Xref: utzoo soc.women:8444 soc.singles:12028 alt.flame:1024
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdcad!decwrl!ucbvax!ernie.Berkeley.EDU!jwl
From: jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (James Wilbur Lewis)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.singles,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Christmas Celebration
Keywords: Religious intolerance
Message-ID: <22258@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 20 Dec 87 15:57:02 GMT
References: <3445@ihlpl.ATT.COM> <7706@eddie.MIT.EDU> <5409@sol.ARPA> <7709@eddie.MIT.EDU> <22254@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <7712@eddie.MIT.EDU>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 103

Mikki "Let's put the X back in Xmas" 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?
>

I reply:
>>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? 

Mikki's response:
>You know something, I have finally figured it out.  The only *real*
>reason why soneone would INSIST on calling their corporate party a 
>*christmas* party is to perpetuate their religion over all others.
>And goddess forbid if you happen to disagree.  [et cetera]

You didn't answer my question.  Why is an party given by SWE ok,
while a party given by Christians not ok?  It's not like management
put a sign on the door saying "NO HEATHENS ALLOWED!"...the only
person excluding you from the festivities is YOU.  

They (we) call it a Christmas party because they're celebrating Christmas.
It doesn't really have anything to do with wanting to exclude people
of other religions, or perpetuating our religion over all others; in
fact, they tend to be rather secular affairs.  Oh, there might be some
appropriate music in the background, and a few of the carols might
use the J---- word, but the religious overtones are not going to
be overwhelming.  Obviously *you* feel excluded, or you wouldn't
be taking this so seriously....but it's *not* *our* *fault*.  I am
quite sure that you would be welcome at any Christmas party;  I
don't think anyone would try to lay a guilt trip on you for "intruding",
or even for declining to participate in the religious aspects of the
celebration (few though they might be)....certainly no one would try
to convert you, not if they had any tact, anyway.  Compare this to
your counterexample of a KKK party,  where blacks or Jews probably
WOULD deliberately be made to feel unwelcome, or overtly harrassed.
Apples and oranges, Mikki.

>  Systematically excluding a group or groups of
>workers at company functions can be classified as harrassment.

Ok, we're back to the SWE example.  If men are invited, and don't
come because they'd feel silly, is that harassment?

If the exclusion is done by the people sponsoring the function, yes
it very well might be harassment.  If you're invited, and decline
to attend because you object to it being called a Christmas party,
that's your perogative...but don't go calling it harassment. Harassment
implies *intent* by the harasser.

>Why (I ask again) is it so goddamn difficult to change the NAME of the party?

It's not that it's difficult...it's stupid!  It's a Christmas party, the
people involved are there to celebrate Christmas, so why should they go
through semantic contortions just to satisfy your sense of political
correctness?

>>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?
>
>If 90% of my employees don't want blacks on the staff and would be offended
>if I hired 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?  Don't
>you see what you are saying here?

I see exactly what I'm saying here, and I'm saying it *anyway*.  If
you want an explanation of "libertarian philosophy 101", I'd be happy
to start a discussion, but please let's move it to talk.politics.misc
where it belongs.

>  If 90% of your employees were satanists, would
>you pay for their holiday with your money, on your time?  If 90% of
>your employees were KKK would you pay for *their* holiday on your time?

If it would cost more to replace the employees who were dissatisfied
enough to quit...you bet I'd pay for it!  If I didn't, I'd expect to
get raked over the coals by my stockholders, and for good reason.

>Why have you turned it into the belief that I somehow want to squash
>christians?  

I've done nothing of the sort. I just think you're overreacting; 
feeling excluded for no good reason, and trying to make *us*
responsible.  Why don't you adopt the Christian approach to
holiday celebrations...don't feel excluded from the festivites,
just co-opt the holiday(*) and make it one of yours! :-) I think a
winter solstice party is a great idea....just remember that you're
in the minority and you shouldn't expect the rest of society to
go out of their way to accomodate you.

-- Jim Lewis
   U.C. Berkeley

(*) Or in this case, co-opt it *back*....

followups redirected to talk.politics.misc, in anticipation of flames
about my libertarian stance...this doesn't have much to do with .singles
or .women any more.