jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (James Wilbur Lewis) (12/20/87)
In article <7709@eddie.MIT.EDU> ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) writes: > >Is it >all right for me (who owns my own company, thank you) to have a >"white" party for my employees? How about a "female only" party? Why not? Especially regarding "female only" parties...seems to me that this goes on ALL THE TIME. Should we chastise the SWE (*) for not going out of their way to make men feel welcome at their functions? Is my desire for "Christianspace" in my company any less valid for someone else's need for "womanspace" in hers? > Why is it, Ray, that if a corporation has a "white" >or a "female" party on company time it can be called harrassment. If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? > Yet >religious discriminination is somehow ok, and we shouldn't find >fault. Discrimination? Let's keep a sense of perspective here...the topic is whether Christmas parties are appropriate on company time or with company funds. This whole line of discussion seems awfully petty to me...it reminds me of the "pleading is rape" discussion. "Discrimination", like "rape", is a loaded word with many negative connotations,and using it for rhetorical effect is likely to backfire, as its meaning becomes diluted to uselessness. To play the Devil's Advocate for a moment: why should I pay any attention to any subsequent claims of discrimination when you use the same rhetoric to refer to calling a party a "Christmas party" instead of a "winter party" or whatever? >Causing a minority group to feel excluded is inappropriate in a >corporation. Maybe, maybe not. Should a corporation whose raison d'etre is to fight anti-semitism be chastised for excluding Nazis from its board of directors? > Many states have laws against it. They shouldn't (followups to this point to talk.politics.misc, where I'd be happy to explain the libertarian reasoning behind this); I would be more than happy to allow you to run your company any way you like, as long as you recognize my right to do likewise. It's bad business to antagonize your employees. Why do we need a *law* against it? If you don't like the way your company runs things, go start your own! (Which is what you seem to have done, so why are you still complaining?) >what kind of an >uproar do you think it would cause if I, owner of my own company, >decided that nobody gets christmas off, and I decide to have a solstice >party? Probably a big uproar, if your employees wanted Christmas off. I wouldn't blame them for quitting. Solstice party? Now that's not a half-bad idea!! But it *is* your company. You're entitled to give any days off you like, or none at all. If your employees don't like it, you're not forcing them to work there. (**) >Gee, would you feel comfortable, as my employee, do not >attend, despite all my religious trappings? Leading the group in >prayer to Ubizmo? Singing songs praising Satan? Being ribbed by >your co-workers for not "being a good sport" and not going along? >How about, Ray, if I decided to have this party in lieu of your >holiday bonus? See my above comment about antagonizing one's employees. If 90% of my employees want to have a Christmas party, and would be offended if I didn't let them have one, should I be *forced* to accomodate the 9% who don't give a damn, or the 1% who are going to make a big stink about it? >As the owner of a company, I realize that I have a responsibility to ALL >my employees to be fair without bias or discrimination. And if 90% of your employees feel cheated when you don't let them have a Christmas party? Mikki, I think you're showing quite a bias *against* those who would like to celebrate religious holidays. > Or, do you >feel that somehow treating employees like human beings is not important? Yep, those poor atheists(***)...they're being FORCED to endure these unspeakable Christian customs. (You know, like mistletoe, Christmas trees, eggnog, forced vacations, Santa Claus...all right there in the Bible...uhhh, somewhere.... right?) The horror! The inhumanity! Merry Christmas to all, and to all, a good night! :-) -- Jim Lewis U.C. Berkeley (*) Oh, I forgot, that's different! (**) Well, no more than Playboy centerfolds are *forced* to pursue that line of work, anyway...what were you about to say? "economic coercion"? no, I didn't think so... (***) or should that be "heathens", or is it "scum"?...I left my HASA directory back at the office. P.S. Just WAIT till next Halloween. You &#(@#@! pagans are gonna get flamed bigtime for forcing your filthy customs on us God-fearin' types. Why, last semester the UCB CS department even had the gall to sponsor a Halloween party...with public funds, too, I'll bet. Secular holiday, indeed. Harrumph.
ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) (12/20/87)
In article <22254@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis) writes: >>Is it >>all right for me (who owns my own company, thank you) to have a >>"white" party for my employees? How about a "female only" party? >Why not? Especially regarding "female only" parties...seems to >me that this goes on ALL THE TIME. Should we chastise the SWE (*) for >not going out of their way to make men feel welcome at their >functions? Is my desire for "Christianspace" in my company any >less valid for someone else's need for "womanspace" in hers? You know something, I have finally figured it out. The only *real* reason why soneone would INSIST on calling their corporate party a *christmas* party is to perpetuate their religion over all others. And goddess forbid if you happen to disagree. And, in case it has taken awhile for this to sink in, I will state it again, using *company* funds, *company* facilities, and/or *company* time to perpetuate one religion over another, one sex over another, one race over another, etc. etc. is a pretty damn slimey thing to do at best, and illegal at worst. Systematically excluding a group or groups of workers at company functions can be classified as harrassment. It is only when it is religion that it is termed "silly" or "insignificant". So "silly" and "insignificant" that many companies go out of their way to call their parties "holiday" parties and keep the religious crap out of it. Why is common courtesy to repugnant? Why (I ask again) is it so goddamn difficult to change the NAME of the party? >See my above comment about antagonizing one's employees. If 90% >of my employees want to have a Christmas party, and would be offended >if I didn't let them have one, should I be *forced* to accomodate the 9% >who don't give a damn, or the 1% who are going to make a big stink about it? If 90% of my employees don't want blacks on the staff and would be offended if I hired one, should I be *forced* to accomodate the 9% who don't give a damn, or the 1% who are going to make a big stink about it? Don't you see what you are saying here? >And if 90% of your employees feel cheated when you don't let them have a >Christmas party? Mikki, I think you're showing quite a bias *against* >those who would like to celebrate religious holidays. On my time, while I am paying them? Or should I pay for their religious holiday with my money? If 90% of your employees were satanists, would you pay for their holiday with your money, on your time? If 90% of your employees were KKK would you pay for *their* holiday on your time? >Yep, those poor atheists(***)...they're being FORCED to endure these unspeakable >Christian customs. (You know, like mistletoe, Christmas trees, eggnog, forced >vacations, Santa Claus...all right there in the Bible...uhhh, somewhere.... >right?) The horror! The inhumanity! Have you been purposely ignoring what I've been saying all this time? I said that changing the name of the party to *holiday* party, and removing nativity scenes, religious trappings and bible quotes would serve to minimize the exclusion of other religious factions in the workplace. Why have you turned it into the belief that I somehow want to squash christians? Happy Solstice, Mikki Barry
jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (James Wilbur Lewis) (12/20/87)
Mikki "Let's put the X back in Xmas" Barry :-) writes: >>>Is it >>>all right for me (who owns my own company, thank you) to have a >>>"white" party for my employees? How about a "female only" party? > I reply: >>Why not? Especially regarding "female only" parties...seems to >>me that this goes on ALL THE TIME. Should we chastise the SWE (*) for >>not going out of their way to make men feel welcome at their >>functions? Is my desire for "Christianspace" in my company any >>less valid for someone else's need for "womanspace" in hers? Mikki's response: >You know something, I have finally figured it out. The only *real* >reason why soneone would INSIST on calling their corporate party a >*christmas* party is to perpetuate their religion over all others. >And goddess forbid if you happen to disagree. [et cetera] You didn't answer my question. Why is an party given by SWE ok, while a party given by Christians not ok? It's not like management put a sign on the door saying "NO HEATHENS ALLOWED!"...the only person excluding you from the festivities is YOU. They (we) call it a Christmas party because they're celebrating Christmas. It doesn't really have anything to do with wanting to exclude people of other religions, or perpetuating our religion over all others; in fact, they tend to be rather secular affairs. Oh, there might be some appropriate music in the background, and a few of the carols might use the J---- word, but the religious overtones are not going to be overwhelming. Obviously *you* feel excluded, or you wouldn't be taking this so seriously....but it's *not* *our* *fault*. I am quite sure that you would be welcome at any Christmas party; I don't think anyone would try to lay a guilt trip on you for "intruding", or even for declining to participate in the religious aspects of the celebration (few though they might be)....certainly no one would try to convert you, not if they had any tact, anyway. Compare this to your counterexample of a KKK party, where blacks or Jews probably WOULD deliberately be made to feel unwelcome, or overtly harrassed. Apples and oranges, Mikki. > Systematically excluding a group or groups of >workers at company functions can be classified as harrassment. Ok, we're back to the SWE example. If men are invited, and don't come because they'd feel silly, is that harassment? If the exclusion is done by the people sponsoring the function, yes it very well might be harassment. If you're invited, and decline to attend because you object to it being called a Christmas party, that's your perogative...but don't go calling it harassment. Harassment implies *intent* by the harasser. >Why (I ask again) is it so goddamn difficult to change the NAME of the party? It's not that it's difficult...it's stupid! It's a Christmas party, the people involved are there to celebrate Christmas, so why should they go through semantic contortions just to satisfy your sense of political correctness? >>See my above comment about antagonizing one's employees. If 90% >>of my employees want to have a Christmas party, and would be offended >>if I didn't let them have one, should I be *forced* to accomodate the 9% >>who don't give a damn, or the 1% who are going to make a big stink about it? > >If 90% of my employees don't want blacks on the staff and would be offended >if I hired one, should I be *forced* to accomodate the 9% who don't >give a damn, or the 1% who are going to make a big stink about it? Don't >you see what you are saying here? I see exactly what I'm saying here, and I'm saying it *anyway*. If you want an explanation of "libertarian philosophy 101", I'd be happy to start a discussion, but please let's move it to talk.politics.misc where it belongs. > If 90% of your employees were satanists, would >you pay for their holiday with your money, on your time? If 90% of >your employees were KKK would you pay for *their* holiday on your time? If it would cost more to replace the employees who were dissatisfied enough to quit...you bet I'd pay for it! If I didn't, I'd expect to get raked over the coals by my stockholders, and for good reason. >Why have you turned it into the belief that I somehow want to squash >christians? I've done nothing of the sort. I just think you're overreacting; feeling excluded for no good reason, and trying to make *us* responsible. Why don't you adopt the Christian approach to holiday celebrations...don't feel excluded from the festivites, just co-opt the holiday(*) and make it one of yours! :-) I think a winter solstice party is a great idea....just remember that you're in the minority and you shouldn't expect the rest of society to go out of their way to accomodate you. -- Jim Lewis U.C. Berkeley (*) Or in this case, co-opt it *back*.... followups redirected to talk.politics.misc, in anticipation of flames about my libertarian stance...this doesn't have much to do with .singles or .women any more.
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (12/21/87)
Huh ? Say what ?
Excuse me, but I've been skipping this thread because it has the word
religion in it, and I got here kinda late when I noticed the word
party popped up.
Whats all this poop about religion in christmas parties ?
If you come to one of ours you may notice that we dont really do
anything religious. We are all going sailing and intend to drink
too much, make fools of ourselves, and have the company limo
take us home.
The first person that prays gets thrown overboard with nary
a bottle of Grand Marnier to keep you afloat.
I always thought xmas parties were to let off steam after a long
hard year of reading the ne.. uhhh, I mean wrinting software.
--
"Well, they say that Santa Fe is less than 90 miles away"
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM || {ihnp4!crash, hplabs!hp-sdd!crash}!gryphon!richardooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) (12/21/87)
In article <2288@dasys1.UUCP> patth@dasys1.UUCP (Patt Haring) writes: >of course, you only hear what it is you want to hear; Christmas >is a "NATIONAL HOLIDAY* here in the USA and probably in Canda and the >U.K., Sweden, Holland, etc., are you purposefully ignoring what >we are saying or do you want to crucify one of us to prove your >point? > >If you were working for a Fortune 500 company would you then consider it >insignificant and silly that they would pay you for holidays? Um, excuse me. Please go and reread the 100 or so lines which you so carefully edited. Nobody is talking about paying for the holiday. We are talking about using company funds/facilities/time for a party which promotes one religion over others. Why are people getting so damn bent out of shape at changing the name of a stinking party? Is it that somehow the word *christmas* has so much significance to them that they have to have it said in relation to workplace parties? I really don't understand why including onon-christians in office celebrations (and giving *their* holidays a bit of validity as well) is such a big deal to you. Oh, and by the way. Your daughter is prejudiced. Everyone raised in country is. Anyone who thinks differently should re-examine their motivation Frankly, however, I couldn't see the point of the rest of your article. Mikki Barry
WDMCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Bill Michtom) (12/22/87)
This is actually a followup to ALL of Mikki's postings on this subject:
RRRRRRRR IIIIIIIII GGGGGGG HH HH TTTTTTTTT OOOOOOO NN NN
RRRRRRRRR IIIIIIIII GGGGGGGGG HH HH TTTTTTTTT OOOOOOOOO NNN NN
RR RR III GG GG HH HH TTT OO OO NNNN NN
RR RR III GG HH HH TTT OO OO NN NN NN
RRRRRRRR III GG GGGG HHHHHHHHH TTT OO OO NN NN NN
RRRRRR III GG GG HH HH TTT OO OO NN NNNN
RR RR III GG GG HH HH TTT OO OO NN NNN
RR RR IIIIIIIII GGGGGGGGG HH HH TTT OOOOOOOOO NN NN
RR RR IIIIIIIII GGGGGGG HH HH TTT OOOOOOO NN NN
Enough with the bigotry, the imposition of one's beliefs on everyone else, the
grotesque ignorance of what OUR Constitution says about the separation of
church and state and the disgusting, though no longer incredible, inability of
so many people to see beyond their own backgrounds, belief systems and, most
especially, prejudices. (Are you listening Patt Haring? Probably not.)
In addition, Mikki, thank you for pointing out that much of this is a simple
matter of consideration for others.
-------
/*--------------------------------------------------------------------*/
/* Bill Michtom - work: (212) 903-3685 */
/* WDMCU@CUNYVM (Bitnet) Timelessness is transient */
/* */
/* A man without a god is like a fish without a bicycle. */
/*--------------------------------------------------------------------*/
snoopy@doghouse.gwd.tek.com (Snoopy) (12/23/87)
In article <7712@eddie.MIT.EDU> ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) writes: >In article <22254@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis) writes: >>>Is it >>>all right for me (who owns my own company, thank you) to have a >>>"white" party for my employees? How about a "female only" party? Yes. Yes. In fact, my SO recently attended a party with only white females present. In fact everyone at her company is a white female. >And, in case it has taken awhile for this to sink in, I will state it again, >using *company* funds, *company* facilities, and/or *company* time to >perpetuate one religion over another, one sex over another, one race >over another, etc. etc. is a pretty damn slimey thing to do at best, >and illegal at worst. You have things confused. It's seperation of Church and STATE, not separation of Church and CORPORATIONS. Companies are owned by people. People should have a right to do what they want with things they own, providing they don't harm other people or things they don't own. Harming others means things like putting bullets through them, or cutting your neighbor's tree down, not having a theme party the theme of which they're not wild about. >So "silly" and "insignificant" that many companies go out of their way >to call their parties "holiday" parties and keep the religious crap out >of it. Why is common courtesy to repugnant? Why (I ask again) is it so >goddamn difficult to change the NAME of the party? Keep the religious what out? Oh! Well, Mikki, it would seem that you have a lot to learn about common courtesy yourself. >If 90% of my employees don't want blacks on the staff and would be offended >if I hired one, should I be *forced* to accomodate the 9% who don't >give a damn, or the 1% who are going to make a big stink about it? No, you shouldn't. You should be allowed to hire who you want. If 90% of your staff will be offended, then your office is not going to run very smoothly if you hire one. Especially if they are offended enough to leave. Assuming that talents and skill sets are evenly distributed among the three groups, you will need to consider the 90% a bit more than the 1%. (That's *consider*, not grant their every wish!) [Of course these days you have to consider the government and it's wishes!] So how many beagles does your company employ? Do you have a party to celebrate Lassie's birthday? Why not? Snoopy (token beagle) tektronix!doghouse.gwd!snoopy snoopy!doghouse.gwd.tek.com "Here we come a waffle-ing..."
stevef@rtech.UUCP (Steve Frye) (12/23/87)
In article <7715@eddie.MIT.EDU>, ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) writes: > talking about using company funds/facilities/time for a party which > promotes one religion over others. Observance of a holiday promotes a religion? Observance of Veterans' Day promotes war !!!!! A lot of companies promote war !!! > Why are people getting so damn bent out of shape at changing the name > of a stinking party? Why are people getting so damn bent out of shape at the name of a stinking party? If you like it - go! If you don't - don't go! Actually, when I think about, you're right. Silliest thing I ever heard - naming a holiday party after the holiday. Damn ridiculous!! -- Steve Frye Relational Technology ptsfa!rtech!sphinx!stevef 1080 Marina Village Parkway Alameda, Ca. 94501
ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) (12/23/87)
In article <9554@tekecs.TEK.COM> snoopy@doghouse.gwd.tek.com (Snoopy) writes: >>If 90% of my employees don't want blacks on the staff and would be offended >>if I hired one, should I be *forced* to accomodate the 9% who don't >>give a damn, or the 1% who are going to make a big stink about it? >No, you shouldn't. You should be allowed to hire who you want. >If 90% of your staff will be offended, then your office is not going >to run very smoothly if you hire one. Especially if they are offended >enough to leave. Assuming that talents and skill sets are evenly >distributed among the three groups, you will need to consider the 90% >a bit more than the 1%. (That's *consider*, not grant their every wish!) >[Of course these days you have to consider the government and it's wishes!] Or the law, and its *wishes*? I am the owner of a corporation. Therefore I can do what the hell I please? Well, that's a surprise to me and to the state and federal laws that regulate what I do. One of the criteria I am not allowed to discriminate on the basis of is religion. Having a party in which one religion is "featured", i.e. christmas is discriminatory if there are any other religions or lack of religions represented on my staff. Deciding not to hire someone because she is black is ILLEGAL. Deciding not to hire someone because he is christian is also ILLEGAL. Dancing around Jews in the office chanting "christ killer" is also also illegal. There is still a question about christians dancing around the office chanting "happy birthday dear Jesus". I consider it rude at the very least. Why all the goddamn uproar about changing the name of an office party? Why are some people so bent upon throwing the name of christ into it? I don't think he would approve (if he existed) given his legendary tolerance of other religions. It was only later that people decided to attempt to wipe out or convert everyone else. Mikki Barry "Kill a tree for Jesus"
nancym@pyrtech (Nancy McClelland) (12/31/87)
In article <7730@eddie.MIT.EDU> ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) writes: >about christians dancing around the office chanting "happy birthday >dear Jesus". I consider it rude at the very least. >Why all the goddamn uproar about changing the name of an office party? >Why are some people so bent upon throwing the name of christ into it? >I don't think he would approve (if he existed) given his legendary tolerance >of other religions. It was only later that people decided to attempt >to wipe out or convert everyone else. >Mikki Barry >"Kill a tree for Jesus" Tolerance means allowing others their beliefs. If most of the people in your office are Christians, or even if they aren't but they want to have a Christmas party, you should graciously accept the fact that they want a Christmas party. If you would like to bring up your own beliefs, bring in a menorah (sp?) or a dradle. (I didn't catch the beginnings of this discussion, so I'm going on the impression that Mikki is Jewish. If not, please substitute any other appropriate items.) Or better yet, ask if you and other non-Christians can have another party. I don't know about your boss, but mine is a "any excuse for a party" type of guy. Most Christmas parties aren't given with the intention of ramming any philosphy down anyones throat. They're given becauase the people wish to celebrate together. Co-workers often don't get together enmass out side of work, and a company party is a great time to party together. Just as holiday no longer means Holy Day (4th of July, Labor Day) Christmas does not mean "Christ's Birthday" to everyone anymore. I'm an athiest, and have been since I was old enough to think in sentences. But I adore Christmas, and the whole season. I certainly would not be offended if anyone wanted to have a Hanuka party. I also enjoy the Chinese New Year Celebrations. Everyone should be able to express their beliefs openly. That's what freedoms all about. Not just being able to practice in the privacy of your home or temple or church, but *openly*. nancym
stevef@rtech.UUCP (Steve Frye) (01/01/88)
Nancy, what you said could never be said better! -- Steve Frye Relational Technology ptsfa!rtech!sphinx!stevef 1080 Marina Village Parkway Alameda, Ca. 94501