rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) (10/17/89)
I have two questions for the members of the subgroup who are focusing so exclusively on affirmative action: 1) If you have disagreements in principle with feminism, why not argue on that basis instead of expending all of your energy on a mere tactic? Or, to put it another way, how has it happened that some of you are INSISTING on identifying the complex and multi-faceted movement known as feminism with a minor and contingent bit of tactics known as affirmative action? Searching for an easy target, perhaps? Maybe one of you who are so hung up on this subject could explain to the rest of us why you place this much importance on it. 2) Could one of you, any one at all, suggest some alternatives to a.a.? I've yet to hear a single one offered, amidst all the whining. Feminists have no special attachment to affirmative action (see question (1)). I'm sure it would gladly be dropped the instant someone comes up with anything better. How do YOU propose that we get from our current situation of major gender skew to a different situation of some kind of gender equality? Or could it be that it's the goal of gender equality which disturbs you so much, rather than the means? Or possibly that you don't really believe there's gender inequality now? Let's put cards on the table folks. It's absurd that so much of the time on 'soc.feminism' is being spent on this minor matter. Something else is at work here, and I'd like to know explicitly what it is.
gazit@lear.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (10/18/89)
In article <47014@bbn.COM> rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes: >1) If you have disagreements in principle with feminism, why not argue >on that basis instead of expending all of your energy on a mere tactic? Because what you *DO* is what you are. You can't insist that race/sex will be mentioned in every job application, college admission etc. and be an "equal rights" person. Period. >2) Could one of you, any one at all, suggest some alternatives to a.a.? I suggested to enforce EEO. My idea was that if a manager does not hire the best candidate then he/she should be *personally* fined in the range of $10000. Very few Old-Boys will be willing to pay such a price. A law like this will protect non-minority people (what to do when you have a choice between an asian man and a white woman, and he is better?), so I don't expect that it will have any feminist support. Another idea that was suggested in soc.men is the following: When you have several people with similar qualification, hire the one with the *lowest* current income. If the feminist claim that a woman with the same qualification as a man earns less then a law like this will give the same results as AA. This idea was not very popular between the feminists, I hope that you're smart enough to guess why... Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "There must be a way to raise up Woman without tearing down Man." -- wharf rat
mingus@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Damballah Wedo) (10/19/89)
> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) (in <15799@duke.cs.duke.edu>): > >2) Could one of you, any one at all, suggest some alternatives to a.a.? > > I suggested to enforce EEO. My idea was that if a manager does not hire the > best candidate then he/she should be *personally* fined in the range of $10000. Of course you will provide mechanisms for determining who the best candidate is. These mechanisms should be objective, and should give accurately identify the best candidate close to 100% of the time. You'll also have to describe how this approach solves the issue of an employer not dicriminating in the hiring process, but making no efforts at all to include other than white males in the pool of candidates. > When you have several people with similar qualification, > hire the one with the *lowest* current income. When I took an interviewer's seminar, they told us NEVER to ask what the candidate is currently making, because it is not strictly related to the job being discussed and could therefore open up the company to discrimination suits. They also told us NEVER to ask the age of the dandidate, whether they have children, how they will be getting themselves to work, etc. -- Marcel-Franck Simon mingus@attunix.ATT.COM, attunix!mingus " Papa Loko, ou se' van, ou-a pouse'-n ale' Nou se' papiyon, n'a pote' nouvel bay Agwe' "
rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) (10/19/89)
In article <15799@duke.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes: >In article <47014@bbn.COM> rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes: >>1) If you have disagreements in principle with feminism, why not argue >>on that basis instead of expending all of your energy on a mere tactic? >Because what you *DO* is what you are. You can't insist that >race/sex will be mentioned in every job application, college >admission etc. and be an "equal rights" person. Period. I don't see how this is an answer to my question. I ask why you insist on equating the multi-facted and well-elaborated theory & practice called feminism with a minor tactic which is contingently accepted by *some* feminists (as well as some non-feminists), and you reply by repeating (yet again) that affirmative action is discriminatory. Let me repeat my challenge, since you seem to have missed the point: carry out your arguments with feminism over REAL issues, not by attacking peripheral, incidental targets. We've wasted enough time on affirmative action. Some people (you, for instance) see it as discriminatory; other people (me, for instance) see it as a flawed but acceptable means to an essential end. We've gone round and round on this and gotten nowhere. But what's striking to me is that you just won't let this topic go. I think there's something more at work here, and I'd like to know what it is. >>2) Could one of you, any one at all, suggest some alternatives to a.a.? >I suggested to enforce EEO. My idea was that if a manager does not hire the >best candidate then he/she should be *personally* fined in the range >of $10000. Explain to me how this can possibly be effective in eliminating the (often unintended) sexism which consigns women to lower paying jobs. Explicit, intentional anti-female attitudes by employers are of course abhorrent (though some of the more fervent free marketeers would gladly allow it to continue unabated), and your suggestion might be useful in limiting some (but only some) aspects of this. But what then happens (what's now happening, in fact, since changed attitudes have already eliminated much of this kind of sexism) is this. First, the criteria change. Women are kept out of certain kinds of jobs because, by definition, they can't be "the best". Who, in your scheme, judges which candidate is "the best"? Who decides on the basis for making this determination? And who brings the action against this employer? Is it the victim herself? Is the burden on her? Will she have to spend enormous time and money taking a corporation to court to prove her case? Businesses have (typically) deeper pockets than individuals. The second thing that happens is that another, much more significant aspect of sexism which had been "hidden" now comes to the fore. This is the unconscious attitudes we all have which dictate appropriate and inappropriate behavior based on gender. So long as there's a gender-based division of labor, so long as some jobs are generally held by men and others by women, and so long as women do most of the unpaid work of raising children and "keeping house", there will be sexism in the work place. Jobs done by women will be paid less because employers can get away with offering less. Your scheme does nothing whatsoever about this fundamental discrimination. It's, of course, naive in the extreme to think that our ideas of "masculine" and "feminine" (which include, among many other things, suitable kinds of work) can be changed just by willing it. An effective tool for eliminating workplace discrimination MUST take into account the changing of attitudes. It has to work at the ideological level at least as much as it works at the instrumental level. Obviously this is a difficult problem. One possible way to attack it is through the "role model" idea. Will this work? I don't know. But NO OTHER SUGGESTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE which take this crucial issue into account. None. This really goes back to the first question. Most of what constitutes feminism has been about understanding the processes involved in gender identity and about general principles for combating the discriminatory effects of those identities. By focusing exclusively on the immediate effects of affirmative action (the supposedly "discrinatory" effects), you have completely lost sight of these larger issues (as demonstrated by the utter inadequacy of your suggested approach). What I'm really asking in question (1) is this: is this oversight just an accident? Or is it a sign of a much more fundamental disagreement, not with the specific goals of affirmative action, but with the more basic and general goals and ideas of feminism itself?
mangoe@cs.UMD.EDU (Charley Wingate) (10/20/89)
I only focus on affirmative action because it seems to me to be a relatively
"pure" example. It is unabashedly an attempt to tilt the scales. Of course
it is an easy target, and yet it did not go undefended, did it?
As I have said, I am opposed to this treatment of people as if they were
only classes. Affirmative action is a pure example of this, but it is a
tendency felt throughout feminism. It's the natural result of the
unquestioning acceptance of the language of sociology.
I don't think there is any great mystery here. Mr. Shapiro for one is
evidently aware of the significance of affirmative action as a type of
gender-based action. If there were no real contention here, then such
programs would have been disavowed at the beginning of the discussion,
rather than at the end.
Finally, Mr. Shapiro's demand for alternatives is question-begging. His
demand is only of interest if it can be shown that affirmative action is
effective, AND that we can live with the undesirable side effects. It seems
that these little questions are dispensed with too easily, especially in the
light of considerable evidence that lower class white males are being shat
upon, and persistence of dislocation even where AA prevails.
The beauty of class-based action is that it allows us privileged types to
justfiy our callous dismissal of the problems of the less fortunate. Here,
Mr. Shapiro's feminism is part of a larger pattern of insensitivity among
the privileged-- and oddly justified as sensitivity, of a sort.
--
C. Wingate + "Our God, to whom we turn when weary with illusion,
+ whose stars serenely burn above this earth's confusion,
mangoe@cs.umd.edu + thine is the mightly plan, the steadfast order sure
mimsy!mangoe + in which the world began, endures, and shall endure."geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) (10/20/89)
In article <47127@bbn.COM> Richard Shapiro <rshapiro@BBN.COM> writes: > >This really goes back to the first question. Most of what constitutes >feminism has been about understanding the processes involved in gender >identity and about general principles for combating the discriminatory >effects of those identities. By focusing exclusively on the immediate >effects of affirmative action (the supposedly "discrinatory" effects), >you have completely lost sight of these larger issues (as demonstrated >by the utter inadequacy of your suggested approach). What I'm really >asking in question (1) is this: is this oversight just an accident? Or >is it a sign of a much more fundamental disagreement, not with the >specific goals of affirmative action, but with the more basic and >general goals and ideas of feminism itself? I would be interested in hearing about noncoercive methods of accomplishing the goals of greater justice for women. (By noncoercive, I don't mean failure to prosecute rapists and wife beaters.) I think that while coercive measures such as forced quotas may raise the starting salaries of some (middle class) women, it can not effect truly permanent change in the basic attitudes that make it more difficult for a woman to pursue her legitimate goals in the society (hopefully that is part of what feminism is about). Women do have some very powerful weapons at their disposal. One is their influence on their children. While we can't do much about the "nature" side of the equation (I know you don't believe in that anyhow, Richard), mothers can certainly do a lot about the "nurture" side, with or without the help of the fathers. Since most elementary school teachers are also women, it would seem that the instilling of better attitudes about women in the boys and about themselves in the girls would be an important move that women are in a good postion to effect and men are in a poor position to block. Since I know little about feminism, I would be interested in hearing from you all just what *are* the fundamental principles of feminism. Is it just the liberation of women from male oppressiveness? Or does it include bringing feminine influence and values into the society in a greater proportion, perhaps counteracting some of the more nasty masculine attributes that have run it for so long. I can certainly see where society would benefit from that influence. Am I treading on thin ice in even talking about that? It seems so many people who call themselves feminists reject the notion of masculine and feminine traits at all, preferring to believe that there are no innate behavioral characteristics that are sex related. Of course, I happen to believe otherwise and also that the male influence in society has been often very negative and would like to see more females in positions of leadership and influence. But not if they are merely doppelgangers of the male figures that now are in control.
mike@arizona.edu (Mike Coffin) (10/20/89)
I haven't been active in this discussion, but here are my answers: >From article <47014@bbn.COM>, by rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro): > 1) If you have disagreements in principle with feminism, why not > argue on that basis instead of expending all of your energy on a > mere tactic? I can't speak for others, but my ONLY argument with the complex, multi-faceted movement known as feminism is the support given by so many feminists to affirmative action (including the disgusting idea of "comparable worth"). So if I were to argue with a feminist that is what I would argue about. > 2) Could one of you, any one at all, suggest some alternatives to > a.a.? I've yet to hear a single one offered, amidst all the whining. Enforce anti-discrimination laws and wait for things to change. Many will say, of course, that women have waited long enough. Quite true. However, I haven't seen any evidence that affirmative action speeds the process. In one important context---changing the attitudes of bigoted males---it tends to be counterproductive. Many feminists implicitly offer a false choice: fast change with affirmative action or slow change without it. The real choice is slow change with discrimination or slow change without it. -- Mike Coffin mike@arizona.edu Univ. of Ariz. Dept. of Comp. Sci. {allegra,cmcl2}!arizona!mike Tucson, AZ 85721 (602)621-2858
gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) (10/21/89)
[The machine at our site that handles the netnews posting went down last night as I was trying to send this out. I don't think it got out, but if you see two copies...oh well... --clt] In article <47127@bbn.COM> Richard Shapiro <rshapiro@BBN.COM> writes: >In article <15799@duke.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes: #In article <47014@bbn.COM> rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes: >>>1) If you have disagreements in principle with feminism, why not argue >>>on that basis instead of expending all of your energy on a mere tactic? #Because what you *DO* is what you are. You can't insist that #race/sex will be mentioned in every job application, college #admission etc. and be an "equal rights" person. Period. >I don't see how this is an answer to my question. IMO what you say, intentions, etc. are not important. If you want to argue that feminism is not "just AA" then try to present some of its *actions*, preferably actions in the Eighties. If you can't find any actions that represent the theory of feminism as *you* see it then start to check your assumptions... >I ask why you insist >on equating the multi-facted and well-elaborated theory & practice >called feminism with a minor tactic which is contingently accepted by >*some* feminists (as well as some non-feminists), I'm interested to know what is you definition of "*some*". Can you quote well known feminists and/or major feminist organizations that object to AA? If not, why not? >and you reply by >repeating (yet again) that affirmative action is discriminatory. Let >me repeat my challenge, since you seem to have missed the point: carry >out your arguments with feminism over REAL issues, What the feminist movement does is *the* real issue. Do you think that facts are not relevant? >this and gotten nowhere. But what's striking to me is that you just >won't let this topic go. I think there's something more at work here, >and I'd like to know what it is. \begin{sarcasm} What the feminist movement does is not a REAL issue, but my intentions are... \end{sarcasm} #I suggested to enforce EEO. My idea was that if a manager does not hire the #best candidate then he/she should be *personally* fined in the range #of $10000. >Explain to me how this can possibly be effective in eliminating the >(often unintended) sexism which consigns women to lower paying jobs. If you will ask around you would discover that even the weak EEO from 1964 had a lot of influence. The Old-Boys are not fighters but manipulators. When the risk is too high they are willing to give up. >Who, in your scheme, judges which candidate is "the best"? Let the company decide, and let them have the risk that someone will take them to the court. After someone will lose a case the rest will be very careful. >And who brings the action against this employer? I'm for government support in clear cases. I know the problem with this method (elder workers in Xerox were fired in illegal way and the head of the EEO committee explained that she did not see any public interest in helping them), but AA has the same problem, just worse... >The second thing that happens is that another, much more significant >aspect of sexism which had been "hidden" now comes to the fore. This When you accept less qualified women via AA, does it improve the image of women? >is a difficult problem. One possible way to attack it is through the >"role model" idea. Will this work? I don't know. But NO OTHER >SUGGESTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE which take this crucial issue into account. >None. \begin{sarcasm} I have a great idea how to produce gold. It's true that it's not perfect but NO OTHER SUGGESTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE. Do you want to invest some of *your* money in it? \end{sarcasm} >asking in question (1) is this: is this oversight just an accident? Or No, I want to see what feminists do when they discover that their movement supports discrimination. I want to check if they really care about equal rights or just say they are. I don't care about the theory, I want to see how they solve a problem in *practice*. The feminists on the net have interesting responses. The feminists shout "60 cents!" no matter if it is relevant or not, but you ignored my suggestion to AA by income level. The feminists shout "the education system!", but you ignored my question why NOW does not push for better quality control on teachers. My conclusion is that you don't want to talk, you want to sell. You ignore the "irrelevant" facts and try to sell the theory. >is it a sign of a much more fundamental disagreement, not with the >specific goals of affirmative action, but with the more basic and >general goals and ideas of feminism itself? What I care is what goals do the actions of the feminists serve. Do you have anything to say about that? Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "In her ground-breaking new book, "The Demon Lover: On the Sexuality of Terrorism," Robin Morgan advances an analysis of terrorism in which the soldier (the State's hero) and the terrorist (the Revolution's hero) are mirror-image expressions of male nature, not human nature. A feminist writer who was once involved in small, pre-Weathermen, "armed propaganda" groups, Morgan opens a window of thought and action that lets us move out of a male-centered politics of Thanatos - the romance of death - into a feminist politics of Eros, a loving life force." --- Ms. magazine, March 1989
trent@unix.sri.COM (Ray Trent) (10/21/89)
In the referenced article, Richard Shapiro <rshapiro@BBN.COM> writes: >this determination? And who brings the action against this employer? >Is it the victim herself? Is the burden on her? Will she have to spend Should the burden be on the corporation (which, more often than not, is a small business)? Would you prefer we judge the defendant as guilty before they are proven so? Where does the burden of proof lie? >is a difficult problem. One possible way to attack it is through the >"role model" idea. Will this work? I don't know. But NO OTHER >SUGGESTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE which take this crucial issue into account. AA does nothing to change this. Period. In fact, the very perception that women "need" AA is itself a powerful force fighting the otherwise growing tide of popular wisdom that women and men can compete equally in the job market. And additionally: why do you claim that enforcing the idea that discrimination on the basis of gender is inappropriate behavior (through the suggested enforcement of EEO laws) can possibly do anything but make people believe that gender discrimination is wrong? How can you possibly conclude that enforced gender discrimination can do anything but make gender discrimination *more* accepted in people's minds? -- "When you're down, it's a long way up When you're up, it's a long way down It's all the same thing And it's no new tale to tell" ../ray\..
gazit@lear.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (10/21/89)
In article <2357@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> (Damballah Wedo) writes: >Of course you will provide mechanisms for determining who the best candidate >is. These mechanisms should be objective, and should give accurately identify >the best candidate close to 100% of the time. My idea is that after someone will be punished the rest will be careful. Think about the woman that was accepted to partnership via the Court. Don't you think that a large fine *on the partners* could cause other partnerships to be careful? >You'll also have to describe how this approach solves the issue of an >employer not dicriminating in the hiring process, but making no efforts at >all to include other than white males in the pool of candidates. Force them to publish the job. BTW a policy like this may help asians and other non-Old-Boys... >When I took an interviewer's seminar, they told us NEVER to ask what the >candidate is currently making, because it is not strictly related to the >job being discussed and could therefore open up the company to discrimination To ask every candidate by mail about his sex/race is OK, but asking about salary is discriminatory... Thanks for providing a prime example of a feminist double standard... >Marcel-Franck Simon mingus@attunix.ATT.COM, attunix!mingus Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "When I do it to you it's sexism, when you do it to me it's feminism..."
rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) (10/22/89)
In article <8910192058.AA01304@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu> geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes: >I would be interested in hearing about noncoercive methods of >accomplishing the goals of greater justice for women. So would I. Unfortunately no one (on soc.feminism) has any to offer. I suggest we consider the possibility that there may not BE any. What, after all, are we asking for (those of us who support gender equality)? We're asking that a certain privileged group GIVE UP their privileges. Is it likely that this will happen voluntarily or even non-coercively? The situation in South Africa is worth considering in this context. People don't give up privilege without a fight. > I think that while coercive measures such as forced quotas >may raise the starting salaries of some (middle class) women, it can >not effect truly permanent change in the basic attitudes that make it >more difficult for a woman to pursue her legitimate goals in the >society (hopefully that is part of what feminism is about). I think this misunderstands the intention of affirmative action. That a few individuals are helped here and now is really only a side effect. The real importance is in changing gender-based role models -- the meaning of 'male' and 'female' for future generations is what's at stake here, not the immediate effects on a handful of individuals. In this sense, affirmative action works fairly well, certainly better than any other course of action I've ever seen offered. It works explicitly for "truly permanent change" as opposed to short term immediate change (i.e. the opposite of what you suggest) by focusing on (implicit) attitudes rather than behaviors. Thus one supposed objection to affirmative action, that it treats classes rather than individuals, can be seen to be, in fact, a point in its favor. The other supposed objection, that it's coercive and discriminatory, has been explained above. I'm not sure what objections this leaves, except that it's not perfect. That one stands. >Women do >have some very powerful weapons at their disposal. One is their >influence on their children. Consider what you're suggesting for a minute. At the same time that the child is being "influenced" by its mother, it's also forming the implicit belief that "woman" = "mother". I would contend that the maternalization of women is one of the most significant factors underlying sexism. In the immediate context of the work place and gender-based division of labor, what you really wind up teaching the child is that mommies are the (unpaid) caretakers of home and family, and it's this which makes workplace discrimination possible (at least its one of the big factors). This "powerful weapon" is two sided. I think you really need to abandon the idea of direct, explicit transmission of "attitudes". What we're talking about here is part of the very formation of individuals as gendered subjects. It happens at a much more basic level than direct discourse. >Since I know little about feminism, I would be interested in hearing >from you all just what *are* the fundamental principles of feminism. >Is it just the liberation of women from male oppressiveness? Or does >it include bringing feminine influence and values into the society Aargh, not "feminine influence".... Of course everybody has their own ideas about the fundamental principles. For me, feminism is about *understanding* gender (first and foremost, understanding that it's different from "sex"), with the ultimate goal of reorganizing our system of gender into one which does not put women at a disadvantage. > It seems so many people who call >themselves feminists reject the notion of masculine and feminine >traits at all, preferring to believe that there are no innate >behavioral characteristics that are sex related. Not exactly. What some of us believe is that masculine and feminine traits are culturally determined -- social, not natural. I'm not sure anyone rejects the masculine/feminine ordering in general; they reject the specific one we live with, the one in which the masculine has an advantage. As Luce Irigaray demonstrates in her book "Speculum of the Other Woman", our ordering of male/female is seriously warped -- it's really male/not-male, the feminine having been completely absorbed into the non-masculine. We need *new* ideas of masculine & feminine.
scl@sasha.acc.Virginia.EDU (Steve Losen) (10/23/89)
> > When you have several people with similar qualification, > > hire the one with the *lowest* current income. Since women's salaries are lower on average, wouldn't this be a form of AA for women? :-) > When I took an interviewer's seminar, they told us NEVER to ask what the > candidate is currently making, because it is not strictly related to the > job being discussed and could therefore open up the company to discrimination > suits. They also told us NEVER to ask the age of the dandidate, whether > they have children, how they will be getting themselves to work, etc. > Marcel-Franck Simon mingus@attunix.ATT.COM, attunix!mingus Non-disclosure of current salary is an excellent idea, but is probably not the "real world" rule. Prospective employers use this all the time, and sometimes it backfires. I have a female friend who was the director of a large department. Her assistant director resigned and the personnel dept. hired a male replacement. Within a few days my friend discovered that her new subordinate was making about 5k more than she was. She asked the personnel dept why, and they said that they had to at least match the man's former salary. Naturally my friend demanded a raise of at least 5k. After all, if they were willing to pay the new man 5k more than her, she must be grossly underpaid, considering her years of experience and her higher position. They refused, pointing out that the man was married, had kids in college, etc., while my friend was single with no dependents. Naturally, she quit. The man became the new director. He quit within two weeks, because he was trying to do the work of two people and learn the ropes at the same time. This left personnel with the onerous task of filling the two top positions in a large dept. Another female friend of mine got a new job for a company that needed people for a new project. They had two positions available, one of which required more technical experience and paid about 10k more. My friend got the lower position and a man got the higher position. It soon became apparent to my friend that the man was less proficient in the project area, as she often ended up doing more of the work. Through the grapevine she found out that when filling the two positions, the company looked over all the applications and picked the best two. Since my friend's previous salary was considerably less than the man's, they naturally offered the better position to the man. When my friend made it known that she was actively seeking new employment she quickly got promoted. I'm sure it has escaped no one's notice how salary history can perpetuate the gender gap in salaries. From what I've seen, if a prospective employer ever asks a woman her present salary, she would be a fool to not jack it up by at least 10k. Steve Losen scl@virginia.edu University of Virginia Academic Computing Center
gazit@lear.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (10/24/89)
# When you have several people with similar qualification, # hire the one with the *lowest* current income. [Hillel Gazit] In article <1191@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> scl@sasha.acc.Virginia.EDU (Steve Losen) writes: >Since women's salaries are lower on average, wouldn't this be a form of >AA for women? :-) If you accept the feminist claims that most women earn less than a man with the same qualification then the above offer should be ideal for them. A non-sexist AA that gives them all the AA advantages without to carry any blame for being sexist. For some reason feminists (at least on the net) don't like the idea. Can you guess why? >I'm sure it has escaped no one's notice how salary history can >perpetuate the gender gap in salaries. The statistics that I posted to soc.men (source U.S. News) show that the *percentage* gap in the top professions (doctors, lawyer) goes *up*. Try to explain how that happened in ten years of heavy AA. Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over."
kja@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (krista.j.anderson) (10/25/89)
<> In article <8910200306.AA17402@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) writes: > #I suggested to enforce EEO. My idea was that if a manager does not hire the > #best candidate then he/she should be *personally* fined in the range > #of $10000. As a matter of fact, my company was fined for violating EEO. No one was personally fined because so many people were to blame, it was hard to point out anyone in particular. The method of enforcing EEO ever since has been via Affirmative Action programs. Fining people or companies only punishes violations of EEO. To enforce EEO, the existing problems must be corrected. It takes specified actions to correct the problems. If companies could just pay a few grand in order to avoid hiring people they don't know how to deal with, they probably would. > When you accept less qualified women via AA, > does it improve the image of women? /* sarcasm on Well, thank-you very much for the vote of confidence in my qualifications. This is an example of the typical sexually harrassing comments that make my work day so enjoyable. The white males give me the privilege of working along side them, and all I have to do is hang in there when they are trying their best to undermine my confidence on which my performance depends by trying to make me feel unwelcome, non-belonging, less qualified, more stupid, less competent and less experienced. sarcasm off */ This is typical of the 80s style of rhetoric where image is more important than substance. The white male with the big mouth who is still in college acts as if his observations are superior to the quiet woman who has had over 12 years of job experience. I know I need AA and it's still not enough sometimes. But Hillel claims I don't need AA. In fact, he doesn't even think I should have been hired because, being a woman, I am obviously unqualified for my job. Yes, I was hired with observance of AA programs, most women in my company were. Does that forever label me as less qualified? What about the few women who were hired before AA, who had MS degrees, but were placed in a lower echelon than men with MS degrees? Did they not deserve to be moved into the MS echelon when AA programs were adopted? Well, I apologize to all those folks who need AA that I can't spend more time defending it against people who assume that women have inferior qualifications. But I've got a job to do and a family to support and sexual harrassment to deal with in addition my chosen responsibilities. -- Krista A.
@multimax.UUCP@EDDIE.MIT.EDU (jdarcy) (10/25/89)
gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit): > When you accept less qualified women via AA, > does it improve the image of women? kja@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (krista.j.anderson): > Well, thank-you very much for the vote of confidence in my > qualifications. This is an example of the typical sexually harrassing > comments that make my work day so enjoyable. The white males give me > [...] > and it's still not enough sometimes. But Hillel claims I don't need > AA. In fact, he doesn't even think I should have been hired because, > being a woman, I am obviously unqualified for my job. Yes, I was > [etc.] Hillel made no claims about any particular individual's qualifications. What he was saying (as I read it) was that *if* a less qualified woman is hired to satisfy AA requirements, *then* it does nothing to improve perceptions of women in the workplace. Jeff d'Arcy jdarcy@encore.com "Quack!" Encore has provided the medium, but the message remains my own
gazit@lear.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (10/25/89)
In article <2529@cbnewsd.ATT.COM>kja@cbnewsd.ATT.COM(krista.j.anderson) writes: >If companies could just pay a few grand in order to avoid hiring >people they don't know how to deal with, they probably would. Yup, that's why I suggested *personal* fine. Besides, what would happen if companies could feel up a quota of women && minorities and then to continue to run the upper management as they like, without any fear for EEO committees? # When you accept less qualified women via AA, # does it improve the image of women? >This is typical of the 80s style of rhetoric where image is more >important than substance. 1) Please go back and check who started to talk about image (it was not me). 2) Do you claim that there are no cases like this? 3) If companies don't accept less qualified women via AA, why do you fight so hard to keep AA? >But Hillel claims I don't need AA. Please bring a quote. I've claimed that AA helps women which are now in the job market in the expense of non-Old-Boys men. Do you agree or disagree with this claim? >In fact, he doesn't even think I should have been hired because, >being a woman, I am obviously unqualified for my job. Please bring a quote. >Well, I apologize to all those folks who need AA that I can't spend >more time defending it against people who assume that women have >inferior qualifications. Please bring quote. Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "There must be a way to raise up Woman without tearing down Man." -- wharf rat
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) (10/26/89)
In article <47228@bbn.COM> rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes: > > >In article <8910192058.AA01304@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu> geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes: >>I would be interested in hearing about noncoercive methods of >>accomplishing the goals of greater justice for women. > >So would I. Unfortunately no one (on soc.feminism) has any to offer. I >suggest we consider the possibility that there may not BE any. What, Actually, I think you would be hard put to demonstrate that the gains women have made in the past 10 years have been significantly helped by coercive measures such as affirmative action. What has changed is the perception women have of themselves and their social interactions with men and each other and the perception men have of women's roles and rights. The most effective measures have been educational and have been by women and directed at other women. The coercive measures you speak of are largely instituted by men and directed at other men. You can also look at the feminist movement in other countries, very few of which have any sort of affirmative action. While I grant that the US is ahead of most other nations (developed or not) in feminist development, there are certainly examples where it is not. >after all, are we asking for (those of us who support gender >equality)? We're asking that a certain privileged group GIVE UP >their privileges. Is it likely that this will happen voluntarily or >even non-coercively? The situation in South Africa is worth >considering in this context. People don't give up privilege without a >fight. Not true. There are always some people in a society who will fight, but I don't think this is true of the majority, at least not always. If people become convinced of the injustice of a situation, and the moral power of the other side, they will cease fighting. I think the example of Gandhi in India will serve here, as well as MLKing in the US. I think South Africa is moving in this direction as well, and will not end with a violent revolution. >I think this misunderstands the intention of affirmative action. That >a few individuals are helped here and now is really only a side >effect. The real importance is in changing gender-based role models -- >the meaning of 'male' and 'female' for future generations is what's at >stake here, not the immediate effects on a handful of individuals. In That is happening anyhow, with or without AA. All that is needed for that is for a significant number of talented women to strive for a goal. In a society such as ours, it is impossible to stop a large number of them from achieving their goals, regardless of a desire to discriminate. They might be hindered, but they won't be stopped.
sammy@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (Sammy) (10/28/89)
In article <10195@encore.Encore.COM>, @multimax.UUCP@EDDIE.MIT.EDU (jdarcy) writes: > gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit): : When you accept less qualified women via AA, : does it improve the image of women? :: :: kja@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (krista.j.anderson): :: Well, thank-you very much for the vote of confidence in my :: qualifications. :: [...] :: But Hillel claims I don't need AA. In fact, he doesn't :: even think I should have been hired because, :: being a woman, I am obviously unqualified for my job. : : Hillel made no claims about any particular individual's qualifications. What : he was saying (as I read it) was that *if* a less qualified woman is hired : to satisfy AA requirements, *then* it does nothing to improve perceptions of : women in the workplace. : And if a less qualified man is hired, it does nothing to change perceptions of women in the workplace. Sorry, but it is my observation that many more less qualified men are hired and promoted in the workplace than women, in fact very frequently over more qualified women. The women I do see being hired and being promoted are in general much more qualified than many of the men. While Hillel did make no claims about any particular individual's qualifications, he did imply that because of AA, less qualified women were being hired. It also comes close to sounding as though he meant that due to AA, women, who are less qualified, are being hired. I know that Hillel did not say this. I don't know that he didn't mean it. I do know that this type of remark is not only untrue in most cases, but is very damaging to women.