From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Women as inventors
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 16:52:34 GMT

In <1992Oct12.031111.131@nntp.uoregon.edu>, Eileen Simpson writes:

>I really can't see devoting a lot of energy to rebutting the paranoid white
>males on the net who are so desperate to avoid real competition with
>females and non-white males that they must cite the results of their
>discriminatory past and insist that it somehow proves their superiority
>(read: right to exclude others) even though all but white males were
>excluded from both formal education and the resources to achieve on their
>own.

Eileen, I haven't seen white males bragging about their accomplishments until
women have tried to tear them down.  What *I* find hard to believe is that we
"devote a lot of energy" debating the past and flaming each other about the
past instead of focusing on creating a better future.  Revising history will
NOT make for a better tomorrow.  Neither will confrontational and divisive
attacks on an entire group of people.

And were the young white males of today responsible for those injustices?  I
think not.  And I'm an American Indian, so spare the "racist sexist oppressor"
flames.  I just try to think rationally.  We've all done good things and bad
things (as groups), but to tar and feather all individuals for the actions of
"a group" is pure X-ism (where X=race or X=sex or whatever).

>I doubt that any one of these insecure men would ever bother to read a
>biography of someone like Marie Curie (whose sister became a physician at a
>time when European women were routinely excluded from higher education).

I am quite familiar with how difficult is was for women to be accepted in
non-traditional roles, thank you.  I don't deny this, and it was wrong (at
least by today's standards).  But are you saying that men of the 1990s are
responsible for the obstacles that Madame Curie faced in the 1890s??

>If they did, they would not recognize the obsticles that were placed in her
>path or respect them.  That is why this type of white male is not respected
>by others.  Some day they may realize they are creating this experience,
>but don't hold your breath for it.  They talk the talk of fair competition,
>but they don't walk the walk:  they can't face the effects of their
>past discrimination on their successes any more than they can face fair
>competetion in their present.

In other words, Eileen, the "insecure men" are guilty of despising ALL
discrimination and don't like to be discriminated against?  Sounds really
selfish and boorish to me...  :-)

I think the insecure ones are the people who have to rewrite history to
boost their own self-esteem.  I don't know anyone who is trying to deny Curie's
role in discovering radium, for example.  I don't know anyone who claims that
Curie's accomplishments were really the work of (ugh) men.

Oh, and WHOSE past discrimination? You imply that today's young white males are
responsible for past injustices.  Bullschmidt.  Have you considered reason?
You would be surprised at how much more receptive people will be to your ideas.
Or do you prefer attacking and being attacked over rational discussion geared
toward finding fair, just and equitable solutions?

>Most of you guys who are so hot on this couldn't last a moment with a
>modern woman.  I invite you to step on my turf, a courtroom, sometime.  I
>will gladly hand you back your clock--fully cleaned.

What do you mean?  Are you implying that men are inferior?  Sexist pig!  Would
you be outraged if a man said this?  I thought so.  Look inward, Eileen, and
maybe you'll discover many of the hateful ideas that you claim to dislike.

>I know it's rough to have to compete with the world on an equal basis, but
>it's only going to get worse for you guys.  You are dinosaurs.  And you
>obviously know it.  Tough luck, guys.  The past is only important if you
>live in it, and the more you live in it, the more irrelevent you become.

Confrontational, aren't we?  That's the problem with society today--everyone
breaks themselves up into groups, fighting about our differences rather than
building on our similarities.  I agree that the past is not important vis-a-vis
the future.  So why in your first paragraph do you need to invoke THE PAST to
plead discrimination by the evil oppressors?  Can you say "hypocrisy?"

My boss, my boss's boss, my boss's boss's boss, and my boss's boss's boss's
boss are ALL women (in an MIS application programming shop).  In my organi-
zation, women in management are *overrepresented*.  But they're qualified, so
who cares?  However, if the competent and qualified were mostly (yuck) MEN,
you would certainly go ballistic, wouldn't you?

Would you care to tone down the rhetoric and show that you really want to work
for a better future for ALL, or do you like bashing an entire group of people
for the actions of a few people in the past?


Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com

Officially enrolled member of the Absentee Shawnee tribal roster, and
celebrator of Columbus Day.
*****************************************************************************
FLASH!  Card-acrrying Libertarian attempts to solve problems realistically.
        Film at 11.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics