cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) (09/17/86)
In article <1040@dadla.UUCP> rob@dadla.UUCP (Rob Vetter) writes: >In article <923@ihu1h.UUCP> jailbird@ihu1h.UUCP (Harvey) writes: >> >>President Johnson defended affirmative action this way: >> >> Imagine a hundred yard dash in which one of the two >> runners has his legs shackled together. He has pro- >> gressed ten yards while the unshackled runner has >> gone 50 yards. At that point the judges decide the >> race is unfair. How do they rectify the situation? Do >The best soulution is to restart both runners, but shackle the second >this time - reverse discrimination :-) >Rob Vetter Oh, Rob, you must have a very big TARDIS! In jest, you propose that we go back to the days of female infanticide, and not just *stop* female infanticide, but actually retroactively institute male infanticide. Interesting. If you had such a time machine (the only way you could go back and start over), I think it would be far more equitable to merely prevent female infanticide, the denial of property rights, the denial of education, the refusal to acknowlege accomplishment, the forced domestic servitude, the denial of medical care, the forced sexual servitude, the exclusion from scientific and professional societies, the confinement to low-paying employment, the denial of the right to vote, the denial of equal pay for equal work--and perhaps then the culture of female humiliation would be less firmly rooted in our society today. I don't think that it's necessary to do all those things to men: *THAT* would be reverse discrimination. >"Waste is a terrible thing to mind" - NRC > (Well, they COULD have said it) "A Mine is a terrible thing to waste" - South African Whites (Well, they DO say it) Cheryl
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (09/18/86)
In article <1040@dadla.UUCP> rob@dadla.UUCP (Rob Vetter) writes: >In article <923@ihu1h.UUCP> jailbird@ihu1h.UUCP (Harvey) writes: >> >>President Johnson defended affirmative action this way: >> >> Imagine a hundred yard dash in which one of the two >> runners has his legs shackled together. He has pro- >> gressed ten yards while the unshackled runner has >> gone 50 yards. At that point the judges decide the >> race is unfair. How do they rectify the situation? Do > > >The best soulution is to restart both runners, but shackle the second >this time - reverse discrimination :-) > >-- > >Rob Vetter Nice try, Rob--but there are no restarts in this race. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
nap@druxo.UUCP (ParsonsNA) (09/27/86)
I wrote: I am not suggesting that kids pay for the crimes of their parents. I am suggesting that they should not benefit from the crimes of their parents, especially at someone else's expense. Rob Vetter responded: > In the case of sexual discrimination, a strange thought. > Didn't the fathers' "crimes" roughly equal the mothers' > "expense" ? How do the children benefit from the crime ? The "crimes" of the fathers gave all males an advantage (in terms of cultural expectation, encouragement, control of power, education, etc). Yes, the mothers paid a price. The children benefit only on the basis of their sex--i.e., males benefit, females don't. So in the case of sexual discrimination, I should rephrase my comment: "I am suggesting that male children should not benefit from the crimes of their fathers at the expense of their sisters" or some such. > In the case of racial or religious discrimination, your > point is valid, but (1) How do you prevent it ? And > (2) Where do you draw the line ? You have agreed that there is a problem (i.e., you agreed that my point is valid). Why ask how *I* would solve it? Why don't *you* suggest some solutions? Nancy Parsons
rob@dadla.tek.com (Rob Vetter;1044;92-725;LP=A;60YB) (10/01/86)
>>I wrote: >> In the case of sexual discrimination, a strange thought. >> Didn't the fathers' "crimes" roughly equal the mothers' >> "expense" ? How do the children benefit from the crime ? In article <153@druxo.UUCP> nap@druxo.UUCP (ParsonsNA) writes: > >The "crimes" of the fathers gave all males an advantage (in terms of >cultural expectation, encouragement, control of power, education, etc). >Yes, the mothers paid a price. The children benefit only on the basis of >their sex--i.e., males benefit, females don't. So in the case of sexual >discrimination, I should rephrase my comment: "I am suggesting that male >children should not benefit from the crimes of their fathers at the expense >of their sisters" or some such. I guess I should clarify. I think that WASP females have the same advantage over [choose your minority] females as their male counter parts. > >> In the case of racial or religious discrimination, your >> point is valid, but (1) How do you prevent it ? And >> (2) Where do you draw the line ? > >You have agreed that there is a problem (i.e., you agreed that my point is >valid). Why ask how *I* would solve it? Why don't *you* suggest some >solutions? I'd love to figure out a way to get as some of that Getty, Hunt, or Kennedy money myself. Figuring that mean income is greater than median income, a redistribution of wealth (and associated advantages) would suit me just fine. But then I suppose we'd have to redistribute our crime-earned wealth to the third world ... that'd hurt, wouldn't it ? Rob Vetter (503) 629-1044 [ihnp4, ucbvax, decvax, uw-beaver]!tektronix!dadla!rob