From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: The Politics Of Appeasement
Organization: my opinions only
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 01:32:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.003836.18872@u.washington.edu>
rons@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ronald Schoenberg) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.235033.10912@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct9.022429.5811@u.washington.edu>
>>rons@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ronald Schoenberg) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct8.231511.18624@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Oct7.183741.8930@u.washington.edu>
>>>>gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang) writes:
>>>
>>>[.....]
>>>>
>>>>If the building I'm in catches fire, and I'm unconscious from smoke
>>>>inhalation, I want a firefighter who is able to lift my 200-lb carcass
>>>>and carry it quickly to safety.
>>:
>>:
>>>  It is my impression that modern firefighting
>>>depends on equipment and training, and I would much rather have
>>>someone with the best training, equipment, and thinking ability nearby.
>>
>>It depends on both.  

>You deleted from my posting the paragraph relevant to that issue (that
>seems a little unethical to me).

Sorry, just conserving bandwidth.

>  I tried to make the point that
>proper equipment and training makes the requirement of having
>musclebound firefighters, (not to mention musclebound anything else)
>irrelevant.

I disagree.  They don't have equipment that will climb a ladder to the
5th floor of a burning building, enter through a window, search for
unconscious people, and carry them out.  That still takes muscle power
from a human.

> If there are any occupations that absolutely require a
>musclebound man,

I never claimed that it had to be a musclebound "man" (unless you mean
to imply "human"), but rather that physical strength is important for
the job.  I do understand that males are more likely to satisfy such a
requirement than females, but the requirement is what's important.

> then it is discrimination that has allowed society to
>fail to develop the equipment to do the job right.

This I fail to see at all.  If the most efficient way to do something
is with human muscle power, then it should be done that way.  If you
can develop equipment to do the job better, do so.  ("Society" doesn't
develop equipment, inventors and engineers do.)

>  If simple muscles
>were required to build a automobile then they wouldn't be built because the
>musclebound man doesn't exist who can lift all the parts needed in
>assembling an automobile.

They use muscles and equipment.  (I have no idea how much muscle power
is used on the assembly lines these days.)

>   To make the point another way, if the planet contained only women
>(a biological possibility since it was discovered that eggs can
>fertilize eggs, i.e., sperm aren't necessary for reproduction), then
>society would develop the equipment necessary to get people out of
>burning buildings without musclebound men.

Either that or only the strongest women would become firefighters.

>  The fact that that
>equipment may not have been developed at this point is due to the
>discrimination that allows only male firefighters

I never said "only male firefighters".  I know some women who are
strong enough to carry 200-pound people.

> which relieves
>society of having to do it right, i.e., they rely instead on a steady
>supply of musclebound men.

Why is your way necessarily better?  Should society replace all jobs
that require seeing with equipment that speaks, so that a steady
supply of sighted people is unnecessary?

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com