From: nmurrayr@cc.curtin.edu.au (Ron Murray)
Subject: Re: Women as Victims etc. (LONG)
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 11:32:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.023158.4100@leland.Stanford.EDU>, farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <1992Oct11.232218.1@cc.curtin.edu.au> nmurrayr@cc.curtin.edu.au writes:
>>Apparently you haven't yet caught on to the
>>fact that the entire discussion is about whether or not sexism, in the guise of
>>AA, is a valid answer to this, or whether AA proponents are guilty of forcing
>>on us the very thing they're claiming to be combatting. The latter is
>>hypocrisy in my book.
>
>No, I know that some people want to say that any preferential
>treatment is sexism or racism.  What the discussion really is about is
>how preferential treatment of white hetero men was bad in the past,
>but good in the present and future when young white hetero men benefit
>from it.

   Hello? Anybody home? I've already said several times that preferential
treatment is bad regardless of who benefits from it. Perhaps you're reading
my posts after they've been translated from English to Mongolian to Sanskrit
and back to English again. I've never intimated anything of the kind. Can you
find one of my postings in which I said anything of that nature?

>>   Sexism in reverse is still sexism, whatever else you want to call it. You
>>can attempt to cover up its true nature by hanging fancy names like "AA" on it,
>>but deep down they're all just euphemisms. It's still just plain sexism.
>>It would be better if feminists were a little more honest about this, but then
>>porcine quadrupeds may attain orbital velocity.
>
>It, of course, depends on your definition of sexism.  If one sees
>sexism as institutional power, discrimination against men by a few
>colleges or businesses is not sexism.

   Does the word "sophistry" mean anything to you?

   Consider this: if the definition of sexism is so flexible, then who
decides which is the correct one to use? Let's face it: I don't trust you to
define it, and you probably don't trust me to define it either. (For the
record, my definition is "unequal treatment on the basis of a person's
gender").

   It gets worse than this. Presumably sexism is, in your world, defined by
the Golden Rule ("whoever has the gold, makes the rules"). In that case,
discrimination against women in the past wasn't sexism, because those who had
the power didn't label it as such. Thus you're condoning preferential
treatment for men in the past.

   The point is, of course, that if definitions of the word are so flexible,
why is yours inherently preferable to mine? Unless, of course, yours supports
your argument.

>I'm not even sure that the AA I've seen practiced is discrimination.
>The only kind of AA that I've seen in both a national lab and here at
>Stanford has been an effort to increase the number and diversity of
>applicants.  Before the lack of funds freezed hiring, all I saw of AA
>is that one woman and a few non-Anglo men were interviewed for jobs
>and Anglo men were hired.  (I'm speaking from my personal experiences,
>of course, and not for Stanford.)

   And, of course, your personal experiences encompass the whole gamut of
things which have been and will be done in the name of AA?

>Even if I do agree, yes, it's sexist, what then?  If men or whites or
>Anglos are getting into the better law schools (whatever) on virtue of
>better scores and grades, then everything is equal, so we are happy
>with that?
>
>Let's take a person who comes from a poor background.  Student X goes
>to a public high school where fewer than 5% of the students go on to
>college.  S/he goes to a state college by working at a Kmart and on
>loans.  S/he applies to law school, takes the LSAT, does well, but not
>top-notch.  This person is up against the son or daughter (student Y)
>of a judge, someone who went to private schools, a private college,
>worked in the summers at a law office for experience, has a higher
>LSAT score and higher grades, and has recommendations from lawyers and
>other judges.  Whom do you choose?  And if student X is Latino, or
>black, or female, does make any difference?  Is student Y such a
>better choice because of the experience in a law office, the better
>grades and LSAT score?

   I believe that jobs, school places, whatever, should go to those best
qualified to get them. Unless you propose testing by clairvoyance, grades and
experience and test scores are the best predictors we have of performance. I
have no problem if the positions go to women, blacks, or gay whales :-) on
this basis -- why should you object if the best person happens to be male?
Any other setting quickly leads to mediocrity. Perhaps you could explain to
me why you think student X should get the position?

>>   It comes down to this: How can any claim to "equality" be taken seriously
>>when the solution proffered advocates inequality? Is it any wonder that many
>>men (myself included) distrust feminism (as practised) when it suggests that
>>men be deprived of rights in favour of women? Do you wonder, then, why some
>>men suspect that many women only call themselves "feminists" because it's
>>likely to get them a free ride home? Because it's likely to get them a
>>high-paying job without them having to put in the years of ground-work that
>>men have usually had to do to get to the same position?
>
>Do you see that happening?  I haven't.  In fact, in the time I've been
>a grad student here at Stanford, I've seen fewer women entering
>engineering.  If things are getting so much better, where are the
>women?  Are women becoming profs, receiving tenure?  Very few.  I've
>attended conferences, meetings, dinners, lunches where women were so
>few, most speakers greeted the "gentlemen."  Where are the women who
>have managed to leap-frog past those years of groundwork that only men
>have to do?

   Again, this is only your own experience. It is, however, the logical
result of life under AA; for what is it but giving jobs/positions and what-
have-you to women (and other minorities; let's discuss women only here), even
though they have less experience and/or are less qualified?

>We must be living in different worlds, because I don't see it.  And I
>deliberately look for women, lesbigays, non-Anglos or non-Asians in
>engineering.  I'm looking for them, but they don't seem to be here.

   It's interesting that you include "non-Asians" in the above group. Do you
have a reason for this, or do you normally exclude data that doesn't fit your
pet theory?

   At the risk of starting the "Women in Engineering" thread again, perhaps
they don't want to do it? Or is that too simple? You can lead a horse to
water, ljf, but you can't make him or her drink.

>If there were so much discrimination for women going on, wouldn't we
>see some effects by now?  Wouldn't we see a lot more women in the
>government, as judges, as professors, as chairs of businesses, as
>CEOs?

   I don't know. If by "in government" you mean "elected government", then we
are starting to see it, at least in Australia. After all, if women comprise
over half the (presumably voting) population, then who's to blame if most of
their elected representatives are men?

   The other people you mention are at the top of their respective
professions. Are you suggesting that they be removed (or worse!) so that
women can take their place? The trouble is, of course, that you want what you
want, and you want it NOW!

>>   Oh dear. You almost had it there, too, but then you blew it. Of *course*
>>AA is preferential treatment. You seem to have completely missed the point:
>>that neither I (nor, probably, Robert) are trying to claim that preferential
>>treatment was a Good Thing when men were benefitting from it, any more than
>>it is when women benefit from it.
>
>So, as I said in another post.  You'd be perfectly happy to be greeted
>by a panel of black lesbian women every damn time you went for a
>college interview, a job, a job promotion?  You'd be assured that your
>superior grades, scores, and performance would win out?

   If I was certain that I was being discriminated against by virtue of my
gender, race or sexual orientation (note use of "or" to mean "inclusive or"
here), and I could prove it (perhaps by discovering that they'd never hired a
white, heterosexual male in 20000000000000 years), then I'd ask for an
independent referee. Probably a panel with both white and black (and Asian!),
male and female, gay and straight. And let them decide. You see, ljf, I have
no pretense that my judgement on whether I'm more suited to the position is
any better than anyone else's. Why should I be given the position simply
because I'm white, hetero and male?

>>   Of course, if you're only out for revenge (perhaps disguised as "redress
>>for past wrongs done to women"), as seems at least possible from your last
>>paragraph, then you're unlikely to listen to any other point of view. It would,
>>however, be preferable if you could be at least honest about it. Even with
>>yourself.
>
>And I'd think more highly of you if you would give an alternative to
>AA which doesn't seem to be more of the preferential treatment for
>white hetero men and more of the shaft for the rest of us.

   Again (I'll only say it ONE more time!), I think preferential treatment
for men is wrong as well. The alternative I propose is equality, pure and
simple. The best person for the best job. Why do you seem to have a problem
with that?

>I haven't seen you or Scheaffer (a request Fitch has made) or the man
>who suggested that white men, by virtue of their "genetics and
>upbringing," are better suited for success come up with anything other
>than AA is sexist.

   I can't speak for either Robert or the (semi-mythical?) man with his odd
(and unsupportable) claim, but the whole point of this argument (at least, as
far as *I* thought!) was that AA is sexist. That you're simply replacing one
unfair situation with another. That this makes you no better than the
"powerful white Anglo-Saxon men" who discriminated against women in the past.
That by supporting AA, you condone discrimination against groups of people by
whoever has the power to do so. Is that clear enough for you?

>If you're ten steps ahead of me because of past preferential treatment
>and then you suddenly yell, "Now everyone is equal and we will all be
>judged the same," pardon me if I don't see you as anything more than a
>protector of your privilege.

   Of course, if you have more ability than I do, you should soon pass me. Or
are you afraid to be tested on your abilities alone? Has it become easier to
claim "discrimination" and get everything for nothing, rather than get off
your arse and do something on your own?

 .....Ron
-- 
                                 ***
 Ron Murray
 Internet: nmurrayr@cc.curtin.edu.au
     Are we having fun yet?    -- Garfield
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2480 soc.men:17649