Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!ames!elroy!usc!orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!gazit@cs.duke.EDU From: gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Affirmative Action Message-ID: <17833@paris.ics.uci.edu> Date: 14 Jun 89 22:22:49 GMT Sender: news@paris.ics.uci.edu Reply-To: Hillel Gazit Lines: 108 Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu 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