Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ginosko!usc!aero!gazit@lear.cs.duke.edu From: gazit@lear.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: how to bash feminism without really trying Summary: You don't hear our suggestions because you keep your ears closed... Keywords: What you *DO* is what you are. Message-ID: <15799@duke.cs.duke.edu> Date: 18 Oct 89 02:47:11 GMT References: <47014@bbn.COM> Sender: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) Organization: The Piranha Club Lines: 33 Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org 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