Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxm!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth
From: beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Discrimination
Message-ID: <482@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 12-May-85 21:38:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: sphinx.482
Posted: Sun May 12 21:38:55 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 16-May-85 08:27:01 EDT
Organization: U. Chicago - Computation Center
Lines: 65

>[From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer),
  Message-ID: <161@kontron.UUCP>]:
>>[From	Ed Hall]:
>> And now that we've tied up all our energy in useless discussions on
>> words, there are a couple of people who are making the outrageous and
>> dangerous claims that:
>>   1. White men are being discriminated against, and this deserves at
>>      least as much attention as discrimination against women.
>
>I have seen explicit, blatant, and intentional discrimination against
>people based on their being male.  You may wish to argue that this is
>rare --- I have seen it.  In fact, when I was in high school, attempting
>to find a way to afford to go to college, there were scholarships
>administered by a public high school that explicitly stated that race,
>ethnic origin, and sex were relevant criteria.
>
>If the government is going to prohibit discrimination based on race,
>sex, creed, and half a dozen other bases, it should be consistent and
>prohibit it against white males as well.  If the objection to discrimination
>is that it is unfair to individuals, then the discrimination that is
>inflicted on white males is just as immoral as when it is inflicted on
>anyone else.

Imagine a highway 10 miles wide and stretching from coast to coast.
Further imagine that there's a silver dollar on every square foot of
the highway.  Now in 1776, we all started a race to see who could get
the most money.  Except that all black men, all women, and all
foreigners were tied up , effectively preventing everyone except white
men from getting more than a mile down the road.  So now, 200+ years
later, it's time for the referees to prevent discrimination.

Now what exactly do you mean by "discrimination"?  Do you mean we
should no longer prevent anyone from proceeding down the road?  Or do
you mean we should give everyone equal access to the wealth?  They're
different goals.  Simply cutting the people at the starting line loose
will certainly allow them to proceed, but it doesn't give them any
hope of *ever* getting equal access to the money.  Those that have
gone before have too much of a head start - they've picked up too much
of it.

I think that discrimination will be with us until everyone has propor-
tionately equal access to all of the wealths (*and* all of the respon-
sibilities).  And that means holding back the leaders (who do in fact
have an "ill-gotten" advantage) for a little while, and encouraging
those that have been discriminated against in the past to catch up.
If preventing discrimination does mean allowing proportionately equal
access, then I bet those scholarships you mentioned weren't discrimi-
nating, because they were encouraging other, unfairly disadvantaged
groups to catch up.

>>   2. It is wrong for women to be proud when they manage to overcome
>>      discrimination.
>
>No argument from me.

Well, they've got one heckuvan argument from me.  Every blow to dis-
crimination is cause for celebration.  It frees us all.  We should all
pride ourselves on overcoming it.

-- 

--JB                                             "The giant is awake."

Disclaimer?  Who wud claim dis?