at DEC - not to the degree it exists
    at other firms.
    
    My apologies for putting three topics into one reply.
    
    				Steve

    One more point, then I'll sit back again.  Like Jim Burrows, sports
    and I did not get along well when I was growing up.  But that doesn't
    mean that I don't understand the concepts of team play, or the
    vernacular.  I hardly think it is necessary for women to have
    played football, for example, to pick up these same notions.
    
    					Steve

    	If we want to be a real team, then we need to figure out
    	exactly who the team players are (as well as the referees
    	and our opponents.)
    
    	On our team (in this particular game) is everyone who believes
    	that we ought to be treated fairly in the workplace.  In the
    	idea of fair treatment, I include equal opportunities for the
    	good jobs, as well as fair and equal pay with men (among other things.)
    
    	We have to accept the fact that there **ARE** men on our team.
    	We'd be doing many men a great injustice if we excluded them
    	because many have fought with us side by side for what we have
    	won so far (and many have gradually joined our side over the
    	years.)
    
    	Who are the refs?  Well, in DEC, I'd say that the refs consist
    	of those people who enforce corporate policy.  As we all know,
    	corporate policy clearly states that DEC will not discriminate
    	on the basis of sex, so that means that the refs are on ***OUR***
    	side!!! 
    
    	Of course, refs are not omnipotent -- they can't be all places
    	at all times to see if corporate policy is being carried out.
    	Sometimes we have to attract their attention and **POINT** (not
    	to generalities, but to specific cases that they can **DO**
    	something about.) 
    
    	So with some men on our side (and with informed refs on our
    	side), then why we are running behind in the game?
    
    	First off, as has been mentioned before, most of us are not
    	greatly experienced at what it means to make a team effort.
    	It is not our fault -- it is just a fact of life.  Now that
    	we have more opportunities, we definitely need to work on
    	our team skills.
    
    	We are also not greatly experienced at devising game plans.
    	Again, it is not our fault -- it is just another fact.  Women
    	have individual achievers that score consistently, but we have
    	not yet brought our individual high-scorers together in the
    	form of an effective team.
    
    	We are not greatly experienced at urging each other on to the
    	fight.  (In other words, our pep rallies suck.)  ;-)  It is
    	not our fault, once again -- but is fact.  When our individual
    	high-scorers tell the rest of the team, "C'mon! We can do it!"
    	-- the rest of the team says, "That's easy for you to say."
    	
    	The high-scorers cannot figure out how to get through to the
    	players who have **MUCH** potential (and the ones with potential
    	are often saddled with resentment about last week's game and
    	cannot put it behind them enough to look at the game ahead.)

    	We started off the game with salaries that were way behind
    	our opponents.  That is not something that can be repaired over-
    	night.  It takes time (and it is something that can be fixed
    	on a case by case basis.)  It will get better if we keep fighting
    	the good fight.
    
    	We can't solve the problems of every single woman on earth in
    	a single shot.  If only we could, but we can't.  Men can't solve
    	the problems of all men on earth, either.  It's unfortunate
    	and unfair, but that is the game field as we know it today.
    
    	Perhaps someday we *will* have answers for every single human
    	on earth, but in the meantime, we need to do well at something
    	that we *CAN* do something about:  this week's game.
    
    	We need to learn how to play as a team.  We need to learn how
    	to devise more effective game plans.  **AND**, we need to learn
    	how to lift each other's spirits instead of fighting amongst
    	ourselves about what our chances are to win at all.
    
    	If we spend the vast majority of our time and energy worrying
    	about past hurts, past injustices, past offenses, past cheating,
    	and current difficulties in the game -- we will never have the
    	time to concentrate on doing the things it takes to win.
    
    	It's not our fault that we haven't won so far.  But we **CAN**
    	do things to help our chances.
    
    						      Suzanne... ;-)

    
    	Continuing the "team" analogy.......
    	Wouldn't it be better if we worked toward being on the same
    	team? Wouldn't we then understand each other better and
    	begin destroying stereotyping and sexism and racism? At least
    	for me, when I work with people and get to know them, that,
    	above all else enables me to intelligently overcome any feelings
    	of sexism or racism or whatever that were originally based on
    	ignorance anyhow. 

>It says that the social psych. literature still indicates that a woman's 
>success IS SEEN AS the result of .... not that it IS/WAS a result of...  
>What this indicates is the chauvinistic attitude still prevalent in society.  

>> So you don't believe the social psych literature?  They say it seems
>>    that way but you disagree.  My guess is they've studied the issue
>>    pretty thoroughly.  It seems this way to me, too.  
    
>>    What do you think is meant by "is seen as"?  "Every indication points
>>    to?"  "The people we've asked have told us?"
    
Sorry for the delay in responding Sandy, I've been on vacation.  Let me clarify
this a bit.  The statement "is seen as" refers to the tendency of society
to perceive a woman's success in the following manner.  This doesn't mean
that IS the reason for women's success, it means that regardless of WHY a 
woman succeeds, her success will be perceived by a majority of people as being
a matter of "luck or love".  


>>    You seem to be taking issue with this idea and your final statement
>>    sounds like what you think should be interpreted INSTEAD of the
>>    way we're interpreting it as in this "indicates is the chauvinistic 
>>    attitude still prevalent in society".  Well isn't that what we're
>>    trying to say?  If I agree that chauvinistic attitudes are still
>>    prevalant in our society and I think so too, then are you saying
>>    you don't think the EFFECTS of these attitudes are as terrible as
>>    I am saying they are?
    
>>    Do you think chauvinism exists as just a philosophy?  We all know
>>    men think about it, know it exists but most of them don't actually 
>>    TREAT women that way?

No, I am not saying that at all.  I am differentiating between feminists
and cupcakes.  Remember the cupcakes?  Sure you do, ... think back to Junior 
High School.  They were daddy's little darlings.  They were cute and well-
liked and life was usually pretty easy for them.  Sometimes when cupcakes
grow up and discover that it isn't enough to be cute and nice anymore, that 
life won't be handed to them on a silver platter, they start crying about how 
unfair it all is,.... after all... that always worked in the past.  Cupcakes 
think they should suceed by virtue of their glorious being.  Cupcakes never
give another woman credit for accomplishing anything because if THEY haven't
"won" the game must be rigged.  Cupcakes have egos that prevent them from
taking a detached, objective, honest look at themselves and their 
qualifications.  Cupcakes never lose out on jobs because they lack education 
or experience....its always because they were being "cheated" or "discriminated
against".  Please don't misunderstand me.  I do not mean to imply that there
are any Cupcakes participating in this notes file..... but there are plenty
of them out there in the world.

    	I have been trying to catchup with reading this for 4 hours
    over a slow link at a peculiar time of night, and I suddenly get
    this incredible urge to add some random thoughts.
    
    	MONEY seems to be a major concern. I have been married for 18
    years, and only the first three years was it difficult to manage
    on what we earned. Since then, if my wife complains about money
    I invite the boss round to dinner and let her attack him instead
    of me, and he gives me the salary she wants. I have no problem with
    this arrangement - everyone should try it.
    
    	DISCRIMINATION - I used to work for DEC in the U.K., and did
    not really notice any discrimination. I worked in a fairly mixed
    group, and had no reason to suspect that the women were paid less
    than the men. I frequently did technical interviews, but was only
    once faced with reccommending a choice between a man and a woman.
    The man had a much better background (for computer operator job)
    than the woman, since he was a computer operator, while she was
    a cashier in a casino. I would like to think that my choice of her
    was because she was obviously more intelligent, and had much more
    potential within DEC (which was justified since she had several
    promotions over the years before I lost track of her). But I must
    admit she was prettier too!
    
    	DISCRIMINATION - This particular DEC location has about 500
    people, and off hand I cannot think of *any* female managers. It
    is in some ways rather unusual, so maybe the disparity is to be
    expected, but I have been here 6 years now, and never known a female
    manager. I get a little uncomfortable about that. Maybe they are
    all hiding in a group I do not normally deal with?
    
    		Dave

    
    Re: .159
    
    	Can you supply any other info regarding why they have left?
    	If so it would be appreciated. 

    
    Sad to hear it. I wonder what would have happened if they could
    have perservered. 
    
    Was the info. you supplied recorded (or provable?) data in that
    they might have proven that they were being discriminated against
    because they were women?
    
    Do yuo know if their management was aware of the inequities
    taking place?
    
    
    	Thanks for the info.

    Low image??  Secretarial is a low image job?  Who keeps the department
    running smoothly, the paperwork flowing, who sets up and cancels
    meetings and makes sure noone ends up at the wrong place at the
    wrong time?  Who takes the phone messages and deals with the customers
    and makes sure they leave a good impression for the sake of the
    company, (since alot of how a company is thought of depends on how
    the customers are treated).  Get your facts straight next time.
    
    You may not see many ladies applying for warehouser job for 
    good reasons. I want a career and a secretarial position allows plenty 
    of spacefor advancement.  Do you plan on working in a warehouse for the
    rest of your working years?  How much skill does it take to drive
    a forklift or lift a box?  
    
    Personally, I WOULDN'T want to work in a warehouse where I would
    sweat like a pig and work my butt off just for a couple of extra
    bucks!!                    
    
    Any more comments?

    As an administrative secretary in DEC I can vouch for it being a
    low-paying, respectless job.  I have frequently heard comments such
    as "Oh, she's JUST a secretary" from the individual contributors
    here.
    
    I didn't get to see the original memo that started this discussion
    but from what I can gather the gist of it was that a maintenance
    person at DEC makes more money than a secretary.  That doesn't surprise
    me in the least.  It's a sad but true fact and is one of the major
    reasons I am trying to leave this field.
    
    Incidentally my experience has been worse than average due to a
    penny-pincher for a manager.  The 3 salary reviews that I have had
    at DEC have amounted to all of $1.28 increase per hour and I started
    out at $7.20 -- Pretty sad!!!  I have received "2's" on all of my
    reviews.....