In article <Marivonne-020994154453 at 128.194.124.20> Marivonne at bio.tamu.edu (Marivonne Rodriguez) writes:
>OK:
>>How would the women in the group tackle this one?:
>>just to push your buttons, to "get a reaction", if you will. One of the
>comments was to the effect that I will probably have a much easier time
>getting a job than he will, and because of what the conversation had been
>about and all, it was implied that he meant because I'm a woman.
>So I'm curious: How do y'all deal with the infamous comment that we "have
>it easier" when it comes to getting a job because we're women? You know,
>the "oh, you'll get hired and I won't because you're a woman"...
You could quote the Physics Today August 1994 article which did an
extensive overview of several studies of women, men and employment
in physics.
They found that the perception was widespread that women had an easier
time finding jobs because of a few special programs designed to enhance
women's participation in the scientific workforce. However, when adjustments
were made for level of education and years of experience in various subfields,
women physicists were TWICE as likely to be unemployed as their male
counterparts. That's not underemployed, that's UNemployed. As in
without a job. No money coming in. Not even able to collect unemployment
because most non-tenure track research and academic posts are limited term
appointments.
Think about it. Is it because women are twice as likely to be wimps, losers,
just not bright enough, not hard-working enough? Or is it because we are
twice as likely to be sexually harassed, bullied, illegally terminated and
have every small advantage turned around and used against us? Is it also
because a few selected token women who have NOT been harassed take on the
values of the oppressors and further victimize and harass women who point
out this rather unfair treatment?
Cheryl
--
Cheryl A. Stewart after 1 September:
Santa Fe Institute 430 Kelton Avenue #409
1399 Hyde Park Road Los Angeles CA 90024
Santa Fe, NM 87501
