Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    I missed the article but am pleased to hear that it was published
    since I definitely believe it to be true.  (Each woman for herself?
     So much for sisterhood.)
    
    Lorna
    

    I haven't read the article, Bonnie, but I've seen the attitude at
    work.  
    
    Sisterhood is indeed powerful...when it's recognised.
    
    					=maggie

    But Lorna,
    When was the last time you read an article in the Boston Globe
    about couples earning mega salaries and paying very low wages
    to the guy who mows their lawn, or who repairs their car?  
    
    I'd hate to think this was just another instance of finding
    a way to once again blame women for the "condition of women's
    lives" in our society.  
    
    (Its always easier to blame women for what is happening to them
    than to blame Ronald Regan for appointing justices to the bench
    who can in no way relate to the difficulties women have surviving 
    in our society today, 
    or to blame the legislator for raising their salaries twice a year
    to between 75 to 85K while eliminating social programs that would
    make it easier for a woman to learn a trade, or help her children
    eat.
    
    For a women to "make it to the top" in our society and in this day
    in age, she would be likely to have qualities that precluded an intense
    interest in the social services.  Just like very few successfull
    men care a great deal about society as a whole.
    
    We shouldn't HAVE to depend on the handfull of successfull women
    in this country for our rights and opportunities.  We work, we pay
    taxes, we are intelligent, breathing human beings whom OUR SOCIETY
    and OUR GOVERNMENT has failed.  Putting the blame on other women
    just won't cut it.

    
    I didn't like the way the article was saying that highly paid women
    abuse the women who care for their children.  The *parents* are
    to blame - the father as well as the mother.
    
    I thought the article was also saying something more as a word of
    advice for such highly-paid professionals.  As long as they stay
    in the pattern of tailored, individual child care solutions (such
    as the woman earning $175 a week caring for a single child), employers
    *won't* do anything to help parents out.  As long as parents stay
    non-confrontational with employers about the issue and find their
    own solutions individually, employers *won't* do anything to help.
    
    	-Ellen

    Doesn't matter if your a woman or man your responsible for who you
    are.  If these woman who are highly paid don't pay their sitters/house
    clearners decent money......they are to blame for WHO they are not
    what sex they are.  I'm sure there are some highly paid woman who
    DO appreciate a good sitter and will pay what she is worth.  But
    I do know what the article was driving at....women are so underpaid
    in there jobs that woman who get successful should try to help their
    sisters.....that's not always the case....i'm sure they wouldn't
    help their brothers either and I'm sure some men wouldn't help other
    men get ahead.....the attitude still exists....."Well if you went
    to college and got a good education you wouldn't be where you are
    now!"  OR "Well if you stuck in a secretary job - that's you problem
    your obviously aren't management material".    
       
    bs
    

    re .5, & .*:
    
    Who defines what is "decent" money for a babysitter to earn?
    
    Seems to me it is a contractual arrangement that should be negotiated
    between the two parties. It is of course reasonable for the provider
    of the service to want as much as s/he can get, as it is also
    reasonable for the purchaser of the service to want to pay as little
    as s/he can. What's the big deal? 
    
    > If these woman who are highly paid don't pay their sitters/house
    > clearners decent money......they are to blame for WHO they are not
    > what sex they are. 
      
    I think it is actually the fault of the baby-sitters/house cleaners
    for not charging what they are worth.
    
    Or, do you believe that the executive woman should pay more for
    baby sitting than the secretary does?
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    
P.S. re the original article: I agree with whoever said that the article
    was just another attempt to denigrate the success of women by making
    them not only responsible for their own careers but also for those
    of all the women around them.

    My opinion --- the only "problem" seems to be that society places
    a higher value on "professional" careers than it does on "caretaking"
    careers.  As long as women who are providing care for their own
    children are not paid for it, women who provide care for other people's
    children will be underpaid for it.  
    
    Our society also undervalues teachers. Raising and educating our children
    does not have a high economic value.

    RE .5--
    
    and then there are those women with college and even graduate degrees
    who are in secretarial roles...
    
    (sometimes I think that's the new entry level job for 50% of the
    human race)
    -----     
    re topic in general--
    
    Right or wrong, there is still the "market value" of a position.
    I hear a lot of people use this argument in response to why they
    don't pay a valued secretary more.  It's as though people would
    be embarrassed to pay more than "market value" for someone.
    
    
    
    

    Re .8--
    
    I agree there is a difference between "market value" and "worth
    value".....you can hire anyone as a secretary say for $6.00 an hour
    but the one that performs the highest to her ability should be making
    more money and have more opportunties presented to her - why?  Because
    if she is such a good employee than she is a "value" to the company
    therefore she should be rewarded as such....whereas the mediocre
    secretary who likes to jabber on the phone alot and clean her nails
    shouldn't even be making "market value" why? Because she isn't a
    contributor.....and that's the difference.   You should pay people
    what they are worth and if there good reward them....I don't see
    this too much whether they are babysitters, secretaries, nurses
    or teachers......
    
    bs
    
    
    

    
    If you are willing to pay more than "market value" for a secretary,
    babysitter, housekeeper, etc., then you can surely be pickier about
    who you hire and have a better job done for your money.
    
    	-Ellen

                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /