gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) (06/15/89)
In article <11912@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> djo@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes: [in response to an earlier article of Hillel's] >"Equal" opportunity is not equal if different groups are not given >equal opportunity to prepare to grasp it. >A good analogy would be giving one political party access to four >major networks and giving the other access to a soapbox in Central >Park. Both sides are free to say whatever they want, via whatever >media are available to them. Is free speech served? >Similarly, if society is split into two groups, and group "a" is >given significantly greater educational benefits than group "b," then >does an "equal opportunity" system based purely on educational >qualification -- i.e., the hiring system for nearly every well-paying >job in society -- actually serve the principle of equal opportunity? *If* that was the AA target then the decisions should be based on income levels, education opportunities, living condition etc. You (feminists) prefer to base them on gender. What's the point? Are you afraid that if you will base your decisions on the above criteria, you will get a bunch Vietnamese refugee's kids instead of nice middle class white women? >Believe me, this was a difficult pill for me to swallow; I'm a >middle-class white male. Why is it so difficult for you? Are you afraid that the Old-Boy-Network will not help you? >But logic dictates that an imbalance can only be corrected by an >opposing force. 1) The force is not opposite (men who had not good education opportunities are the losers of AA, not the upper middle class WASPs). 2) The forces are expensive to the society at large. There are useless workers who float around in a company just to be in the AA quota. [Hillel] #3) The message to the outside is not clear. Try for example to ask # a feminist a question like "for how long AA will last?" [Dan'l] >Try to ask a physicist a question like "for how long will the universe last?" >You ask for prophecy? Go to a prophet. I don't know anyone who claims to be >both a prophet and a feminist. So you think that the question "how long AA will last" is as hard as "for how long will the universe last?" You (feminists) have recommend an action which is unfair to people who had less opportunities, but are not belong to your group. You prefer not to answer questions like "how long will AA last?" and it seems suspicious. I understand why you try to sell us AA, I hope that you understand why I'm not going to buy it... >*THIS*, at least, is a frequently-true statement. But here's where I >quibble seriously with your semantics: "It supports," "It shuts up >about," "It tries." >You are guilty of your own accusation, treating "feminists" as a >group rather than as individuals. Indeed, not only as a group (which >would more properly be referred to as "they") but as a homogeneous >mass ("it"). OK, I don't have any idea about what you (feminists) talk when I'm not around, but I know for which actions you press. Maybe judging a man (or a movement) by his/its action is unfair, but that's the best measurement I know. Can you recommend a better one? [Hillel] #I don't think that feminism has (even though it had) a chance to have #a real partnership with men. Because it did not want to and 1) and #2) were around long enough to break the any trust. We can see it in #the battle of ERA. Men did very little for either side, they were in #a state of apathy. From one side most of us don't trust feminism, #from the other side we have the guilt feeling. [Dan'l] >Gaaaaaaah. Now you're making equally sweeping statements about "men" >-- just as you accused "feminism" of making. Speak fer yerself, >boyo. Me, I find I'm >perfectly happy partnered with feminists; I >find that I trust women at least as much as I do men; I spent a >summer in high school stumping for the ERA. And I don't have guilt >feelings. Do you claim that ERA was an big issue between men? So tell me who were the men leaders of the movement for ERA... >The Rarely Redundant Net.Roach Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "...the only men who seem to pay any NON-SEXIST lip-service to the IDEAS of women's rights are the men that are trying to sleep with a feminist" -- Cheryl Stewart -- Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, | ARPA: tittle@ics.uci.edu That struts and frets his hour upon the stage | UUCP: ucbvax!ucivax!tittle And then is heard no more. | BITNET: cltittle@uci.bitnet
gazit@lear.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (09/28/89)
In article <1989Sep28.023614.10776@rpi.edu> keith@pawl.rpi.edu (Keith D. Weiner) writes: >would argue that the 2 questions are the same, merely variants. For a >person (man) who has the right to spend his money as he sees fit, and >who is a free man may elect to hire based on some standard which is >prejudiced. As a society we decided to put limits on companies and to force them to compete. The anti-trust law is a prime examples, companies are not allowed to fix prices etc. between them. The original EEO law had a similar effect, it forced a company to compete by hiring the *best* candidate, and the society in large benefited from it. AA has the opposite effect because a company can't hire the best candidate any more. The assumption is that if a company prefers men then it reduces competition in the economy, but if a company prefers women then everyone benefits... Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu When I do it to you it's sexism, when you do it to me it's feminism.
keith@pawl.rpi.edu (Keith D. Weiner) (10/01/89)
>As a society we decided to put limits on companies and force them to
If ever there was a more blatant example of collectivism, I would be hard
pressed to find it. "society"? "we"? "force"? Sounds like the general idea
is that individuals do not have the "right" to live life for themselves,
because they are merely subsets of the collective. That their lives are not
ends in themselves, but means to the ends of the collective. If this
assumption about your argument is not correct, then please explain to me the
word "force" and what ends would justify such means. Your example of the
anti-trust laws is incorrect. Companies may NOT hire the best, because they
must worry about quotas. But similarly, companies did not compete (doesn't
competition mean that all competitors are FREE to act?) and cannot compete
under duress. The anti-trust laws are the most disasterous form of gov't
control and of collectivism that exist in the US so far. But such arguments
abrogate the entire concept of individual rights. To sit here and argue
the "practical" of whether a gun should be used for this or that range-of-the-
moment practical consideration, is to concede that individual rights do not
exist, and that the purpose of the gov't is to do whatever any majority thinks
will benefit it for any immediate moment. Think about the profound difference
between the two.
"An elective tyranny is NOT what we fought this war for." - T Jefferson
scl@uvaarpa.virginia.edu (Steve Losen) (10/06/89)
In article <1989Sep30.185858.22432@rpi.edu> keith@pawl.rpi.edu (Keith D. Weiner) writes: >>As a society we decided to put limits on companies and force them to > >If ever there was a more blatant example of collectivism, I would be hard >pressed to find it. "society"? "we"? "force"? Sounds like the general idea >is that individuals do not have the "right" to live life for themselves, >because they are merely subsets of the collective. That their lives are not >ends in themselves, but means to the ends of the collective. Now let me get this straight: government ==> collective corporation ==> individual And the big, bad government goes around stomping individual freedoms, while poor, defenseless corporations are thwarted in their innocent attempts to make a buck. Bullshit. Corporations are no closer to being individuals than the government. How many 1-person corporations are there? Corporations constantly intrude into the individual freedoms of their employees. Ever had to piss in a bottle or take a polygraph test? How does that sort of policy champion the cause of individual rights? To quote Mr. Weiner: Sounds like the general idea is that individuals do not have the "right" to live life for themselves, because they are merely subsets of the collective. That their lives are not ends in themselves, but means to the ends of the collective. If we just substitute "coal company" for "collective" it sounds exactly like something a striking miner would say. Mr. Weiner obviously prefers corporate-type collectives over government- type collectives. I have no problem with that. But please don't try to justify such personal perferences on the grounds of individual rights. -- Steve Losen scl@virginia.edu University of Virginia Academic Computing Center
bright@Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright) (10/09/89)
In article <945@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> scl@uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU (Stephen C. Losen) writes:
<And the big, bad government goes around stomping individual freedoms,
<while poor, defenseless corporations are thwarted in their innocent
<t sort of policy champion the cause of individual rights?
<Mr. Weiner obviously prefers corporate-type collectives over government-
<type collectives. I have no problem with that. But please don't try to
<justify such personal preferences on the grounds of individual rights.
I'd like to make an important distinction between governments and corporations.
If you work in a corporation, you have the ultimate right to quit. With
the government collective, you can't quit (see China, East Germany).
Corporations don't use physical violence to further their ends, governments
do. I work for a corporation. If they require me to do something I don't
want to, I will quit and they can't do a *thing* about it.
hb@uvaarpa.virginia.edu (Hank Bovis) (10/12/89)
In article <2163@dataio.Data-IO.COM> bright@Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright) writes: >I'd like to make an important distinction between governments and corporations. >If you work in a corporation, you have the ultimate right to quit. With >the government collective, you can't quit (see China, East Germany). Neither the right to quit nor the freedom to choose are absolute. It's all a matter of degrees. (Of freedom, that is. ;-)) *Some* people in East Germany have been able to leave. (In fact, quite a few more than the government would like, it seems.) Likewise in China. It depends on how well connected you are and who your friends are, and in this respect Communist bureaucracy is really very similar to corporate bureaucracy. >Corporations don't use physical violence to further their ends, governments >do. I work for a corporation. If they require me to do something I don't >want to, I will quit and they can't do a *thing* about it. Perhaps you can quit, but if so, it is because your skills are in demand and you have some place else to go. If you worked for a coal company in a company town, you might not have that much freedom. And the same logic applies to potential emigres from Communist countries. The ones who want to leave are the ones whose technical skills are more valued in the West. There are many unskilled laborers in East Germany who are not so anxious to leave. (ABC gave a report on this just last week on World News Tonight.) Hank Bovis (hb@Virginia.EDU, hb@Virginia.BITNET)
ambar@ora.ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz) (10/12/89)
>Corporations don't use physical violence to further their ends, governments >do. To believe that corporations do not use physical violence is to be blind to history. How many murders, batteries, and assaults were carried out directly by corporations during the last half of the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries, right here in the United States? More than I can count. There may indeed be differences between government employers and private ones, but use of violence is not one that reflects favorably on private employers. In fact, I expect that many fewer non-military employees of government (at any level) in the U.S. have faced physical violence than have privatly-employeed members of labor unions. It might also be the case that a worker may not quit a state job in under a totalitarian government, but quitting one's job is hardly a viable option for many workers, even in this "most free" of nations. Consider a coal miner in a town with no industry but coal mining. How realistic is it to say "I'll quit" when the employer know that there is no other job available? How did this wind up in soc.feminism, anyway? -- Ed Gould mt Xinu, 2560 Ninth St., Berkeley, CA 94710 USA ed@mtxinu.COM +1 415 644 0146 "I'll fight them as a woman, not a lady. I'll fight them as an engineer."
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (03/01/91)
In article <49558@ricerca.UUCP> jan@orc.olivetti.com writes: >"Remedying past discrimination" does not mean punishment. Now let's have an exercise in reality. Open any issue of "Communication of the ACM" that you like, and look at the ads from universities in the US. *Every* single one of them mentions that it is "an Affirmative Action Employer." Did all of them discriminate in the past? For how long *every* woman will have this "head start", regardless of her background? Do you think that most feminists have any intention to give up this Holy Pork Barrel? >prejudices and diversify the field of people already at the company and >making the environment into which the new person must fit, there was >still a STRONG tendency to hire more of whatever one already had. Take a look in the engineering departments 30 years ago and today. Instead of "white" departments, you find a large number of asians and immigrants. The best way to get hired is to be *QUALIFIED*, and if white women can't advance as fast as asians and immigrants then maybe affirmative action is just not the right action... P.S. Thank you very much for telling us (men) that discrimination against us "does not mean punishment." Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "...13 of 17 valedictorians in Boston high schools last spring were immigrants or children of immigrants." -- US. News & World Report, May 14, 1990