Conference quark::mennotes

Is this just now hitting Canada?  It started in the US in the 70s.

				Steve

    What is a francophone?
    
    A French-Canadian???
    
    Lorna
    

French-speaking Canadian, I think.  Probably akin to the "Spanish-surnamed"
category we have in the US.

					Steve

    I thought francophone was a generic term for "French speaker".  -phone
    is a suffix usually used to mean a native speaker (anglophone,
    russophone, etc.), but I believe that the strict definition doesn't
    require this.  So, technically speaking, one could put themselves in 
    this category by learning French.
    
    	Sharon
    

    We have had minority goals for years.  
    
    The reverse descrimination is beginning to become more obvious.
    
    Anglophone - English speaking
    Anglais - English speaking
    
    Francophone - French speaking
    Francais - French speaking
    
    I hits home because my neighbours son has studied for years
    criminology, has taken courses to increase his chances, then to be
    told, sorry, your top of the class but your white.
    
    In a positive note, think of the frustration minorities have felt for
    decades, perhaps we now have a clearer understanding.
    
      

    
     Well, at least now a white male can apply, but get hired ? 
    
    If they're looking to reach quota goals, allowing white male applicants
    to apply is just a formality.
    
    

    
    
    > now a white male can apply
    
     Yep, just like a white male could have applied for the current
    position occupied by Janet Reno. Were going to hell in a politically
    correct hand basket, and no I am not saying minorities are the reason
    why.
    
    David 

    Any systematic survey of how and why people are hired shows that the
    descrimination in favor of white males persists, individual examples to
    the contrary not withstanding.
    
    Kit

    Descrimination hurts no matter who you are!  Maybe that is the message
    in all this.  
    
    Females and minorities have felt the bite of it for years when trying
    to get good paying jobs for which they are well qualified but the wrong
    sex and color.  This discrimination has kept single famales and minorities
    in the low income bracket for generations, unable to enjoy the same life
    style as white males can afford. 
    
    White Males feel the bite of intense descrimination in the divorce
    courts with property, child custody, child support and alimony
    descrimination.  A totally one sided attempt at redistribution of
    wealth that has swung to the point of being a no win situation which in
    effect leaves men with no life after divorce.   
    
    Somewhere this all has to end!
    
    Egads, the things we do to each other in the name of gaining advantage!
                                    

>    Females and minorities have felt the bite of it for years when trying
>    to get good paying jobs for which they are well qualified but the wrong
>    sex and color.  

So, are you saying that non-white women have felt this 'bite' while non-white
males have not?  

>This discrimination has kept single famales and minorities

Curiously, why did this get added?  Are married females not included?  

>    in the low income bracket for generations, unable to enjoy the same life
>    style as white males can afford. 

This sure makes it sound like there are no males in the low income bracket.
It also makes it sound like there are no females in non-low income areas.

I suppose all those white males slinging burgers are making large incomes?

    
    
    > shows that descrimination of favor of white males exists
    
      ... oh but of course it had to be discrimination. It couldn't have
    been a superior education that was made possible by the blood, sweat, and
    tears of our forefathers and mothers. It just has to be discrimination
    cuz after all if it ain't then your whole theory is shot.....
    
    David

    re .11, you think white males are more familiar with blood, sweat and
    tears than anybody else? 
    
    I don't think so.  I'd go with the discrimination theory myself.
    
    Lorna
    

        re .12

  
>    re .11, you think white males are more familiar with blood, sweat and
>    tears than anybody else? 
>    
>    I don't think so.  I'd go with the discrimination theory myself.

    We may well have, however, more experience in gaining our
    accomplishments via blood, sweat, and tears rather than by some
    government mandate/quota.  To succeed against other white males
    if nothing else.  And to succeed *in spite of* open and blatant
    discrimination against us.

    This is the crime of many liberal leaders.  They have convinced their
    constituents that they cannot succeed without _their_ divine 
    intervention and government mandates.  

    fred();

    re .13, yeah, I think that's what they meant by the white man's burden.
    

    
    re .14

    >    re .13, yeah, I think that's what they meant by the white man's burden.

    A burden that, even our most ardent opponents have to admit, has been
    born quite well.  

    fred();

    not that it has a thing to do with the topic, but "white man's 
    burden" has most often been used to characterize imperialism; 
    bringing western civilization to the natives and all that rot.
    Bearing that burden well means accepting responsibility for all
    the wrongs as well as the successes of the colonial period, Fred.
    Considering how poorly most former colonies are doing today, I 
    myself don't think that burden was carried off well at all.
    
    DougO

        re.  16

    I knew that.  I was just going by her definition because I didn't
    want to get into a long explanation of what "White Man's Burden"
    really was.  But since you brought it up, "White Man's Burden" was
    to be the caretaker of the "lower classes" in civilization, education,
    provision, etc.  It was used as an excuse for Imperialism and
    exploitation of those who were supposedly being taken care of.
    I don't recall many white women who were benefiting from the 
    arrangement griping very hard about it either.  However, *I* had
    nothing to do with any of it, therefore I take no responsibility
    for any of it.

    While we're at it "Manifest Destiny" was that North America
    (the U.S. part anyway) would be dominated by White men, "From
    Sea to Sea".

    As for "White Man's Burden",  if we were indeed the Tyrants
    that most of the PC crowd tries to make us out to be, then it's
    not likely that we'd have many of the "reforms" that we have 
    today.  So in that since, "White Man's Burden" has indeed been
    fulfilled.  

    fred();

    re: .16
>    Considering how poorly most former colonies are doing today, I 
>    myself don't think that burden was carried off well at all.
    
    	I know the U.S. has problems at the moment, but some other colonies
    such as Hong Kong, Singapore, ... seem to be doing fairly well. I don't
    think you can blame all of the U.S. problems on the colonists.

    .5 "then to be told, sorry you're white". 
    What a pathetically stupid form of discrimination. What kind of a fool
    would not want to hire the most intelligent applicant? Thanks to all
    those federal mandates in the U.S. we have lots of marginal performers
    in all kinds of state/federal jobs. The point was made also of changing
    the strength requirements to allow women to qualify for positions in
    fire departments. Hope that some day one of those who implemented such
    policy double-standards have to rely on some tiny 105 lb. woman to give
    them a firemen's carry down two flights of stairs. The strength 
    requirements were created for a reason - simply the circumstances 
    that come  with the job. You bet it's discriminatory. It discriminates
    between those who can meet the requirements and those who can't. The
    military did the same thing with physical tests. Perhaps the new motto
    should  be "We have our standards but will compromise them in every
    way for political expediency". Some are more equal than others in the
    "equal rights" movement. Quota hiring sucks.

    Imagine someone life depending upon the consept that they might not
    make it out of a burn building because someone is incapable of
    carry-ing you out..... as a 105lps woman carry-ing a 200lbs plus down
    the stairs, maybe several flights, or to the window..... sorry he was
    too heavey. Sides he was another useless white guy.:)
     

    
    LORNA,
    
    > I don't think so. I'd go with the discrimination theory myself
    
    .....oh what a surprise that was
    
    > you think white males are more familiar
    
     I said nothing about familiar in my previous note. Merely stated that
    we earned what we have, we did not whine for it, we earned. Can you
    imagine the early immigrants getting off the boat and the first thing
    they do is check in with the EEO coordinator? Hell no, they took their
    lumps and foought on..
    
    David 

    
    
    > I think that's what they meant by the white man's burden
    
     Hey Lorna, for every succesful white male there was a white female
    by his side. Guess that makes you our accomplice, or were you forced
    against your will ( wink)
    
    David

    
    Clark,
    
     Ditto. I was a fireman in the USAF. Tell me about carying the
    burden.. They had a much lower standard to meet. Some were good
    firemen (oops, I meant fire person). Most were inferior and knew
    it..
    
    David

    
    
    > besides he was anothe worthless white
    
      Ahh come one it's not that bad, it ain't like you can hit them in the
    head with a brick and get away with it..
    
    David

    .24 "...it ain't like you can hit them in the head with a brick.."
    You can if you live in L.A. It is one of your rights if living there.
    It is also okay to burn down any store owned by an oriental and the
    inalienable right to loot anything you want as you are poor and should
    be living the lifestyle of the rich people. There. Hope that clears it
    up for you.
    
    The big joke was sending in the National Guard. "Okay, men. Here's your
    empty rifles now get out there and stop those looters but do NOT, I 
    repeat, do NOT hurt anyone looting or burning down a store because you
    could get in big trouble and it would make the Guard look like a bunch
    of meanies".
    
    There was a recent article (think it was American Rifleman) about this.
    Group of Natl. Guard troops pulled up to a looting, hopped to it and
    brandished their empty rifles around. Some gang members pulled loaded
    Uzi's on them and told the Guard to get out of their face. Which they
    did. The guard was just lucky that the gang members had better weapons
    and did not have any use for a bunch of M-16's or I am sure the gang
    would have stolen the weapons. If this had happened you just know the
    Guard members would have had to pay for losing their weapons. Then
    again, maybe not. Something like that in the papers would make the
    Guard look relatively useless in such situations.  And we know that
    isn't true. Doesn't say much for their commanders either since they
    are more than willing to put soldiers under  their command into life
    threatening situations with unloaded weapons and no clear power to 
    shoot looters/arsonists. Bet that would put a dent in the looting and
    burning. Want to bet the Koreans are going to sit by next time and
    watch their stores be burned?

    A political cartoon Sunday.
    
    A native American Indian woman in a wheel chair looking at a jobs board
    with a white male standing beside her.  The job board states, 'no white
    males need apply'.  The man turns to the woman and says 'Boy, are you
    ever lucky!'
    
    I think white males have taken a severe beating lately to a point of
    stereo-typing not only with regards to job descrimination but child
    abuse and wife assault.  The actions of a few are weighting too heavy
    on the majority.
    

    re .26, too bad you can't do some time as a Native American woman in a
    wheelchair then, considering how lucky she was.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .27
    
    I think that was the point--considering being a Native American woman
    in a wheelchair "lucky".
    
    fred();

    re .28, no that's not the point.  She isn't lucky.  The point is how
    preposterous it is that some white men would think she is lucky.
    
    How many of you white men who work at Digital would be willing to trade
    places?
    
    Lorna
    

    As of a matter of fact, *any* able bodied person who would make a joke
    about wanting to trade places with someone confined to a wheelchair
    doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.  Maybe you think it's
    funny for someone not to be able to run, dance, have sex, or climb the
    stairs to get into inaccessible buildings, but I don't.
    
    It might be time for some of you able bodied white men to appreciate
    what you've got, and stop whining just because various minorities would
    like a fair chance at the goods.
    
    Lorna
    

Um, I think the author of the cartoon was using sarcasm to make a point.
I'm not quite so sure that KAOOA::SLADE got the point.

				Steve

    RE .31
    
    One things for sure. VAXWRK::STHILARIE hasn't gotten the point yet.
    
    fred();

    I think I got the point of the cartoon.
    
    A person who has had more descrimination and barriers than most of us
    could even imagine is given a chance and some dolt that has had 
    everything thinks she is 'lucky'.
    
    But the whole point is, you can't descrinimate against one group to
    benefit another and call it fair.  Fair is when all are treated equal
    no matter what race, creed, color, handicap, sex or other.  Setting
    quotas to me is not the answer. 
    

I suppose the thought process is along these lines.

Let's say two contestants were competing in a foot race.  One of the 
contestants is forced to wear a ball and chain, making it rather difficult
for them to run.  The race starts, but as the other contestant is about
10 feet from the finish line, the judges remove the ball and chain from
the first and say "ok, it's fair now!"  Is it, really?

The hard part to swallow for "white males" (and I'm whiter than most) is
that simply eliminating barriers does not in itself result in fairness,
at least not in the forseeable future.  The type of discrimination which has
been practiced in the past is pervasive in our society, and the physical
laws of momentum apply here too.  The idea seems to be that by giving
the formerly disadvantaged groups a "leg up" and filling the work force
with more of their members, that equal access will become a natural
reality much sooner than it would otherwise.  And quick results are always
preferred.  This is, of course, no comfort to the white male who is out
of work and can't get hired because he's not a member of one of the
in-vogue "minorities".  In essence, this is the "quota" issue.

I'm not in favor of quotas.  But I understand that it's a stick that works
and which satisfies most of the various pressure groups (though there's
a subset which doesn't like the idea that their hiring is not based on
ability but on skin color, etc.), and that keeps the government happy.

I don't have a better solution to offer.

				Steve

.0> In short, white anglo males need not apply!
    
    Discriminating against white males is not uncommon these days, all
    in the name of some higher societal goal, of course.
    
    Some people never learn ... slavery was justified the same way, some
    200 years ago, as beneficial to society as a whole.

   � you can hit them in the head with a brick and get away with it..
    
    
    Or drag a driver from his car and club him sence-less. ;]
    They can make us sleep in cars, go to wars, and become fincial
    slaves/walking wallets. They can also drag us by the heal thru streets
    naked. Imagine the fuss if that would have been a different gender that
    that happed to. That city would be leveled to ground zero.

    So what is the point some of you are trying to make?  Is it that all
    females weigh 105 lbs and are mentally inferior?????  Ridiculous,
    thats comparing apples and oranges.  It happens that there are
    women who are not only as large boned and tall, and as stong (if they 
    work out) as average men, but there is also a very large number who are 
    as smart (or smarter), and that would pass all the same qualifications
    as any white male for most any job.  
    
    How come you feel the need to compare average men with l05 lb.
    women?  An average adult women is normally much larger then that, 
    and if she works out regularly is just as strong as her male
    counterpart.  Don't appear ridiculous by making silly comparisons.
    
    The real problem is that all things considered equal, in the past
    regardless of the physical strength or mental ability of the female
    or minority, they were most often overlooked in favor of white males.  
    This goes for jobs that didn't even require brute strength, only required 
    brains.
    
    Don't try to convinice anyone that white males got everything because 
    they were the only ones that worked for it, thats ridiculous 
    and you know it!  To even suggest such a thing is indicative of someone 
    who isn't very well grounded in reality.
    
    Discrimination is lousy no matter who the victims are, men, women, 
    or minorities.  It hurts!
    
    Quote:
    
    "Real Equality is going to come not when a female Einstein is recognized
    as quickly as a male Einstein, but when a female schlemiel is promoted
    as quickly as a male schlemiel."
         

        reply .37

>    Quote:
>    
>    "Real Equality is going to come not when a female Einstein is recognized
>    as quickly as a male Einstein, but when a female schlemiel is promoted
>    as quickly as a male schlemiel."

    The point of .0 is that the female schlemiel (a derogatory and racist
    term BTW) will be promoted _first_.  Which, by your own definition
    ("as quickly as"), is _not_ equality.

    Here's to hoping that none of us ever have to be dragged from a burning
    building by, or lead into battle by, or receive surgery from someone
    who have their job to fill a quota, not because they are the best
    person to fill that job.

    fred();

Schlemiel is racist?  How so?

    Prehaps not racist -- it might be considered anti-semitic.
    
    					andrew

    re .37, I agree (although I'm not sure that the average female who
    works out is as strong as the average male, in fact I have to say I
    would tend to doubt that).  However, I agree with the rest of what you
    have to say, including the quote at the bottom which is one of my
    favorites.
    
    Lorna
    

The word "schlemiel" is indeed Yiddish, but (to paraphrase the Levy's rye bread
ads) you don't have to be Jewish to be a schlemiel.

    re .42, but it helps to be a white male if you want to be a *well paid*
    schlemiel!!!  ha-ha-ha   :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    
    re .43
    
>    re .42, but it helps to be a white male if you want to be a *well paid*
>    schlemiel!!!  ha-ha-ha   :-)
    
    It helps even more to be d**n good at what you do.  Or better yet
    a better than mediocer non-white-male. 
    
    fred();    

    re .44, no, it helps even more to be a *white* male and be damn good at
    what you do.  Just ask Bob Palmer and most of the other top managers in
    the company.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    your qualifications to evaluate Mr Palmer are .. ?

    
>    what you do.  Just ask Bob Palmer and most of the other top managers in
>    the company.
>    
>    Lorna
    
    The SLT (senior leadership team) is up to something like 5 women out of
    15 at this point.  A big increase under Palmer.  And probably a pretty
    good reflection of the % of women in the 45-60 age group with the
    appropriate experience.  IMO that comment was a very inappropriate
    arrow thown in Palmer's direction.
    
    Greg
    

        re lorna

    This is a case where quotas may well hurt a well qualified person from
    a minority.  Upper levels of management is somewhere that a company
    simply cannot afford to have non-qualified people just to fill some
    quota.  Given some of the disasters at lower levels that I've seen (and
    most likely so have upper level management) I can see where they would
    be  reluctant to play Roulette with minorities at upper levels.  There
    is much more pressure to go with what their comfortable with.

    Digital is one company that has made an effort to seek out _qualified_
    minorities as .47 states.  But I have this sneaky feeling that there
    are some people who will continue to scream "discrimination" unless
    and until they personally are made President of GM.

    fred();

    re .47, I think you misunderstood my reply, or perhaps I didn't make
    myself clear, or perhaps you were so sure of what you *thought* I would
    say that you didn't read what I actually said.
    
    I said that it helps most to be a white male and be damn good at what
    you do.  Then, I said just ask Bob Palmer.  Why is that an arrow in his
    direction?  I am assuming that he is indeed damn good at what he does
    since he got to be the president of a major company.  I don't see how
    this is a slur of any kind.  He's obviously a white male (dresses nice,
    too - not bad looking for his age if I do say so myself - I passed him
    on the street in Maynard a couple of months ago and took a good look).
    
    All I was doing was pointing out that most heads of major companies are
    still white men.  I only used Bob Palmer's name because it came readily
    to mind.  I have no doubt whatsoever of his qualifications or
    abilities.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .49, however, the point is that there are also women and minorities
    who are qualified for high level positions, and if it weren't for
    mandated quotas most of them would never be given an opportunity  to
    prove it, because prejudice is still very real in this country, and
    many white men still think that the best person for a high level job is
    a white man.
    
    Lorna
    

    >re .49, however, the point is that there are also women and minorities
    >who are qualified for high level positions, and if it weren't for
    
    Name some who are not in high level positions.
    
    			Alfred

    re .51, name some?  Don't be ridiculous.  I don't know everybody in the
    United States.  However, I do know that most high level positions
    (CEO's, judges, senators, governors, etc.) in this country are held by
    white males, and I know that there is a higher percentage of women with
    the intelligence and education to do these jobs, than is currently
    being represented.
    
    Lorna
    

        re .50

    I'm sure that most companies would like (for EEO purposes) to find
    __qualified__ minorities to fill high level positions.  However, in
    upper levels of the company (as I stated before) you just can't 
    afford to hire someone who is less qualified than someone else
    simply because they can fill some quota.  I have no doubt that some
    bias exists.  However, I think that in the case of upper levels,
    EEO has helped to intensify those biases after seeing the disasters
    of hiring simply to fill a quota.  Now don't get me as saying
    I think _all_ minorities have been disasters.  I could name you more 
    than one from my own area (but not without being called forty seven kinds of
    racist/bigot/sexist) (I could name one or two white males in management
    positions that couldn't manage their way out of a paper sack, too, but
    that's a different issue).  I've worked with both minorities and 
    non-minority that have been well qualified.  Even a __qualified__ 
    minority will have at  least one strike against him/her from the 
    beginning.  That being the question (spoken or unspoken), "Did they get 
    their job simply to fill some quota"?  (Not trying to say it's right,
    just saying that that is my take on the current situation).

    fred();

    re lorna
    
    If you had the power to appoint a new CEO of Digital right now, would
    you put the company's (and likely your) future on the line with
    a minority person or would you appoint the most __qualified__ _person_
    you could find regardless of race/sex/etc?
    
    fred();

    >	... would
    >    you put the company's (and likely your) future on the line with
    >    a minority person or would you appoint the most __qualified__
    >  _person_ you could find regardless of race/sex/etc?
    
    interesting implication, fred();, that appointing a minority would
    necessarily be "putting the company's (and likely your) future on the
    line".
    
    "most __qualified__ _person_ you could find regardless of
    race/sex/etc", after that line, is clearly a euphemism for "white
    male".  However, a white male may NOT be the most qualified. 
    Unfortunately, some people have a hard time with that idea.
    
    Reminds me of the old saw "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM".
  

    
    re .55
    
    I should have said (and intended to) "hire a minority person even if
    they were they were not the _most_ qualified".
    
    fred();

    Another political cartoon today.
    
    Sign on the door 'Civil Service'.  Poster on the wall, 'Memo:  to all
    government departments, re: Hiring Practices.  Then a list: women,
    people with disabilties, minorities, aboriginals.
    
    Woman interviewer at desk, white male job applicant sitting in front.
    Woman is reading his resume.  She says, 'Lets see here....Excellent
    academic achievements, highly successful work experience, young
    energetic, white male.  You haven't got a chance, pal!'
    
    Many hiring practicies legislation may address the issue of minority
    and disabled hiring from a volume perspective but they do not address
    the situation from a capability/qualifications  point of view.  They
    also try to define groups represented with one significant group
    missing, the white male, creating fear mongering.  This leads to
    stereotyping.
    
    The situation in my mind cannot be legislated within the bounds of
    fairness but through the education process.  Teach respect of a persons
    qualifications and abiltiies.  Compete on an even playing field.
    
    The fact that corporate 'America' is predominently white male, should
    that justify the exclusion of young white males from competions for new
    postitions?
    
    Do two wrongs make a right?
    
    BTW political cartoons are generally there to stimulate thought.  What
    I may see may not be what you see. Does KAOOA::SLADE understand it,
    depends how I viewed it. 

    re .55
    
>    "most __qualified__ _person_ you could find regardless of
>    race/sex/etc", after that line, is ###clearly a euphemism### for "white
>    male".  However, a white male may NOT be the most qualified. 
>    Unfortunately, some people have a hard time with that idea.
    
    Now, IMHO, it's _your_ bias that's showing.  
    
    >Reminds me of the old saw "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM".
    
    You can, however, get fired for hiring a white male these days.
    A more adequate quote would be, "You can't get sued for hiring a
    minority".
    
    fred();

    re .58
    
>                       <<< Note 98.58 by KAOOA::SLADE >>>
>                     -< The press are hammering this one >-
    
    You're lucky to live where you still have a Free Press ;^}.
    fred();

    re:  60, CSC32::Haddock.
    
    Depends if you call freedom being a 'pawn of the media'.
    
    If it sells papers report it, if it doesn't distort it.

    re: .59, of course it looks like a bias when you take it out of the 
    original context.  Normally it wouldn't be a euphemism for anything.
    Cut your teeth on the following, ONLY ONE of which contains a euphemism:
    
    1. "Are you going to hire a minority or woman, or are you going to hire
        the most qualified person for the job?"
    
    2. "Are you going to hire the best person for the job?"
    
    I don't think it's true that "nobody ever got sued for hiring a
    minority".  (look at all the flap over Clarence Thomas...).  From
    personal experience, I believe there are still at least as many people 
    who won't hire women for certain jobs as there are those who are
    specifically looking for them.  It's happened to me twice, and yes, they
    TOLD me that, once in so many words, and once by my interviewer telling
    me that they don't hire ambitious women because promoting them is
    always a real hard-sell to the managers, and they don't want to get
    sued over it (or something like that).
    
    FWIW, I don't like the term "reverse discrimination"; it implies
    that there's a "right way" to discriminate.  "Institutionalized
    discrimination" or "backlash discrimination" might be a more
    appropriate term.
    
        Sharon
    

    
>    re .47, I think you misunderstood my reply, or perhaps I didn't make
>    myself clear, or perhaps you were so sure of what you *thought* I would
>    say that you didn't read what I actually said.
    
    Lorna ... sorry if I misread your note
    
    Greg
    

    re .63, well, I was, in no way, trying to suggest that Mr. Palmer is
    not qualified for his position.  I'm sure he is.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    re .62
    
>    re: .59, of course it looks like a bias when you take it out of the 
>    original context.  Normally it wouldn't be a euphemism for anything.
>    Cut your teeth on the following, ONLY ONE of which contains a euphemism:
    
    I suppose "euphemisms" are in the eye of the beholder.  Especially
    if someone is looking for them.  Another quote goes, "You don't have 
    to be a white male to be a bigot".
    
    AS for being __told__ you were being discriminated against, I, too,
    can provide a few horror stories.  Not saying it's ok in either
    direction.  There are those, however, who seem to claim that it's
    ok to discriminate against white males to "get even" for some
    real or imagined injustice in the past.  If you take the injusice
    off one group just to heap it on another, it doesn't make you a
    hero, it makes you a hyprcrite.
    
    fred();
    

    
    re .62
    
>    personal experience, I believe there are still at least as many people 
>    who won't hire women for certain jobs as there are those who are
>    specifically looking for them.  It's happened to me twice, and yes, they
    
    
>    FWIW, I don't like the term "reverse discrimination"; it implies
>    that there's a "right way" to discriminate.  "Institutionalized
>    discrimination" or "backlash discrimination" might be a more
>    appropriate term.
    
    Comparing these two quotes, what is wrong with this picture.  Even
    examining the last quote, it seems that you are implying that there
    is a "right way" to discriminate.
    
    fred();

    Nothing of the sort, although if you've got an axe to grind, I guess
    everything looks like a grindstone.  Discrimination is discrimination,
    and frustrating no matter what you are, if you're the one that's denied
    the position or opportunity.

    
    re .67
    
    Now there's something we can agree on.
    
    fred();

    re. 67
    
    Like it.  
    

    
    
    LORNA,
    
    > time for you abled body white males to stop whining
    
     Oooooooraaahhhhhhh.. Thank you sir may I have another.
    
    David

    >>time for you abled body white males to stop whining
    
    yha. what do you call a celar full of white males? 
    
    A whine celar...:}

    
    Lorna,
    
     I think I asked earlier in this this topic if white females were
    equally guilty for past transgressions visa via their marriage to
    the white male.. Got an answer or an opinion????
    
    
    David

    re .72, no, I don't think white women were equally guilty for past
    transgressions via their marriage to white men.  The white men were the
    ones making the decisions out in the world - decisions such as
    enslaving the black race and taking land away from Native Americans. 
    The white women were home having babies, taking care of kids, cooking,
    cleaning, etc.  Also, prior to this generation women really didn't have
    much choice other than marriage.  Single women were not expected or
    even allowed, in many cases, to leave home and have their own
    apartments and jobs.  Even marrying a white male :-) is often
    preferable to being an old maid living in a relatives attic.
    
    Have you ever thought about taking an evening course in women's studies
    or the history of women in the US?  You might find it very
    enlightening.
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna, past transgressions; white males are still controlling the major
    governments and corporations of the world.  How many blacks, natives or
    women started world or major wars?
    
    How many women, blacks or natives have their fingers on the triggers of
    the world nuclear weapons?
    
    

    
    
    > have you ever thought about taking an evening course in womens 
    
     Not consciously(sp). 
    
    > enslaving the black race
    
     ...and we were also the ones that died to free them
    
    > taking land away fron the Native Americans
    
      ...we conquered.. We also stopped Hitler.
    
    
    
    David     

    
    
    > how many women, black or natives have their fingers on the triggers
    > of the nuclear weapons
    
     What, you want a quota on that now? How many of the afore mentioned
    groups have earned their way to the top without the government
    handicaps?? Talk about whining......
    
    David

    re. 76, got the quota of non-white fingers on triggers already - none.  
    
    So you think non-whites can't earn their way to the top in government. 
    
    What's your quota?
    
    
    

    > time for you abled body white males to stop whining

 read: No opposing opinions need apply.

    �re .72, no, I don't think white women were equally guilty for past
    �transgressions via their marriage to white men.
    
    Yha took a class in this? Where and what was the course number. And
    what was the name of the book, the author? 
    
    Someone is feeding you a good story. This home with the children issue
    being pure as driven snow is allot of phoo. Remember it wasn't a couple
    of men sitting in church saying they were posessed in round 1 of the
    Salem witch hunt. And there were men and women being burned at the
    stake for such Tom-fool-ery.
    
    
    
    

    re .79, I've read a lot of books on women's history.
    
    George, what do you mean by "this home with the children issue ....is
    allot of phoo"?   Until the baby boomer generation most women in the US
    were housewives.
    
    re Slade (I'm sorry I don't know your first name, or even whether you
    are male or female, not that it's any of my business), I think white
    men still pretty much run the US.  It sounds like we might agree.  What
    are you getting at?????
    
    Lorna
    

    re .78, it's always convenient to take phrases out of context.  I made
    the statement in response to the comment that a Native American woman
    in a wheelchair is luckier than an able bodied white male.
    
    Now, be honest, Mark.  Do you really think that an Native American
    woman who has to use a wheelchair is luckier than you are?
    
    Lorna
    

        re .81

    Isn't your ax sharp yet, Lorna, or is it you just don't get the point
    yet?

    I'll see if I can explain it one more time:
    The "Native American woman in a wheelchair" thing was a sarcastic
    commentary on reverse discrimination.  Not intended by anyone to 
    indicate that anyone thought that the fictitious person in question
    was really lucky in anything except that her current situation
    made here eminently eligible for the job position.
    fred();

    > how many women, black or natives have their fingers on the triggers
    > of the nuclear weapons
 
I bet there are more than you think in the missile silos

    Somewhat tangental ramblings ahead:
    
    Everytime I hear the sad story about how women have been
    oppressed/supressed by Big Bad Old Men in the "past" (or hell, even in
    the present), I feel the urge to say that nobody held a gun to our
    heads (by and large).  Women were they way they were not only because
    men thought that was their societal role, but because *women* also
    thought that it was their role.  And if they want it to change,
    well, the onus lies upon them to drive that change, not wait for
    society to do it for them.  After all, women form at least *half* of
    society, if not more.  
    
    I also think we members of society (at least in the US) are trying
    far too hard to be politically correct, as if extremes of "sensitivity"
    can make everything OK and right all wrongs.  Hence, the indignation
    over the content of the cartoon, or even the reason for the cartoon's
    existance.  Either this era of "correctness" will reach its 
    peak and collapse, or we'll all be living like those people in the
    Happy Los Angeles of the future (as depicted by the movie "Demolition
    Man").
    
    Brrr.
    
    My two cents.  
    
    kim

    
    
     Slade,
    
    > So you think non-whites can't earn their way to the top
    
     Never said that, but I expected that as a response. As far as
    minorities being able to do it, guess we wont know until you
    get rid of the training wheels :-)
    
    > take the cork out before you drink the whine
    
     As a white male what am I supposed to do when I am discriminated
    against, stand erect and praise God for another lesson in " Were gonna
    get you for past sins Sucka "????
    
    David

    
    Slade,
    
    > what's your quota
    
      None. We will use that time honored WASP method. Whomever makes it
    to the top of the hill is the King.
    
    
    David

    
    Rauh,
    
    
    > yah took a class in this, Where and what was the course number
    
    FEM101 read:: Men are oppressive pigs :-)
    
    Just kidding Lorna :-)
    
    David

    re .86, ah, the good old "time honored WASP method":
    
    Greed, ruthlessness & lack of compassion, right?  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    
    re .88
    
    Looks like N.O.W. is becomming more like men every day ;^}).
    
    fred();

    
    
    > Greed, ruthlesness & lack of compassion, right? :-)
    
    :-)
    
    > The WASP advantage
    
     Hey if your convinced of that spiel give up your bank account and
    start wearing sack cloth and ashes. I for one believe that the white
    race, in balance, has done FAR more good than bad.
    
    
    David

    re .90, give up my bank account?????  ha-ha-ha-ha-ha
    
    Now that I'm done rolling on the floor laughing hysterically, I'll get
    on with my life.  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    > when you ain't got nothin
    
    ..the checks in the mail Lorna.. Under the what for it will say "
    retribution fo past sins " :-)
    
    
    David_who_is_not_fat_but_thought_about_being_catholic_and_hates_cats_:)

    re .92, oh, boy, I can't wait!!  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    re:85
    
    and :86
    
    Seems to work for 'them' don't it!
    
    Remember a movie, this guy stands up and says "We're p***** and we're
    not going to take it anymore!
    
    
    

    I think that goes.... "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it
    anymore!!!....."  :)

My son, who is anglo-asian but looks caucasian, was considering describing 
himself officially as a "visible minority" individual.  His reasoning was 
that it could only help him in the future (ie when he applies to med school) 
as he would benefit from the reverse discrimination discussed in this note.