X-Envelope-to: PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Sun, 22 Nov 1992 18:17:00 EDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         KMORGAN@WHEATNMA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: This !@#%$@ definition thing...

Kenn,

        I SAID that some people might disagree with my
definition.  Looks like you're one of 'em!  {  :-) Grin!}

        By the way, tho'--it's hard for me to tell from the
text of your memo which bothers you most--my personal
definition of "feminist," or the general idea of affirmative
action and equal opportunity, as it is displayed by U of M.....
        But let me see....you write:

>First, what does a disdain for racial or ethnic discrimination
>have to do with being a feminist?  Noble causes, to be sure,
>but that sounds more like an affirmative action blurb than
>something specifically concerned with addressing *women's*
>issues.

        Again, I said that I was giving MY definition, and in
my definition, "feminism" ISN'T just about "women's issues."
It is about HUMAN issues, of which women's issues (being that
we accept that they are huma), are a part. {  ;-)  }


>I don't recall reading anywhere in my copy of the bill of
>rights that a 400-pound, nose-ring-sporting, greasy, Harley
>ridding hippy-dude, who's gone a week without a shower has a
>*RIGHT* to a sales job at Saks Fifth Avenue's cosmetics
>counter).

        I agree with you on this one--that's not in the Bill of
Rights.  And neither is the line "We hold these truths to be
self-evident--that all men are created equal..."  That's in the
Declaration of Independence, which is not a legally binding
document.  In fact, neither women, children, homosexuals, or
people with disabilities are guaranteed any "rights" in the
Bill of Rights.  Oh--I take that back.  I think women are
granted the right to vote.  Anyway, if it takes a
constitutional amendment to guarantee human rights in this
country, we're in big trouble!  The Americans with Disabilities
Act was NOT an amendment to the Constitution.


>Second, if you leave off the label, and just read the
>definition, I suspect you'd be hard pressed to find a lot of
>people who disagree with your statement.  I certainly don't.

        On the other hand, if we all share this sentiment as
much as you seem to indicate, then why HASN'T there been such
an amendment or amendments?

>But that hardly makes me a feminist.

        Like I said, by MY definition, it does!  But don't
worry--I won't tell anybody! {  ;)  }

>The only reason people have these vitriolic debates in the
>first place is the *means* through which they believe we
>should realize these ideals.  In the 1990s, the furor over
>quotas, federal contract set-asides for minority owned
>businesses, and race- or gender-based hiring practices have
>little to do with the merits of Equal Rights.  They have
>everything to do with the way in which we REDRESS past
>inequities of these rights.  I don't recall reading in any of
>these discussions someone spouting that women or minorities
>shouldn't have a fair shot at (excuse the ethnocentrism)
>the "American Dream."  Of course they should, and any rational
>person would say so.

        I agree--I don't recall anything that blatent.  I DO
recall some dangerously covert ideas, however, expressed in
statements such as "I don't think women want to get Ph.D.'s,"
etc.  So I'm not so sure that I agree with you that the only
reason folks have these arguments is to discuss the means of
redressing "past inequities."  I think some of this argument
has been fueled by what some perceive as inequities in the here
and now--even right on this list!

>I only take issue with the latest trend of remedying the
>situation via reverse discrimination.

        I take issue with reverse discrimination, too.  I guess
we should change this discussion to one about whether
affirmative action is an example of reverse discrimination.

 >Blind to race and gender?  Well, then blind should mean blind.
>(or differently-sighted, if you must).

        Damn straight (or darn right, if you must)!  I seem to
recall suggesting that journal review be totally blind, for
example.  And Tim argued vehemently for blind application.  The
question is HOW......how to make some scenarios blind.  And
then, as I recall, others objected to the very fact that it was
still necessary to MAKE such scenarios blind.  It's a pretty
complex issue.....

>Never apologizing for being so right,
>Kenn
>kwhite@wam.umd.edu


        Honey, if there's one thing I know about you, it is
that you'll never apologize for that!  :-)

>p.s., Don't go psycho.  Breathe, think out your position, and
>state it rationally.  It'll make this intellectual engagement
>so much more productive.

        Dear readers, Kenn knows me well from this venue, as
well as from other settings.  I am not offended by his remarks
here (rather, I'm surprised he didn't say "go balistic" in
keeping with his previous metaphor!)
:-)

>Dispassion will be a virtue for your ultimate cause, you know.

        And yours, too, my friend--especially when that leather-
clad and drooling dude behind the cosmetics counter wants to
sell you some cologne!

--Kathy
kmorgan@wheatnma.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU