Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!qantel!ihnp4!drutx!druxo!nap
From: nap@druxo.UUCP (ParsonsNA)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Reverse sexism is OK.
Message-ID: <153@druxo.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26-Sep-86 19:25:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: druxo.153
Posted: Fri Sep 26 19:25:16 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Sep-86 02:44:14 EDT
References: <4828@decwrl.DEC.COM> <1944@mtgzy.UUCP> <878@gilbbs.UUCP> <1048@dadla.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Denver, Co
Lines: 27

I wrote:
I am not suggesting that kids pay for the crimes of their parents.  I
am suggesting that they should not benefit from the crimes of their
parents, especially at someone else's expense.

Rob Vetter responded:
> 	In the case of sexual discrimination, a strange thought.
> 	Didn't the fathers' "crimes" roughly equal the mothers'
> 	"expense" ?  How do the children benefit from the crime ?

The "crimes" of the fathers gave all males an advantage (in terms of
cultural expectation, encouragement, control of power, education, etc).
Yes, the mothers paid a price.  The children benefit only on the basis of
their sex--i.e., males benefit, females don't.  So in the case of sexual
discrimination, I should rephrase my comment: "I am suggesting that male
children should not benefit from the crimes of their fathers at the expense
of their sisters" or some such.

> 	In the case of racial or religious discrimination, your
> 	point is valid, but (1) How do you prevent it ?  And
> 	(2) Where do you draw the line ?

You have agreed that there is a problem (i.e., you agreed that my point is
valid).  Why ask how *I* would solve it?  Why don't *you* suggest some
solutions?

Nancy Parsons