Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
From: carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics
Subject: Re: Discrimination and Affirmative Action
Message-ID: <480@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 11-Jun-85 15:15:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.480
Posted: Tue Jun 11 15:15:49 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Jun-85 08:05:00 EDT
Organization: U. Chicago - Computer Science
Lines: 43
Xref: watmath net.women:5730 net.politics:9365
Summary: More mud-slinging from Cramer

I wrote:

> In my everyday encounters with people, I treat women and blacks
> somewhat differently from white males, that is, my knowledge of a
> person's race or sex can and usually does affect my actions in some
> way.  Part of the reason for this difference is my knowledge that
> both groups suffer from deep-rooted and tenacious prejudices in our
> society, and that this is an important factor in the life of each
> individual woman or black.  This does not mean that I have judged the
> individual to be better or worse merely because he or she is black or
> female, and I don't see how it makes me a racist or sexist.

Clayton Cramer replies:

> This used to be called "patronizing".  *I* treat everyone as an individual;
> if I don't know someone, I treat them dependent on the circumstances.

It's offensive to most netters when someone attributes to them
beliefs and attitudes that they didn't express.  Cramer's response is
just mud-slinging, like his repeated statements that affirmative
action is "racism."  To patronize means to treat with a manner or air
of condescending notice.  What I stated above was that my knowledge
of a person's race or sex can influence my actions toward them.  (The
same is true of everyone reading this:  I doubt that many netters are
sex-blind in their dating and sex life.)  Nothing in this implies
condescension or a superior attitude.  Is it condescending to be
aware, as most of us are, that any woman or black in the US, merely
because he or she is black or female, is the object of some deeply
rooted prejudices and discriminatory practices, and that this is a
significant fact in the lives of most of them?  Cramer seems to say
that if we let this awareness influence our actions IN ANY WAY, we
are guilty of patronizing and taking an attitude of superiority to
blacks and females.  Perhaps the safest thing to do, on this view, is
simply to forget that blacks and women suffer from racism and sexism
-- otherwise we are on a slippery slope that leads through
condescension to the horrors of "reverse discrimination."

What does Cramer mean by the phrase "treat everyone as an
individual"?  Or is this just a question we're not supposed to ask?
I've been going around today trying to mend my ways and "treat
everyone as an individual," but I'm damned if I know what to do.

Richard Carnes