Xref: utzoo soc.women:8442 soc.singles:12026 alt.flame:1019 Path: utzoo!hoptoad!ihnp4!cbosgd!ucbvax!ernie.Berkeley.EDU!jwl From: jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (James Wilbur Lewis) Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.singles,alt.flame Subject: Re: Christmas Celebration Message-ID: <22254@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: 20 Dec 87 07:48:19 GMT References: <3445@ihlpl.ATT.COM> <7706@eddie.MIT.EDU> <5409@sol.ARPA> <7709@eddie.MIT.EDU> Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 109 Keywords: Religious intolerance In article <7709@eddie.MIT.EDU> ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) writes: > >Is it >all right for me (who owns my own company, thank you) to have a >"white" party for my employees? How about a "female only" party? Why not? Especially regarding "female only" parties...seems to me that this goes on ALL THE TIME. Should we chastise the SWE (*) for not going out of their way to make men feel welcome at their functions? Is my desire for "Christianspace" in my company any less valid for someone else's need for "womanspace" in hers? > Why is it, Ray, that if a corporation has a "white" >or a "female" party on company time it can be called harrassment. If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? > Yet >religious discriminination is somehow ok, and we shouldn't find >fault. Discrimination? Let's keep a sense of perspective here...the topic is whether Christmas parties are appropriate on company time or with company funds. This whole line of discussion seems awfully petty to me...it reminds me of the "pleading is rape" discussion. "Discrimination", like "rape", is a loaded word with many negative connotations,and using it for rhetorical effect is likely to backfire, as its meaning becomes diluted to uselessness. To play the Devil's Advocate for a moment: why should I pay any attention to any subsequent claims of discrimination when you use the same rhetoric to refer to calling a party a "Christmas party" instead of a "winter party" or whatever? >Causing a minority group to feel excluded is inappropriate in a >corporation. Maybe, maybe not. Should a corporation whose raison d'etre is to fight anti-semitism be chastised for excluding Nazis from its board of directors? > Many states have laws against it. They shouldn't (followups to this point to talk.politics.misc, where I'd be happy to explain the libertarian reasoning behind this); I would be more than happy to allow you to run your company any way you like, as long as you recognize my right to do likewise. It's bad business to antagonize your employees. Why do we need a *law* against it? If you don't like the way your company runs things, go start your own! (Which is what you seem to have done, so why are you still complaining?) >what kind of an >uproar do you think it would cause if I, owner of my own company, >decided that nobody gets christmas off, and I decide to have a solstice >party? Probably a big uproar, if your employees wanted Christmas off. I wouldn't blame them for quitting. Solstice party? Now that's not a half-bad idea!! But it *is* your company. You're entitled to give any days off you like, or none at all. If your employees don't like it, you're not forcing them to work there. (**) >Gee, would you feel comfortable, as my employee, do not >attend, despite all my religious trappings? Leading the group in >prayer to Ubizmo? Singing songs praising Satan? Being ribbed by >your co-workers for not "being a good sport" and not going along? >How about, Ray, if I decided to have this party in lieu of your >holiday bonus? See my above comment about antagonizing one's employees. If 90% of my employees want to have a Christmas party, and would be offended if I didn't let them have one, should I be *forced* to accomodate the 9% who don't give a damn, or the 1% who are going to make a big stink about it? >As the owner of a company, I realize that I have a responsibility to ALL >my employees to be fair without bias or discrimination. And if 90% of your employees feel cheated when you don't let them have a Christmas party? Mikki, I think you're showing quite a bias *against* those who would like to celebrate religious holidays. > Or, do you >feel that somehow treating employees like human beings is not important? Yep, those poor atheists(***)...they're being FORCED to endure these unspeakable Christian customs. (You know, like mistletoe, Christmas trees, eggnog, forced vacations, Santa Claus...all right there in the Bible...uhhh, somewhere.... right?) The horror! The inhumanity! Merry Christmas to all, and to all, a good night! :-) -- Jim Lewis U.C. Berkeley (*) Oh, I forgot, that's different! (**) Well, no more than Playboy centerfolds are *forced* to pursue that line of work, anyway...what were you about to say? "economic coercion"? no, I didn't think so... (***) or should that be "heathens", or is it "scum"?...I left my HASA directory back at the office. P.S. Just WAIT till next Halloween. You &#(@#@! pagans are gonna get flamed bigtime for forcing your filthy customs on us God-fearin' types. Why, last semester the UCB CS department even had the gall to sponsor a Halloween party...with public funds, too, I'll bet. Secular holiday, indeed. Harrumph.