stanwyck@ihuxr.UUCP (09/02/83)
My dear net-reading/writing colleagues:
I recently posted to the net.women subnet an article that was
rather beligerant about reverse discrimination. Now that some time has
gone by, I have seen some responses, and most of all I have cooled down
about the incident that got me going, I would like to give a little back-
ground about the reason I got so upset.
First. At the time I went through this crisis, my wife and I were
trying to fight the dual problems of finding child-care of sufficient
quality that we felt our infant son would be safe, and the problem of
potential employers for her constantly asking her "What are your child-care
arrangements?" Since she did not yet have a job, we did not know what hours
we were going to need child-care, and so we could not finalize child-care
arrangements. We were very aware that the employers were not asking men
that question. (My wife was trying to find work for the first time in this
area, after having worked in restaurant management in a different state.)
This problem has resolved itself finally, as she fould a part time (30-hour)
job that she is encouraged to take our son to.
Second. Our finances were undergoing a great deal of stress. Like
many young couples, immediately after a move into a newly purchased house,
with it's unexpectedly high utilities, etc. we found our proposed budget
to be inadaquate. I was also undergoing a good deal of work-related stress,
and trying to balance it with the home-stress.
Third. Because my wife was interviewing at all hours, and sometimes
babysitters were not available, I was spending even more than my usual amount
(which is not so little) of hours alone with my son - often in public places.
Thus the issue of places for men to change babies reared its head again.
Why am I telling you all this? Because I want to explain why a
particular item was the straw that broke the camels back.
During one of my worst days of stress, a memo crossed my desk. The
memo was a review of a recent females-only session that my department held
at a local hotel. It was an all-day session. It covered a number of subjects.
Among the subjects that were covered at the meeting were:
1. Balancing home-life stresses with work-related stress.
2. How to find good child-care.
3. What supervisors look for when they are ready to promote someone.
4. Emotional support issues.
and there were more. Issues that, to quote one participant at the meeting,
"were more related to married people than to us single people." While I
don't support the idea that employers should favor married people over single
people, I was very burned up over the meeting in general. Here was my company,
paying very good money to speakers to have them come in and discuss issues
that were very relevant to my situation, but I was barred from attending!
Why? Because I happen to be of the wrong sex. There seems to be an assumption
that professional males never have to worry about child-care (ask some of
my male single-parent friends about that!), never have to worry about
stress balancing, already know how to get promoted, already know how to build
emotional support networks, etc.
This assumption hurts the women's movement more than anything else. Until
professional men seen as having the same problems as women in these areas,
women will not be accepted as equal with men. There will always be the
stigma of "you know that women are always having problems with their child-
care arrangements" or "you know that as soon as her husband is offered a
transfer-promotion she'll be gone." Men and women alike need to work to see
that the issues are not male vs. female, but instead are issues of concern
to all employees!
I was so burned up not being allowed to go to the conference that I came very
close to filing a formal reverse-discrimination case against my employer. My
wise and wonderful supervisor managed to talk me out of it. (It should be
noted, however, that this letter to the net could cut my professional throat.)
Now that things are a little bit better, and the stress has become more
manageable, I wish there were a forum for me within the company for me to
express my view that holding that type of meeting is wrong for two reasons:
1. It builds resentment among the males that share the problems
discussed in the sessions, and
2. It promotes the ideas that these are only womens issues.
Most issues today that I would call reverse discrimination cases are similar
to this. The case of letting a person into {school/job} becuse of some
racial/gender identity rather than on the base of merit builds resentment
among the qualified people who are turned down, and frequently among the
qualified people who then have to deal withthose who are not qualified to be
where they are.
One private reply to my outburst told of a term they have at the repliers place
of employment. They call certain people "quota engineers", because they were
hired on the basis of race/sex, but can not perform the skills required in the
job. I see this as hurting the qualified people of the same race/gender, as
some people will not make the effort to distinguish between the few good ones
that are there, and the greater number of unqualified ones that are hired to
fill the quotas.
I wish to immediately state that I have not seen this among the technical people
where I work. The females and minority people on the technical staff here are
some of the best engineers I have ever met. I have never met a female or
minority technical type here that was not completely qualified for their job.
Other companies are not as careful when it comes to hiring, or else they may
not offer competitive salaries, and thus must hire what they can to meet
quotas. I don't know, I am only relating another person's observation.
Enough for now. I am very willing to discuss this matter privately with
any one who wishes to do so. I can be reached at 312-979-6667, or at
ihnp4!ihuxr!stanwyck.
Good day and good luck (and God bless....)
Don Stanwycktrb@floyd.UUCP (Andy Tannenbaum) (09/03/83)
Here's my open letter to netters on discrimination. I find the notion of "reverse" discrimination repulsive. Discrimination is discrimination. Andy Tannenbaum Bell Labs Whippany, NJ (201) 386-6491
liz@umcp-cs.UUCP (09/03/83)
You're right. I think there's still a place for things like net.women.only, but in things like child care men definately have a role and an increasing role as more and more women work outside the home. I understand what you're saying about affirmative action, too. The quotas are to make sure that women and minorities are hired; not to force companies to hire incompetent people... -- -Liz Allen, U of Maryland, College Park MD Usenet: ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz Arpanet: liz.umcp-cs@Udel-Relay
stevesu@bronze.UUCP (Steve Summit) (09/05/83)
Rather than getting incredibly, flamingly upset at the reverse-discriminatory meeting that was held, a much better response would be to look at your feelings at that moment and realize that that is exactly what women (and minority racial or religious groups) have been living with all this time. I don't like reverse discrimination and affirmative action, either. I wish they weren't necessary and I wish they weren't here. But you have to realize that they are no worse than what has come before. It is one thing to say that "of course I'm in favor of the women's movement and support it in every way as long as it doesn't inconvenience me" and quite another thing to be truly sympathetic to what has happened in the past, how pervasive the problem is, and how much effort it will take on a LOT of people's parts to eradicate the various prejudices that have been engrained into our culture. Steve Summit
mason@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Mason) (09/05/83)
The real problem with this kind of thing:
"..meeting for the women discussing how to get ahead..,day-care.."
is that often while management is trying, in particular giving extra
attention etc. to the "minority" group, they are reinforcing stereotypes
that are the real problem we have to deal with.
-- Gandalf's flunky Hobbit -- Dave Mason, U. Toronto CSRG,
{cornell,watmath,ihnp4,floyd,allegra,utzoo,uw-beaver}!utcsrgv!mason
or {decvax,linus,lsuc,research}!utzoo!utcsrgv!mason (UUCP)ecn-ec:ecn-pc:ecn-ed:vu@pur-ee.UUCP (09/11/83)
What the @*%?! is "reverse" discrimination ? What is non-reverse discrimination ? [Didn't read the "letter": 104 lines is too long for me] Hao-Nhien Vu (pur-ee!norris [don't believe the header] )