Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site oddjob.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!oddjob!cs1 From: cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Discrimination and Affirmative Action Message-ID: <806@oddjob.UUCP> Date: Tue, 18-Jun-85 17:18:40 EDT Article-I.D.: oddjob.806 Posted: Tue Jun 18 17:18:40 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 19-Jun-85 06:08:02 EDT References: <338@unc.UUCP> <337@mhuxr.UUCP> <219@kontron.UUCP> <344@mhuxr.UUCP> <247@kontron.UUCP> Reply-To: cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) Organization: U. Chicago, Astronomy & Astrophysics Lines: 102 Summary: 1. Assume that natural endowments are distributed evenly among men, women, american indians, negroes, orientals, and caucasians--at birth. 2. Assume that socialization and education have little or no effect on the presence of these natural endowments--that despite discouragement, a woman with a fine mathematical mind still has a fine mathematical mind; that despite lack of formal training, a negro with formidable verbal sensibilities still has formidable verbal sensibilites; that despite "macho" socialization, a man may have the patience of Job and the mercy of Florence Nightingale; that an american indian may be born with an unusually high intuition for spatial relations and three- dimensional puzzle-solving; that an oriental woman may well be born with a clear eye, a steady hand and nerves of steel--which are not hampered by ANY home or educational environment...only left undeveloped. 3. Assume that socialization and education can only enhance these natural endowments, and that the greater the endowment, the less socialization is required to bring it out in a person. The limit of this would be that the american indian would make a far better architect or engineer, and learn his trade in far less time than a caucasian with little or no spatial intuition. The woman would become a brilliant mathematician if only given half a chance. The negro would influence the course of history as a diplomat, the oriental woman would be a crack phantom jet pilot, and the man with the patience of Job and the mercy of Florence Nightingale might make a good nurse or dental assistant or elementary school teacher. Oh, he seems to have some business aptitude! Can he type? Oh, it says here that he worked with computers in college! I'll bet he can figure out how to use our word processor! He's such a NICE little boy--let's make sure he has some pin money to take his children to the zoo--let's give him a JOB (hey, aren't we being liberal and wonderful and fair by hiring one of these deprived, poorly-socialized, white men? This will get the government off our backs about AA fer sure, fer sure.) 4. There being an equal distribution of natural endowment in both sexes and all races, and there being a disproportionately low number of minorities and women utilizing these natural endowments in their work, simple logic would have it that a disproportionately high number of minorities and women are undereducated and underemployed given their level of natural endowment. Put simply--"that's right, the women are smarter"...than men holding the same jobs. This scares the pants off men, and is what leads them to continue to seek social advantages based on ill-advised and misconcieved notions about their "superiority". In a job-situation, a woman may have a man out-ranked--but given that there are more men than women in that workplace, he can make sure she is out-flanked (please, no flames on the use of the word 'flank'). He can't hurt her ability, but he can hurt her performance as long as ANYTHING she has to do requires that she rely on him or one of his cronies to do HIS job. People can be selectively competent--competent when a friend is relying on them, and incompetent when an enemy is relying on them. As long as men in the workplace view women as enemies, and as long as there are fewer women than men, women will continue to be periodically outflanked in ways that can serve to reinforce men's notions that they and their buddies are better suited for their work than women. Harsh realities--but realities nonetheless. 5. Because women and minorities are undereducated and underemployed considering their natural endowments, it would only make sense that to encourage women and minorities to make the most of their abilities would increase the level of competition for jobs. This may or may not make for better employees. (A high level of com- petition for medical school acceptance does not necessarily mean that we have better doctors.) But chances are that by automatically giving a job to a minority or a woman who is just as qualified as a white male applicant, the employer is increasing his chances of getting someone who has more natural ability, and thus insuring a better workforce in the future. The only reason employers haven't been really stocking up on women and minorities is that it would create too much friction among the existing ranks...since they know that many white male employees care more about their chances for that next promotion than they care about the future of the company and would really raise a ruckus & start politicking like crazy if they were suddenly in danger of being outranked AND outflanked by women and minorities. 6. If handled incorrectly, AA can be easily used against the people it is intended to help. The government cannot legislate the correct use of AA because it cannot regulate every aspect of office politics. However, when AA IS being misused in this manner, it's pretty obvious. A company or university is only hurting itself when it is careless in this regard--it alienates and loses its best people...or worse yet, makes them into real, live enemies. 7. As long as it is handled carefully, AA can be good for the workforce, good for the country, and even build some character in the men that presently must rely on unfair advantages. Cheryl Stewart Curiouser and curiouser... -- There's one kind of favor I'll ask of you: Just see that my grave is kept clean.