Conference turris::womannotes-v2

We'll keep arguing over process as long as some people continue to look
at the sex of a note's author rather than the content of the contribution.

    re: < Note 179.1 by BOLT::MINOW "Fortran for Precedent" >

� We'll keep arguing over process as long as some people continue to look
� at the sex of a note's author rather than the content of the contribution.
  
    I absolutely disagree that this is the cause of the problem.
    
    I contend that the problem is that members of the first group refuse
    to acccept the validity of attempts by members of the second group
    to deal with issues in the way _which they have found best for them._
    
    	bruce

    Sometimes I find it rather silly that we have men arguing over
    the proper role of men in womens notes...gender blindness to
    the contrary.
    
    Bonnie

    probably not....but I tend to see the absurd in situations a lot.
    
    Bonnie

    re: .1
    with entries like 22.15, it's hard _not_ to think about the author's
    gender when reading notes.
    
    liz

    
 RE: .0
>As long as the first group seems to have no clearly defined
>route mapped toward the goal other than "be equal!"
>it seems to me somewhat curious that the first group
>should so vociferously denigrate the second group's
>efforts to spend more time dealing with current reality
>(as perceived; what other reality is there?) and working 
>from here.

  	This is fine as long everyone agrees that we are going 
    
    	through a period of REVERSE DISCRIMINATION to achieve an
    
    	end goal of equality in the future.  However, calling a quota
    
    	system which inherently unfair and discrimnatory "Equal" is simply
    
    	untrue.  Don't try to cloak an unfair system in self rightous
    
    	terms.
    
    		       vociferously yours   
    
    				A.J.	
    
    
       
                 

    <--(.7)
    
    AJ, please, we are *NOT* experiencing "reverse discrimination". The
    number of women or members of minority groups hired or promoted into
    high-status positions is not even *close* to the ca. 65% we represent
    in the total US population.   If you want to say "Well I know this guy
    who got discriminated against in favor of a <whatever>", we can point
    to five or ten <whatevers> that have been discriminated against in
    favor of white males. It's built right into the system! From the
    cradle onward!        
    
    You need not worry about losing a job to a <whatever>, AJ: the odds
    are that that you'll be killed in a road accident first! 
    
						=maggie

    
    WHAT IN GODS NAME DOES "REVERSE DISCRIMINATION" [SIC] 
    HAVE TO DO WITH THIS NOTE??!?!?!?!?!?
    
    Dawn
    

re.8

>	The number of women or members of minority groups hired or promoted into
>	high-status positions is not even *close* to the ca. 65% we represent
>	in the total US population.

	What does that prove?

			Tom_K

    
    
    re: .9
    
    	Read all of note 88.  Then read the base note of this topic.
    
    	You may see some connections. Then again you might not.
    
    
    re Maggie
    
    	He wanted to know why some people "vociferously" diagree with
    
    	people who are only trying to make their lives happier. 
    
    	Maggie, I am not going to argue with you that AA is unfair, it
    
    	is. Some people try to justify it as being fair -- thats my beef.
    
    	I would like people to try to justify it logically. A logical 
    
    	argument for them would be "I temporarily support reverse discrimination
    
    	now as a way of reaching complete equality in the future".  
                                  
       
    	       			- A.J.

    Re: .11
    
    It's not that I don't agree with you, it's that I don't *want* to
    agree with you.  Vociferous people do that to me.  I'm just perverse,
    I guess.

    re. Base Note 0 ---
    
    Would you please explain, by use of specifics, what is meant by
    "the first group" and "the second group?"  Also, if this note is
    a continuation of, or response to, some other note, please indicate
    that as well.
    
    I cannot see how most of the replies here relate to the first note
    (especially those dealing with reverse discrimination), as the author's
    theory is quite specific: A group of (unspecified) people who have
    defined a goal (without specifying the means by which to obtain
    that goal) has no basis upon which to criticize the activities of
    another group of people who have no apparent goal, but are busy
    going about their "means" just the same.  (I will not get into a
    discussion of the various types of reality that exist...that's another
    note entirely!)
    
    So, can we try this again?  Would the author like to make a more
    presise assertion than the very general one in note 179.0?  I mean,
    if you are pitting one group of feminists against another, then
    say so.  Who *ARE* these "groups" and what in heaven's name prompted
    such a statement so strong that the term "vociferously denigrate"
    was used?  Please, please, please give some background, and make
    a specific assertion so that all of us have the same basis of
    dicsussion.
    
    Thanks,
    Marian

The author of .0 is on a very long vacation in CA (the scum-bunny).

I'd be glad to chat off-line about what I think he meant, but I'm not into
broadcasting second-guesses on people (particularly friends). It's a lot like
the telephone game.

>    if you are pitting one group of feminists against another, then

However, I can say with a fair amount of assurance, he aint'.


	Mez