From: tparks@world.std.com (terry parks)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Carol Moseley Braun (was Re: Women in Politics)
Date: 17 Apr 92 01:35:40 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

>>I would really love to see a list of these unique to Blaks
>>and unique to women problems.

>        Certainly.
>
>        Several studies have shown that blacks face discrimination simply
>because they are blacks.

And one doesn't even need a study to show that "whites" face discrimination
simply because of their race. Large companies even release press statements
to the public proudly proclaiming such discrimination.

>Matched pairs of black and white test participants
>were sent out for job interviews, housing situations, etc.  Results?
>Whites were treated better, blacks were more likely not to get follow up
>interviews/calls, whites got more job offers, etc.

More likely? So some "blacks" did not get follow-up calls and some
"whites" did not get follow-up calls. How is this a unique problem
to Blaks which you claim justifies taking a job away from a "white"
who didn't get a follow-up call and giving it to a "black" who did?

>Another example, there are certain skin conditions that affect
>blacks more than whites.

More than? So some "blacks" have skin conditions and some "whites"
have skin conditions. How is this a unique problem to Blaks which
you claim justifies denying a scholarship to a "white" who has
such skin conditions and giving it a "black" who doesn't?




>As this group shows, which are supported by various studies,
>employers tend to lay off women who take maternity leave.


And do employers tend to lay off women who take other than maternity leave?
And do employers tend to lay off men who take maternity or other than
maternity leave? If employers lay off people who take leave how is this a
unique to women problem which you claim justifies giving contracts to
women who have never been laid off (or even a parent) and denying them
to men who have been repeatedly laid off for taking a leave to raise
their children?

>Various social psychology studies show the result that when men
>and women make the same statement, men are taken more seriously and
>women are judged to be more emotional.

And these people making gender biased judgements, how many of them are
women? Why do you want to deny promotions to men who have never
made any gender biased judgements and give them to women who always do.

>Oh, you HAVE heard of the glass ceiling, hm?

You mean the concept of rather than a company of 1,000 people having
one CEO and 999 workers it must have each female employee be CEO since
the mythology goes that if it weren't for gender bias all female
employees just would have to be in the top position.

>There's more.

Yeah, but where oh where are the mythical examples of problems unique
to women and Blaks which you want to use to justify gender and racial
prejudice?



>>>Going back to Ms. Braun, the unhidden assumption here is that
>>>minorities and women are not being heard in the Senate.

>>And the factual basis for this is?  Something like, although they get
>>all the restricted awards, classes, scholarships, grants, jobs, contracts,
>>these people should be getting free daily lunches and preferred airport
>>parking?

>But not heard enough, or you STILL wouldn't have this current evidence
>of ongoing, persistent discrimination.

Really, I was kidding about the free daily lunches and preferred airport
parking. How much discrimination against Caucasian males do you need
to satisfy your lust? Is six million victims enough?

>There is ample evidence that you are mistaken.

Well where is it, just where is your mythical list of problems which are
unique to women and Blaks?

>You can argue that these solutions are not the best possible, but
>then the issue then becomes what is most effective.

Not the best possible?  Lunacy best discribes this notion of giving dole
to all Blaks because some Caucasians suffer job discrimination because of
their skin conditions.
Xref: sparky soc.women:9043 soc.men:8524 soc.singles:11398