sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (11/07/84)
Hello Steve,
Could you please post this anonymously to net.motss?
(What happens to mod.motss?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am all against discrimination, of any kind. I believe though
that the legislation in the US does not go very far against it, to
say the least, as exemplified in the recent posting of the Cambridge
ordinances. Their structure is approximately as follows:
It shall be an unlawful practice for [A] to [B] because
of [C] except in [D].
where some of the instances are:
[A] Cambridge School Dept., employers, employment agency,...
[B] discriminate in the provision of services, employment, education...
refuse to hire or employ, discharge from employment...
directly or indirectly to fail or refuse to classify properly or
refer for employment...
[C] the race, color, sex, age, religious creed, disability/physical
handicap, national origin or ancestry, sexual orientation, marital
status, family status, military status, or source of income of such
person
[D] Employment by a religious institution of individuals
performing a service related to a *bona fide* religious purpose...
Employment programs designed to effect affirmative action
by giving special preference to women, racial minorities or veterans
provided that such employment programs shall not discriminate among
women, racial minorities, or veterans on the basis of other
discriminatory criteria as set forth in Section 9E (4) hereof.
etc...
My point is that such laws or regulations, by mentioning *specific* instances
of potential discriminators ([A]), potential forms of discriminations ([B])
and potential targets ([C]), do not rule out discrimination as such except in
*these specific cases*, which, by the virtue (hm...) of their being specific
cannot possibly cover all existing cases of discrimination, and, as a matter
of fact, do encourage less obvious forms of discrimination.
For example:
- Is denial of employment on the basis of IQ tests and
their likes discriminatory or not? (It does not seem to fall in any
category mentioned in [C], unless a lower score is a physical disability...).
On the basis of language abilities (it is mentioned just in one case, and
does not seem related to any category in [C]--even not to race, for
a caucasian child, e.g., could be adopted by a hispanic one and not know
english...
- Is denial of any kind of employment on the basis of age, sex or sexual
preference by a religious institution discriminatory or not? Suppose a
woman applied to a seminary for priests; suppose an old man did; suppose
a gay man did. What if any of them applied for a menial job in a church?
- Why isn't affirmative action mentioned for all other types
of targets of discrimination? E.g., by reductio ad absurdum, require
affirmative action for gays (see Steve Dyer's remark...), elderly,
cripple and jews (to counter you-know-whom).
If this trend continues, the list of specific clauses is bound to
increase without limit (or until it lists by name every human alive and
is updated accordingly...). Then there always will be grounds for
discrimination of some kind.
The solution? More principles, less examples, with all the
implications (more on that some other time).
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPAsdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (11/07/84)
Unfortunately, "principles" can not always be turned into action, let alone
enforced as law. While I can see our anonymous poster's point about the
almost ludicrous specificity of the Cambridge human rights ordinance, s/he
must realize that all bills are the result of compromise, and that specific
language is necessary if the ordinance is not to be thrown out. One would much
rather assume the Golden Rule in all affairs, but alas, we cannot. Hence
this ordinance. So much for principles.
I am unconvinced of the claim that an ordinance which details may/may nots
to the extent that Cambridge does actively contributes to discrimination.
This is an objection based on aesthetics and not pragmatics. The ordinance
provides a few gaping holes by which individuals may choose to continue to
discriminate, but I sincerely doubt that it will be the cause of any new
discriminatory behavior. What it does provide for the first time in
Cambridge is a formal method of legal redress when people are discriminated
against on the basis of their sexual preference.
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPAdyer@spdcc.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (09/20/86)
Thanks again to Steve Dyer for helping out with handling messages. The net.gods were not with us on this one, because a problem at hp3 spilled the original post and possible answers on the floor. I did get two responses, for which deepest thanks. On the hope that this experience will help others, I'm asking Steve to post my gratitude and a couple comments. [Note: many unmarked edits.] The first response I got was > his@faron.UUCP (Howard Irwin Solomon): > Date: 18 Sep 86 19:05:29 GMT > Date-Received: 19 Sep 86 11:34:56 GMT who says: > It becomes a matter of deciding how much you care for [the] person. > This person means a good deal to you. You have to decide your own > personal thresholds. You need to decide when to abandon ship. The crux of the matter is, as you point out, to decide how much is enough, to know where one's limit is. > I think that with the previous happiness and closeness between you, > it seems worth taking the chance and pursuing the friendship. It helps me to do reality checks. I'm glad that it came across that I *do* care for this man (present tense intentional), in spite of the many problems we have had. You help me here by confirming that. As for pursuing the matter, taking the chances, I've always thought of myself as an inexhaustible resource, able to persevere and overcome all obstacles by stubborness, if not by skill. But in human terms, one is human, and there *are* limits; as you say, one must eventually decide where they are. I'll ponder that a bit, and (obviously) the limit issue seems to be the main one right now. > You seem to have a good head on your shoulders; you'll > make the right decison, I trust. Thanks. I hope you're right. I learned to live with myself long ago, fortunately--it has given me the strength to live with others :-) > If you need someone to talk to drop me a line. I would be glad > to listen. Thanks for this too, Howard. One thing about this newsgroup is the evident concern we see here for the happiness (whatever it is) and welfare of others. Even though we don't know each other, we care, don't we?! The other response was: > wex@milano.UUCP (Alan Wexelblat) > Date: 18 Sep 86 19:01:15 GMT > Date-Received: 19 Sep 86 11:42:42 GMT He says: > Paul, you've left out two important things: > - how you feel towards the SO > - relationships with others I love the man deeply. I resent his inattention, which puts a significant chill on things, but inasmuch as we've had some very beautiful times and I don't know what the present problems are for him, I'm left without closure. This is a key element; if it were clearly over, I'd accept that easily (I can be a *big* fool, but I've never been able to be a *total* fool! :-) As for others, there isn't anyone in quite this department right now. I'm open to new prospects. In any case, my local support groups are all functioning, and there's you guys ... > I'll try to advise you anyway. Paul, this man is seriously > messed up! He has some basic mental/emotional problems apart > from his indecision on sexual orientation. I've advised therapy with no success; seems he had a bad experience in the past with therapy. I've had three periods of therapy that made all the difference in my own life, and am a strong advocate of getting help when you need it. For the consumption of others, my advice on that score is, if one therapist doesn't work out, likely another one will. The therapeutic relationship is usually one of the most affecting things in your life, requiring a certain chemistry to work in the optimal way. I've been remarkably lucky in that way. > A man that cruel needs psychiatric counseling. I think here > the women are being more sensitive (observant?) than you. > I suspect that you've seen the same things they have, but put > them down to preference-based problems. That may not be right. This was a great eye-opener for me! It's so obvious that love is the greatest blinder there ever was, making it next-to-impossible to see the other person as others would. Thanks a lot, this helps! > There are three things you can do, depending on how you feel > about him (and how much of a committment you want to make): > 1) Cut and run. He "voted with his feet." Accept it with grace. > 2) Recommend that he seek counseling. Help him find a professional > who understands the problems of gays and can separate them > from his other problems. Be a good listener; see him occasionally. > 3) Go into counseling with him. The goal here is to resolve his > problems so that the two of you can have a good, normal, gay > relationship. > The third alternative [is] not something you can start and then > pull out of. There's a lot of potential for hurt and trouble. > This is especially true if you are not fully `out.' Of course, the > potential rewards are also a lot greater: satisfaction, friendship > (possibly for life), maybe a good relationship with an SO, etc. Well, a combination of these things with all the other insights gained seems to be what makes sense. Here's how I see it (today, anyway): If it's to end, what I need (for me) is adequate closure. I'll need to talk to him to get it, probably (it always takes two). I need to work out with myself (in advance) where my limits are and communicate that to him in a clear but nonhostile way. On therapy for him, while *I* feel that's *strongly* advised, I know *he* has to choose for himself. I see couples therapy as unlikely, mainly because the notion of couple is weak here; I could feature forming a couple with him, though with some trepidations that would have to be worked out gingerly over time, but I really cannot feature his getting it enough together to do his part in anything more intense than a friendship. *That*, indeed, is my best hoped-for outcome. (My dears, ours is a history of making do :-) Incidentally, I am fully out, a veritable pillar of local gay society. Out at work too, and a pillar in that society as well. I posted anonymously to seek a more detached view of myself. It has worked extremely well, I think. > Feel free to e-mail me at the address below. Or call (512)834-3586 > if you want to talk but maintain your anonymity. Again, people are so often quite prepared to go the extra distance for others. Thanks, Alan. [BTW, my first lover in college was named Alan, and my favorite (straight) man at work is named Alan. Also BTW, there have been five [!] Steves. The present problem is Stu.] When there's something to report, I'll email to those who've helped or post if it seems likely to benefit the broader audience. Thanks all. -- Steve Dyer dyer@harvard.HARVARD.EDU {linus,wanginst,bbnccv,harvard,ima,ihnp4}!spdcc!dyer
dyer@spdcc.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (10/16/86)
Again, thanks to Steve for posting this. Some of you will recall
a couple postings and several replies about my friendship that
seemed to be going nowhere, my angry straight friend who was very
much out of touch with me. The consensus of responders was that
I should prepare myself for the worst, he had probably rejected me
and that would be that. Well, about a week ago, I sent a postcard
that said I assumed there was a (to him) good enough reason, but
after all those very nice things that had happened over the course
of coming on four years, it was somehow *too* eccentric for me to
fathom why this sudden 3-month hiatus should occur. I sent the card.
That *same* day as I sat at my table reading net news, the phone
rings, Hello this is Stu. I replied Well, I have to say I'm glad to
hear your voice, but you can't possibly have received the card I
sent you this afternoon, so I'm *very* surprised; did you want to
get together and have a good jabber? Yes, he did, and we did, and
it was (he thought) with cause that he'd kept apart for a time, and
he had taken a long time to realize that even though he didn't
understand *all* his own motivations, still he wanted to see me
and spend some time together. Well, I said, I think it works a lot
better for me if the oscillations of near/far that are necessary
to balance *any* relationship don't get *too* wide, because I
think a friendship that is anything more than casual results in
some mutually agreed upon responsibilities, the kind of support
that only a real, three-dimensional presence can supply. When and
how often, and what it is, all that's negotiable, as it were, but
*some* presence one can depend on is a minimum. This was agreed
to as acceptable. We worked through the specific problem without
too much grief, and things seem OK again. If I live to be 100,
I'll never understand men--they are sometimes too weird!
I guess the lesson is (I'm conditioned to think there is
*always* a lesson): take the long view especially if it counts
(or at least you think it does); you never really know about
some things, no matter how hard you try. Thanks again for the
support, encouragement, and understanding I got from netland
during this very odd interlude. --Paul (an altered ego, I
assure you).
--
Steve Dyer
dyer@harvard.HARVARD.EDU
{linus,wanginst,bbnccv,harvard,ima,ihnp4}!spdcc!dyer