Wojtek: << am not disputing these facts. All I am saying is that driving out women
out of blue collar jobs is not about sex but about work.>> Maggie: we are agreed, sexual harrassment is about power, not sex Wojtek:
>>Some of the
methods used to that end may fit defintion 2 above, if directed at females,
but how about intimidation directed at males to accomplish the same end? >> Maggie: Certainly, but the kinds of intimidation used on males is different than the kinds used on females. There are also racial differences in intimidation -- the racist intimidation used against an African American male will be different than than used against an Asian male. But, since this topic is gender........ I don't dispute the validity of other types of intimidation at all.
>>I think what explains this particular kind of blue collar behaviour is not
'sexism' supposedly inherent in the working class, but job insecurity, or
rather lacks of access to formal-institutional channels of controlling the
workplace. I bet you that if the unions had a genuine say in defining
importants aspects of work (qualifications, schedules, pay, workload, etc.)
the incidence of these supposedly 'sexist' incidents would decrease quite
noticeably. >> Maggie: I think that you are idealizing the reality of unions here. In fact, some unions have a tremendous amount of control over the workplace and elso exercise tremendous gender and racial oppression against their own members. At least that has been my experience as a union member for 20 yrs. Also, if working class power was enough to eradicate sexist behavior (and racist behavior) then socialist countries would have made more progress in these areas. As has been point out on this list before, socialist countries don't have a stellar track record of breaking down gender barriers either.