From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: AA (was Re: Women as Victims (was: _Backlash_ ( Sort of )))
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 02:39:33 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Oct8102105@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.144805.17521@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct8.081218.26583@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>>>Read what Fitch wrote:  "...this corporation's being busted severely
>>>several years ago for never giving women..."  Doesn't this seem that
>>>selective treatment dependent on a person's gender had indeed been
>>>going on before the women received the jobs--that men were receiving
>>>preferential treatment? 
>
>>AT the time, this -was- socially acceptable, and indeed, the right (tm)
>>Thing to do. It is no now. You are comparing things that are unequal as
>>if theey were the same.
>
>At which time was this "right"?  5 years ago?  10?  100?  When did it
>stop being "right"?  If it is not "right" now, then do you agree that
>something should be done about it, if companies are still doing it
>(which they are)?

If by "something should be done" you mean we should enact 'reverse-sexist'
(tm) :^) leglislation, then I say no. If it is wrong, it should not be
embodied into law. If it is not wrong, we do not need leglislation to
stop it.

>>You claim that this "preferential treatment" is wrong, and yet you seem
>>to demand it (It seems that you support it, correct me if you do not)
>>through AA. So the basic stance is that it is wrong when you do it to
>>me, but right (tm) when I do it to you.
>
>I can't answer for ljf, but I want to *stop* preferential treatment by
>gender.  Now, if the goverment comes along to a company and finds that,
>for example, 50% of their applicants are women, but only 1% of the
>people they hire are women, where do they go from there?  

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.

Where do we go from here?  I think it is unecessary to hypothesize if there
is data available.

>                                                       Do they just
>say, ah, well, it would be "preferential treatment" to insist that you
>hire a more reasonable percentage of women, so go for it, discriminate
>all you want?  

No, we look at raw numbers and draw incorrect conclusions. Is this what
you want? 

>                  If not, what do *you* (Rich) propose that they do to
>correct this situation?  Or do you believe that it is "right" for them
>to not hire women?

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?

My point is simple. You are not looking at sexism, only real or perceived
sexism against women. The solution to one is the solution to the other.

>>You might as well compare conditions here with those in Rome during the
>>middle ages, you will get a comparison with about as much validity.
>
>You're saying that discussing what is going on today, right now, is
>invalid?  Or that saying that someone is not only doing it now, but has
>been doing it consistently for the last year, 10 years, 20 years, etc?
>If I had owned slaves for the last 200 years, would it be irrelevant to
>even discuss my slave-owning now, since when I started, it was "right"?

Gee, it was legal and normal to own slaves in Rome. It was legal and
normal in the American south not too long ago. It is not legal and normal
now. And if you really lived 200 years ago, you might have arranged things
better to allow slavery today, one assassination would have done wonders.

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.
 
>Muffy
>Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu

Rich

payner@netcom.com