From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: "Reverse" Discrimination (was Re: Mysogynist Bullshit)
Date: 10 Jan 93 21:01:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: glia.michael.726699665
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: glia.biostr.washington.edu

In <C0Lw7B.LpC@cs.mcgill.ca> chuckies@cs.mcgill.ca (Charles J. Savoie) writes:
>In article <michael.726527935@glia> michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael) writes:
>>In <C0Iwru.nI@cs.mcgill.ca> chuckies@cs.mcgill.ca (Charles J. Savoie) writes:
>>
>>>1) Somewhere in the average person's head is a pattern of synapses which
>>>   equates: SEXISM = BAD.  Put "reverse" in front of it and you get:
>>>   		reverse(SEXISM) = reverse(BAD)
>>>				= GOOD
>>>   I'm not suggesting that people actually think this way... but I'm
>>>   almost certain that by putting "reverse" in front of a Bad Thing(tm),
>>>   you make the "reverse" thing seem at least "not as bad", perhaps
>>>   on a subconscious level...  Just a thought.
>>
>>Interesting thought, but there is an error in the math.
>>
>>	 Let SEXISM = BAD
>>	 Note the fact that: reverse(SEXISM) = SEXISM

>No, I don't agree.  If you heard someone say "...and we want to reverse
>sexism in our community..." you wouldn't take it to mean they want sexism
>to continue, but in the opposite direction.  So therefore reverse(SEXISM)
>!= SEXISM.

reverse sexism is sexism against the other sex.  you are simply defining
it differently than me.  i believe i'm using the more common definition.

>            Obviously, if you have in your head that reverse sexism is
>still sexism, fine; but the point still holds that by putting "reverse"
>in front of sexism it seems like this is an "odd", "special case" of
>sexism...  Ever wonder WHY people call it reverse discrimination?  The
>obvious answer is: to trivialize it.

reverse discrimination is discrimination against the other sex.  under
afirmative action, this does exist.  however, i believe that affirmative
action reduces the total amount of discrimination against both sexes
especially in the long run.

>>The only problem is that if one applies affirmative action to combat
>>discrimination, it must be noted that this is a long term solution.
>>In the short term some reverse discrimination could happen.  However
>>if we look at the discrimination occurring for both sexes, and the
>>total is reduced, then I can live with it.  Also if it leads to a
>>future with less sexual discrimination, then I'm even satisfied with
>>it.

>Why not simply end ALL discrimination based on sex right away?

Because no one has found a way to make people comply to this.  Quite
simply without some regulation, discrimination occurs all by itself.
Your idea is of course the best (in a utopian society).  But its only
good if it works (and it doesn't).

>                                                                This
>would have the short term effect of having NO DISCRIMINATION, and
>the long term effect of having equality between the sexes.  Either
>way, the short term and long term effects are the same, except nobody
>gets discriminated against, ever.  The end DOES NOT justify the means.

No, the end does not justify the means.  However if we can reduce total
discrimination in the short term and definitely reduce the total in the
long term, than as I said, I can live with it.

>>In the short term some reverse discrimination could happen.
>Affirmative action is, by definition, discrimination.  What you said is
>an understatement!

True.  I agree with that but then I thought that was clear.

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
Newsgroups: soc.men