From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: AA (was Re: Women as Victims (was: _Backlash_ ( Sort of )))
Date: 11 Oct 92 19:25:52 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Oct10.230557.21803@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <1992Oct10.023933.15211@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>What we are actually seeing is brain-dead uproars about not enough women
>>in fire departments. Obviously sexist discrimination, right? The simple
>>truth is that there had been no female applicants.
>
>No female applicants anywhere?  I find that extremely hard to believe.

This is a reference to a recent happening in the bay area (I do not recall
exactly where) where a Fire Department came under attack for discriminating
against women. There had no women fireman (whatever), so it obviously
followed to some that this had to be the result of discrimination. The
response of the fire department was that there had been no female applicants.

>>Do you believe that it was right for a recent scientific convention to
>>exclude men? This is real. Why should one be OK, while the other is not?
>>If women feel this way (and obviously some do), and act this was (again
>>some do), then what should we do about that?
>
>More details, please.  If it were a generic scientific convention,
>that is wrong.  If it is a convention for women in science, the
>exclusion of men may be reasonable.

I should have saved that issue of _Science_, but it is a weekly, and I
cannot save them. Last year, there was an anthropologists symposium which
was closed to men. This was done by the woman organizing the affair. What
I recall printed was that since most of those attending were women, it
was decided to close the symposium to men. This was a scientific convention.

And why would it be "reasonable" to close a 'women in science' convention
to men? Would it be as reasonable to close a 'men in science' convention to
women?
 
>>Your question makes no sense to me. Society changes slowly, changes take
>>place -across- generations more tham within them. The old generation believes
>>what they were taught was right. You are not going to change that, and
>>many of them are in power. But they will die, and those who grew up
>>thinking differently will eventually take over. How long will it take for
>>large scale change? There has been much already, but it has been gradual.
>
>How gradual can it be before something must be done?  

Huh? Tell me what needs to be done. There has been a hell of a lot of
change already. Which situations need to be 'corrected' (changed to
fit someones preferance)?
 
>Look at it this way.  If you knew that nearly everytime you were up
>for a college interview, a job interview, or a job promotion, the
>people judging you were to be black lesbian women, how would you feel?

Why should I feel anything about this situation?

>Would you feel good about that?  

Why should I feel bad about it?

>                                     Would you just say to yourself,
>"Well, if I'm the best person, I'll get the job, the fellowship, the
>promotion."?  And if these black lesbian women felt more comfortable
>working with other black lesbian women, would it bother you to lose a
>job or promotion because of that?  And if you were to see only black
>lesbian women getting jobs, or fellowships, or job promotions, would
>you feel slighted?  Would you think it's okay if they interviewed
>white hetero men, none of whom just ever seemed to be a "good fit"?
>Or if white hetero men were so oppressed by the situation that they
>didn't even bother to apply for jobs, and the black lesbian women
>said, "But we don't even have white hetero men applying for jobs, so
>what's the big fuss?"?

Ahhh, I see, turn the tables.

What do you have to say about the studies posted showing that when
adjusted for experience and education, women make as much as men. Are
these just lies and propaganda?

This may be a non-issue, that is, the situation you paint may not be
the problem you think it is.
 
>Pardon me for using black lesbian women as the people in power here
>(especially since they're probably some of the most powerless people
>around).  

Do you mean that they do not have X-ray vision of super strength? What
do you mean when brandying about this word "power"?

>          But can you put yourself in the position of most women, most
>minorities?  Where all you see are white, hetero men in power?  And
>we're supposed to depend on their good will to get jobs, fellowships,
>post-docs, promotions?

But that is not all I see, where are you looking?  And the rest seem
like forgone conclusions. How do you know that this is just the way
things are, everywhere?  There has been much talk about Dworkin and
MacKinnon here lately, some take this talk as an attack on all feminism,
but it is clear exactly what is being talked about. You have given a
few generalizations, how about being a bit more specific?


Rich

payner@netcom.com


 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism