In article ,
 "Heidi Graw"  wrote:

> > wrote in message
> >news:1106584209.416370.126650{at}z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> (snip)
>
> >Mark wrote:
> > A person, therefore, who graduated 5 years of ball busting expensive
> > college would consider secretary work demeaning.
>
> Depends on what secretarial level one wished to work at: Secretary of State
> for instance.  ;-)
>
> >At the same time,
> > secretaries were seen as not deserving a chance to work up the
> > ranks because they were uneducated.
>
> ..again, it depends on the level of secretarial work involved...the
> executive secretary requires more training than the clerk typist.

I have a friend who worked as a general's aide and it was such a
prestigious position that it traditionally only went to west
pointers.

He stumbled onto it (funny story) by graduating from ROTC as a
potential FO (forward observer) during the Korean war.  At the time,
he told me, they couldn't stuff these poor guys in the planes fast
enough before they got blown out on the field.  Let's just say
his options weren't many.

The army, in it's infinite wisdom however, did allow him to specify
his preferences (just in case there might be an opening.)  He knew
his chances of being assigned to Pearl Harbor or Frankfurt were
close to nil so he wrote down as his three choices:

1) Korea
2) Korea
3) Korea

And his reason for his desire was "I want to kill the enemy, sir!!!"

The general burst out of his office and ran up to him and said
"Larry, we can't have you going nuts over there and getting
a bunch of other guys killed with you.  How about you stay
behind here and be my aide?"

I presume Larry, being the party type he is, probably fessed
up to the General eventually.

> >A new catch 22 but this wasn't
> > meant to keep women down so much as part of the new dichotomy
> > of workplace caste.
>
> Office work has changed dramatically with the introduction of the computer.
> When I started off back in 1974 all I needed were typing skills and a good
> grasp of the English language.  Nowadays, I would have to invest thousands
> of dollars learning "Office Assistant" skills at college. 
The office has
> gone high tech and more duties and responsibilities are heaped on that
> "secretary"...it has become a far more complex job than it used to be.

This can be said of many professions (becoming more complex.)  That
said, how many women are willing to marry a secretary, even
one that earns a decent living, compared to a man who might
earn a fraction as a proofreader but has an English Lit degree?

> > Did I get it right, Heidi?  Or do you have a different theory?
>
> Mark, I believe the invention of electricity, telephone and other
> technological marvels have had a liberalizing effect on society.  Our modern
> life is also extremely complex, highly interconnected, etc.  It's far too
> late to stuff the toothpaste back into the tube....women are so thoroughly
> integrated into the work force, it would be disastrous if they all of a
> sudden quit and stayed home.  The economy needs and depends on women to do
> their part.  They'll be asked to do more in the future.
>
> Heidi

I've heard this threat before and I don't buy into it.

Certainly, if every woman called in sick, there would be short
term problems similar to the baggage handler illness that almost
wiped out United a month ago.

But disasterous?  Even in the short term?  I don't buy it.
Although secretaries perform a valuable job (as do computer
programmers), there is some leeway in the office environment
for them to be replaced with other workers.  Otherwise,
how could society handle national holidays?

Critical jobs, such as nursing, might be more serious of course
but even then, the doctors could be told they would have to
leave their offices for a few months and pick up the load
until men were trained.  They wouldn't like it, but tough.

In other words, it would be ugly but hardly disasterous.

In the meantime, how much does it COST society to hire women
in leau of available men?  Let's add 'em up:

1) Welfare.  Millions of poorer women, in the states at least,
have children out of wedlock and into poverty because they
can't find a breadwinner man to support them.

1a) This ties into crime committed by the children in these families.

2) Anti-discrimination enforcement.  Those lawyers aren't cheap, you
know (It's funny because oftentimes here in the states the
lawyers eat up all the money awarded as "legal fees" which
come out to $400 an hour or so.

Side point: I can't BELIEVE the democrats tried to run one of
these ambulance chasers as a VP candidate.

3) Day care.  Daycare costs money.

4) Traffic congestion and the environment.  Two parent working
families consume more resources than one parent working
families.  Something for ecologists to consider.

I haven't put in the cultural costs because it's not measured in
dollars and cents.  These include strains on relationships between
the sexes because even as 1% of women love househusbands, the other
99% are often less than satisfied that their "liberated" man
doesn't bring home a lot more than she does.

For me, Heidi, I wouldn't weep if it all came to an end tomorrow.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/24/05 10:40:51 PM ---