Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!uci-ics!tittle From: trent@unix.sri.COM (Ray Trent) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: how to bash feminism without really trying Message-ID: <4813@unix.SRI.COM> Date: 21 Oct 89 02:45:05 GMT References: <47127@bbn.COM> Sender: tittle@ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle) Reply-To: Ray Trent Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA Lines: 30 Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu In the referenced article, Richard Shapiro writes: >this determination? And who brings the action against this employer? >Is it the victim herself? Is the burden on her? Will she have to spend Should the burden be on the corporation (which, more often than not, is a small business)? Would you prefer we judge the defendant as guilty before they are proven so? Where does the burden of proof lie? >is a difficult problem. One possible way to attack it is through the >"role model" idea. Will this work? I don't know. But NO OTHER >SUGGESTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE which take this crucial issue into account. AA does nothing to change this. Period. In fact, the very perception that women "need" AA is itself a powerful force fighting the otherwise growing tide of popular wisdom that women and men can compete equally in the job market. And additionally: why do you claim that enforcing the idea that discrimination on the basis of gender is inappropriate behavior (through the suggested enforcement of EEO laws) can possibly do anything but make people believe that gender discrimination is wrong? How can you possibly conclude that enforced gender discrimination can do anything but make gender discrimination *more* accepted in people's minds? -- "When you're down, it's a long way up When you're up, it's a long way down It's all the same thing And it's no new tale to tell" ../ray\..