Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bloom-beacon!ora!ambar
From: mangoe@cs.UMD.EDU (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Advocacy and What Is Advocated
Message-ID: <8910050250.AA14435@mimsy.UMD.EDU>
Date: 5 Oct 89 19:23:57 GMT
Sender: ambar@ora.ora.com
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science,
Lines: 32
Approved: ambar@ora.com
In-Reply-To: <1989Oct4.212246.8332@rpi.edu>

Keith Weiner interprets me as saying

>In other words people have rights in inverse proportion to how "fortunate"
>(wealthy? talented?) they are?

Well, no.

I've become more and more suspicious of talk of "rights" because, it seems
to me, they have become more a tool of political rhetoric and less
descriptive.  SO you shall have to forgive me if I do not speak of rights
here.

This discussion started out from my observations on the polarization
exhibited in the child custody discussion, but it has in general drifted
over to a more general discussion of what feminism is supposed to do for us.
One way to put it is that we are deciding what kind of advantages people are
allowed to have over one another.  For instance, there is a lot of
acceptance of education as a factor, and almost none of religion as a
factor.  And context is also important; education is important in the
jobplace and irrelevant in the grocery line.

Now, we seem to be assenting to the notion that gender should not, by and
large, be a factor.  However, some of us seem to be asserting existing
inequity as a deciding factor.  Insofar as this principle is to be observed,
I insist on real inequities rather than statistical inequities.

I'm sorry if I left the impression that I personally support such action.  I
can't say whether I do or not.  However, it is manifestly the intent of some
policies to reduce inequity, and it is these policies which my comment was
directed to.

Charley Wingate