Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site h-sc1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!h-sc1!desjardins
From: desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.flame
Subject: Re: Discrimination
Message-ID: <373@h-sc1.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-May-85 12:51:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: h-sc1.373
Posted: Wed May 22 12:51:43 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 24-May-85 21:13:55 EDT
References: <354@iham1.UUCP> <250@spar.UUCP> <1391@watdcsu.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Harvard Univ. Science Center
Lines: 41
Xref: linus net.women:4735 net.flame:9175

> 
> It's hard for me to imagine the above two paragraphs serving any
> purpose other than to try to make Mr. Deitrick feel guilty.  You would
> not be trying to make him feel guilty if he wasn't white and male, and
> you are well aware that he had nothing to do with the assorted nasty
> acts committed by other white men.  The only thing I can conclude,
> therefore, is that you hold him guilty for being a white man.  You hold
> him guilty, not for what he has done, but for what he *is*.
> 

The point is not that anybody should feel guilty for being male.
Guilt has nothing to do with it.  The point is that white males
have an advantage in this society.  They are often unwilling to
grant more privileges to females (blacks, Jews, etc.) because it
means giving up their privileges.  Of course they don't often
phrase it in these terms, but it is a fact.

For a course I am taking in women's studies, we had to read a book
called "A Dialogue on Comparable Worth" (by Michael Gold; by the way,
I recommend this book for anyone who's interested in the debate on
comparable worth).  The book took the format of a debate, in which
an advocate and a critic advanced their arguments for/against comparable
worth (these arguments were gathered from outside references, as well
as representing his own arguments).  One of the arguments made by the
critic was "But if you raise wages of women, then everyone else [i.e.
men] will suffer."  This is not an isolated case.  Many men are very
afraid that by giving women more rights, they will lose some of their
rights.

Ross presented an argument that I've seen a lot:  But it's not MY fault,
so why should I give anything up?  The reason is that in order to make
things equal, he will HAVE to give something up.  Fortunately, that
"something" is simply the male privilege, which (he admits) he didn't
earn anyway.

Whether or not we should use "reverse discrimination" to make things
equal is an open question.  Personally, I think it's the only way to
gain equality, because if you leave it up to the public, they will
almost certainly never even things out.  It's too easy not to.

	marie desjardins