From: krikket@meltdown.chi.il.us (D. 'krikket' Krick)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: stereotypes - and a request
Date: 22 Jul 92 12:06:01 GMT
Organization: The Meltdown - A Team Star BBS

In article <12382@inews.intel.com>, pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
writes:

>I apologize for quoting you out of context. That was not my intent, but 
>someone has to edit these posts down to a reasonable size.

Apology accepted.  Sorry if I came across hostile, ya just hit a nerve of mine...

>My question still
>remains: Can you name some of these *STEREOTYPICAL* feminists and some of
>these EXTREMISTS feminists? Can you at least define briefly how their
>causes differ and how they oppress men or propose to oppress men? I really
>want to know if any of our women representatives are guilty of this fault
>you are refering to.

Sure.  I'll take a person who I know in real-life.  Her name is "Mary"  (A nice, fictional name that won't cause problems for people who live in this area and might know her...)  She proposes that because men have had the upper hand for "several thousand" years, now it's the women's turn.  Let the men take care of all the housework alone, while earning less on the job than the females.  Let them have a hard time getting work because of their sex.

(Note: Since I am citing specific examples, I am going to also point out the City of Elgin, Il.  Their Police and Fire Dept. requires testing to get hired. (Standard procedure)  The Fire Dept. gives out a practice test to all first-time applicants, so they get the idea of what kind of wierd convolutions they have to make their bodies do.  (Because should anyone make an error on any pert of the actual test, they are automatically disqualified.)  Only within the last few years this has changed.  Now the pre-

test is only available to women and minorities.  If this isn't discrimination against white-males, I don't know what is.

The Police Dept. has similiar testing.  They don't have a pre-test, but will overlook the results of the test, if it allows them to hire women and minorities, to help out with their "quotas".  Last year they hired on 6 new patrol officers (out of about 75).  2 were females who DIDN'T meet the state requirements on the physical tests (IE:  They didn't run the mile.  They gave up after 1/2 a mile, which means they couldn't have been LEGALLY hired), and another 3 were handed out to minority members (2 of whom

 failed the written exam.)  (This part was leaked from inside the police dept.  The info on the Physicals was witnessed by a good friend of mine who was applying at the same time.  He applied a few years earlier and they told him to start yesterday, when his wife said "DON'T TAKE THAT JOB!" (so he didn't))

At any rate, when talking with "Mary" about this, she told me that she though this was a good thing, because too many men work for those departments anyways...

>OK. Let me try an example. Should one's salary be independent of one's sex?

Yes.

>How do you propose achieving this equality without reducing the salary of
>men? If you just bump up women's salaries to compensate, then you fuel
>inflation which effectively reduces men's salaries. Another example? Let's
>say that there will be four upper management slots opening up in your
>company in the next four years. If you are a man and women are allowed to
>compete for these positions on an equal basis, your odds of getting in are
>reduced, aren't they?

Inflation may take it's cut because the women's salaries are being bumped up, but that sort of thing is inevitable anyways.  Just pay the employee for what they are worth regardless of sex, and let the ecomony balance itself out.

>What about rape? The only realistic way I see of
>reducing it is to make it easier to convict offenders and that would mean a
>greater number of innocent would be found guilty.

Agreed.  Now the question is "What constitutes PROOF?"  And that's a question that's been asked for several hundred years now.  I doubt we're going to be getting any answers soon.  (Expecially not the way the media and Congress handle finding out what the "facts" of the matter are.)

>Maybe if women see that
>men are waging war, they will choose the accusations of rape and sexual
>abuse as weapons. It seems to me men have a lot to give up and they had
>better be careful in the ways they choose to handle the situation, after all
>women are hardly a minority in the sense of numbers. The only question is 
>what and where and when. As for me I say fine, its time has come. If I could 
>eliminate the existance of the ghetto in the US by reducing my income in >half, I would do it. If I must share half of my wealth with my sisters, I >would do it. Maybe that makes me one of those EXTREMISTS you mention.

No, I don't think you are taking an extremist viewpoint.  You aren't talking about censoring items that are more-or-less irrevelent to the issue (or even the ones that are revelant to the issue), you aren't talking about trying to discriminate against men, etc.

I would also give up half of my belongings if it would eliminate the existance of the ghetto.  But unfortunately, that won't do it.  It takes working on the issues on a person-by-person basis.  And I do as much of THAT as I can.  I have tried to help rape victims, victims of child molestation, people trying to get out of the ghettos, etc.  I may not be able to change the world by myself, but I do make the effort that I can!

Krikket               ! krikket@meltdown.chi.il.us ! USnail:3 Danada Square E.
a.k.a Doug Krick      ! Team Star Charter Member   !        Suite 246
Data ph# 708/665-9732 ! #include<std.disclaimers>  !        Wheaton, Il 60187

 'If you are what you eat, then I'm Dead Meat'  -- Timbuk 3 "Grand 'ol Party"
            
Newsgroups: alt.pagan