From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Women as Victims etc. (LONG)
Date: 16 Oct 92 04:03:32 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Oct15.091355.4272@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.203249.1@cc.curtin.edu.au> nmurrayr@cc.curtin.edu.au (Ron Murray) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct12.023158.4100@leland.Stanford.EDU>, farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>>   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?
>
>But who is doing the selecting?  

Who indeed. Feminists are by definition sexist, do you think that they would
make an unbiased selection?

>                                   If you were to hear of a study which
>showed that resumes with male names are usually rated higher than the
>same resumes but with female names, what would you think?  A bogus
>study, right?

And if you were shown a study which showed that they did not, what would
you think, a bugus study, right?
 
>>>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?
>
>This, to me, sums up what you're saying.  Any claims by people who
>aren't white, male, and hetero that they aren't doing well because
>they are being discriminated against are automatically assumed to be
>untrue.  The people who aren't doing well don't do well because they
>don't work hard or they're inferior.  Case closed.

Where did you pull that "hetero"? I think that your bias is showing.
 
>Let's say I'm much better than you and we both want a post-doc, but
>the prof with the post-doc is a white, hetero man who only feels good
>working with other white, hetero men.  Who gets the post doc?  Who
>gets ahead?

Speculate any way you want, all such speculation is of equal value, and
proves about as much. What does 'hetero' have to do with the situation?
I happen to be a white hetero male, do you have a problem with that?
Would you be happy if I were gay, or bi, or black, or what...
 
>Let's say that I'm marginally better than you and we both want a
>post-doc, but the prof is a white, hetero man who only feels good
>working with other white, hetero men.  Who gets the post doc?  Who
>gets ahead?

Since you made up the situation, the answer fits your prejudice. Amazing
coincidence. Proof by stereotype, you cannot get much sounder than that!
 
>How much better than you do I have to be to overcome those extra 10
>steps that you already have by virtue of being a white, hetero man in
>a racist, sexist, homophobic world?

I doubt you would ever get to qualifications in a real life situation.
And you seem to be heterophobic, is it possible that this affects
your perceptions of what you see?
 
>Why do I think your answer is that I should shut the hell up, work
>hard, and hope for the best?

You seem to have all your answers already. And they seem to be highly
prejudiced. 


Rich

payner@netcom.com