Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    
    smacks of prejudice to me. Is there a 'straight olympics' where only
    straights particpate?? 
    
    This sounds strangely like the Miss America where a large number of the
    contestants/winners have been black, but you don't see many white women
    in the Miss Black America. (rat hole but does convey my point...)
    What would happen if someone proposed a Miss White America contest?
    
    If folks want to be accepted as EQUAL, then they should return the
    favour and treat everyone else as THEIR equal. 
    This applies to sex,race, religion, political preference etc. 
    
    Equality is not a one sided proposition. 
    
    If you question these games, tell your friends WHY, and don't do it. 
    Just my opinion....I didn't mean to rag on you!!!!!:-)
    
                                                          

    RE:                <<< Note 1106.3 by CSC32::PITT >>>
        
    >This sounds strangely like the Miss America where a large number of the
    >contestants/winners have been black, but you don't see many white women
    >in the Miss Black America. (rat hole but does convey my point...)
    >What would happen if someone proposed a Miss White America contest?
    
         "A large number of the contestants/winners have been Black"?  Tell
    me, would you care to guess what the actual percentages are?  The Miss
    Black America contest was started because, previous to a few years ago,
    Black women had NO CHANCE of winning the Miss America Contest.  Now
    that the Miss America contest has begun widening its scope, perhaps the
    Miss Black America contest will no longer be needed.
    
         If White contestants in the Miss America contest were not allowed
    to win for several decades, then a Miss White America contest would be 
    quite justified.
    
                                         Greg

.4> The Miss
.4> Black America contest was started because, previous to a few years ago,
.4> Black women had NO CHANCE of winning the Miss America Contest.

    Is this the same with the aforementioned "Gay Games", that is to say,
    there was no chance of winning in the generally accepted events (NFL,
    NHL, etc) and it was necessary to go out and start their own thing?

    Jerry

    RE:  <<< Note 1106.5 by MORO::BEELER_JE "Beeler/Thompson in '92" >>>
    >                               -< Why? >-

>.4> The Miss
>.4> Black America contest was started because, previous to a few years ago,
>.4> Black women had NO CHANCE of winning the Miss America Contest.

    >Is this the same with the aforementioned "Gay Games", that is to say,
    >there was no chance of winning in the generally accepted events (NFL,
    >NHL, etc) and it was necessary to go out and start their own thing?
    
         As far as I am aware, no such situation exists with regard to 
    sexual orientation.
    
                                         Greg

    No you wake up Gene.  That is the ole "do as I say (want), not as I do"
    mentality.  Breaking down the walls of the good ole white boys network
    doesnt mean, break it down and then build our own... or does it?

    I think equality is important, stick up for your rights, I would too!!! 
    I agree with you re.3!!!
    
    
    take a stand!
    
    good luck
    
    Lynne

    re point 7.
    
    maybe I HAVE been on the wrong planet....
    
    I am SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO sick of "this has been happening for XX
    years and so now to PAY YOU BACK we will --(fill in the blanks)....
    
    if minorities want revenge, then DON'T disguise it as a desire for
    equality. Creating a segrated group of whatever is NOT a desire for
    equality. Do you think having a Miss Black America or a gay Olympics
    or a Women's only aerobics club is a push towards equality?
    
    Make up your mind. Do you want to be treated as an equal, or do you
    just want to have your cake and eat it to.
    
    What I hear is "we (fill in the WE) ...WE want to be treated as equals,
    but we won't do the same for you". 
    
    Couldn't you hear the uproar if someone announced a WHITE ONLY Miss
    America contest? Or a "straight only" olympics? That would NOT be
    tolerated. Why is it ok for a minority interest to do it just as a
    payback? 
    
    I might not be from the same planet as YOU (.7) but I think I like
    MY planet better...yours seems to be a little too one sided for me....
    
     

    RE:                <<< Note 1106.10 by CSC32::PITT >>>
    
    >if minorities want revenge, then DON'T disguise it as a desire for
    >equality. Creating a segrated group of whatever is NOT a desire for
    >equality. Do you think having a Miss Black America or a gay Olympics
    >or a Women's only aerobics club is a push towards equality?
    
         It is not a case of revenge.  Miss Black America was simply a path
    for some attractive Black women to showcase themselves and get
    scholarships and modeling contracts, somewhat like the Miss America
    contest.  Miss America contest would not allow a Black winner, so the
    Miss Black America contest became necessary.
    
         Furthermore, you act as if the Miss Black America contest was just
    recently started.  On the contrary, it was started well back during the
    times when Black women were not allowed to win the Miss America
    contest.  Since they have only recently been allowed to win, it will
    take a little time for the other contest to peter-out.
    
>    Couldn't you hear the uproar if someone announced a WHITE ONLY Miss
>    America contest? 
    
         Until very recently, that is what the Miss America contest was.
    
                                        Greg

    RE:    <<< Note 1106.12 by AIMHI::RAUH "Home of The Cruel Spa" >>>
    
    >But the times, they are a changing! And doesn't it seem the more
    >logical thing to do is to realize that there have been good changes and
    >that there should be a time to start taking down the walls that you are
    >creating now?                                    ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^
     ^^^^^^^^ ^^^
    
         There's the point, the "walls" are not being created now.  They
    were created when they were necessary, and were considered "doors of
    opportunity" rather than "walls".
    
                                         Greg

.14> I guess it is a perspective, of which side of the fence your
.14> standing on.

    Racism is regarded as a crime if practiced by a majority - but an
    inalienable right if practiced by a minority.  The notion that one's
    culture is superior to all others solely because it represents the
    traditions of one's ancestors, is regarded as chauvinism if claimed by
    a majority - but as ethnic pride if claimed by the minority. 
    Resistance to change and progress is regarded as reactionary if
    demonstrated by majority - but retrogression to a Balkan village, to an
    Indian tepee or to the jungle is hailed if demonstrated by a minority.

    Similarly in the matter of the "gay games".  A title such as "Straight
    Games" would be homophobic if practiced by the majority, but, an
    inalienable right when practiced by the minority  ... similarly for
    gay "pride" in the gay games as practiced by the minority but homophobic
    if practiced by the majority....similarly "reactionary" if homosexuals
    were asked to form their own "games" but they're hailed as a celebration
    when formed of their own.
    
    Is that grass on the other side of the fence?
    
    Jerry

    Re basenote:
    
    as you can see reading through the previous notes, alot of people share
    your feelings that these games will NOT help to bring people together,
    but in fact add more bricks to the wall of prejudice and special
    interest. Others feel, I believe, that these games WERE the only way
    that 'minorities' could compete, at least in the past. 
    
    You're the one who has been asked to make a decision right NOW. We can 
    all speculate, but don't have to make an immediate choice (since I
    won't be in either the Miss America Competetion OR the Olympics! in
    the near future!).
    
    Do what's right for you. Remember the message you're sending. Remember
    real friends understand real choices. And be happy with whatever you
    do decide to do FOR YOU. 
    
    :-)
    

    RE:    <<< Note 1106.14 by AIMHI::RAUH "Home of The Cruel Spa" >>>

    >The bottom line is either or they are still obsticals that create what 
    >ever effect upon the opposing side. 
    
         An obstacle created the Miss Black America contest.  No "side" is
    innocent of that.  To expect immediate reaction from one "side" after
    allowing decades upon decades for the other "side" seems unreasonable.
    It is likely, however, that the reaction will not take anywhere near the
    magnitude of time that the primary positive action took.
    
    >For better or worse, they still polorize verse harmonize. What is it that
    >you want then?? 
    
         What is it that *I* want?  Perhaps I should let you know that I
    don't quite qualify for such a beauty contest.
    
         However, let's look at what YOU are requesting.  Miss Black
    America was started some time in the distant past because Black women
    were not allowed a fair chance in the Miss America contest.  Within the
    past 4 or 5 years, Black women have been allowed to actually compete.  Your
    expectations are that the Miss Black America contest should immediately
    shut down upon the occurence of a Black winner?  We may both agree, at
    this point, that they should consider ceasing operations, but at a time 
    when racism is again on the rise, there will be those who will be wary.
    
                                      Greg
                                               

    RE:    <<< Note 1106.18 by AIMHI::RAUH "Home of The Cruel Spa" >>>

    >I have no jack boots and arm bands, nor do I own a white hooded 
    >outfit that resembles a conehead. 
    
         While mentioning that you do not subscribe to such ideas, consider
    that there are those who do.  Even in DIGITAL.
    
    >I am trying to show is that you don't have to be white male to be 
    >promigate racism.
    
         I am certain that I did not disagree with such a point.  If that
    is your main concept, then there is no reason for the discussion.
    
    >I also think that you view that racism being on the rise is pesonal 
    >and a contrived issue.
    
         While it is certainly personal to the victims and perpetrators, I 
    think it would be extremely easy to prove you wrong on the "contrived"
    part.  A trip to a library and a glance through newspapers will give
    you a reasonable count (crime sections, political sections, etc.).
    However, pre-compiled statistics are maintained by several government
    agencies.  Racism (in a measurable form) is, without a doubt, on the
    rise.
    
                                      Greg

    RE:    <<< Note 1106.20 by AIMHI::RAUH "Home of The Cruel Spa" >>>

    >Racism maybe on the rise of both sides. Both gay and streight. 
    
         What does this mean?  Are you talking about racism or sexual
    orientation?
    
    >Exclusive black colleges. This sort of descrimated practice goes on 
    >OPENLY in our society. And it is socialy accepted too! 
    
         Really?  Tell me, can you name ONE SINGLE Black-majority college
    which has a rule against non-Black students?  I'll bet you can't.  If 
    they were exclusive, they would be ineligible for government funds.
    
    >I wounder who is now starting WWIII? I think the demise of what is felt 
    >to be advancements in the social acceptance of special intest will be not 
    >at the hand of the folks who are white, streights, men, what evers, but 
    >you own hand. Your own practices will eventually cause this destruction. 
    
         I'm not sure what you are talking about, but I'm pretty sure I
    disagree.
    
    >It is the common man who rose up and struck back at the system that 
    >was serving him a bad hand. If your concerned, as I am, of having the 
    >racism raise its ugly head and bite you. Then doing things that will 
    >promigate harmonie is the real practice that should be practice. 
    
         I do what I can to promote harmony.  For one thing, I try to
    correct the misinformed when their comments appear to be stirring
    up more hatred.
    
    >And I know that you both realise that what I have said is truth. 
    
         I think several of my answers to your comments indicate that I
    think what you have said is NOT the truth.
    
    >I am trying to help by saying the things that I have said in a 
    >constructive manner. Despite my bad spelling I think that I have 
    >convaid these things well. 
    
         The spelling can be overlooked, however the sentence structure is
    sometimes difficult to follow.  I am trying to see your point of view
    on these matters, but you must realize that some of what you are saying
    is not accurate.
    
                                          Greg

    
    >you obviously have no clue
    
    now there's a nice friendly productive kind of comment. Do you think
    you might maybe rephrase that to something more like "I think that
    you're wrong".........
    
    anyways. I do NOT believe in affirmative action in all cases. Case in
    point the fireman position where two women scored in the lowest
    percentages of the scores but still got the jobs. Not fair. Not fair.
    Not fair. Fair is only fair if it's fair to everyone. If *I* score
    better on a job test then *YOU* do, then I SHOULD get the job, 
    regardless of what color, sex, religion or any other special status
    group I belong to. FAIR IS ONLY FAIR IF ITS FAIR TO EVERYONE. Otherwise
    it is a comprimse. Affirmative is a poor comprimise IMHO. 
    
    Anyhow. I *DO* agree that there is a place for special interest groups/
    clubs.  An all men's club, an all womens' club, a black club, a white
    club, and gay club, a ugly women in their late 50s club. People should
    be able to 'hang out' with whomever they choose. I would not push
    my daughter into a boys club or my son into a boys club just to make
    a point, or to raise a stir.  My point was, if someone wants a Miss
    Black America pagent, then that's just fine. If you want a Gay
    Olympics, then that's fine too. Just don't piss and moan when you see
    the 1996 Straight Olympics or the Miss White America Pagent. 
    You CANNOT have it both ways, or in this case, YOUR way. 
    

    RE:                   <<< Note 1106.23 by CSC32::PITT >>>
    
    >I do NOT believe in affirmative action in all cases. Fair is only 
    >fair if it's fair to everyone. If *I* score better on a job test then 
    >*YOU* do, then I SHOULD get the job, regardless of what color, sex, 
    >religion or any other special status group I belong to. FAIR IS ONLY 
    >FAIR IF ITS FAIR TO EVERYONE. Otherwise it is a comprimse. Affirmative 
    >is a poor comprimise IMHO.
    
         Excellent.  I'm glad you brought this up.  Consider the default
    situation after the removal of Affirmative Action: once again, as it
    was in the past, non-White, non-males would be kept out of many jobs.
    Is this the "FAIR TO EVERYONE" situation you prefer?  Even WITH
    Affirmative Action, most of the more desireable jobs are only slightly 
    populated by non-White, non-males.  By measuring the "fairness" per
    specific group, Affirmative Action is more equitable than the default
    situation.  I don't think anyone, regardless of race, likes Affirmative
    Action per se, but no one has been able to come up with a more
    effective manner of correcting an unacceptable situtation.  They simply
    prefer to return to a situation in which one group has the VAST
    advantage in acquiring ALL jobs.   
    
    >My point was, if someone wants a Miss Black America pagent, then that's 
    >just fine. If you want a Gay Olympics, then that's fine too. Just don't 
    >piss and moan when you see the 1996 Straight Olympics or the Miss White 
    >America Pagent.  You CANNOT have it both ways, or in this case, YOUR way. 
    
         Since you choose to ignore countering points, perhaps I should
    remind you that the Miss (White) America contest was started first.  It
    was not a reaction to the Miss Black America contest.
    
                                       Greg

    RE: <<< Note 1106.25 by HEYYOU::ZARLENGA "but, I HATE sleeping on my back!" >>>
    
         With Affirmative Action there is some discrimination.  Without
    Affirmative Action there is more discrimination.  It is easy to
    complain about Affirmative Action, but rarely does anyone offer an
    effective alternative.
    
                                       Greg

From reading the replies I guess Affirmative Action is whats known as positive
discrimination... giving the job to someone to make up the "numbers" of whatever
minority is involved.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this approach... it should be the best candidate
for the job... if the best candidate is always a white male... then the problem
is in the education etc of the other candidates... and that is what should be
"fixed".  Putting lesser "qualified" (for want of a better word) people in jobs
just because of their sex or colour just means that jobs aren't been done as
well as they could or should to satisfy statistics... and in the long term
surely thats not good for anyone...

far better to fix the root of the problem... the equal opportunity problems
must be tackled by education and attitude change, not statistics.


Xtine

    re .24  
    
    I don't think I ignored the point. The was *NEVER* a MISS WHITE
    AMERICA contest. There WAS discrimination where Blacks did not get to
    participate. That was DISCRIMINATION. But a Miss BLACK America is
    also discrimination. Lets FIX the original discrimination problem
    instead of compounding it. 
    I'm not ignoring the point you're trying to make. I guess I'm just not
    stating mine clearly enough. 
    
    .28
    
    You think that I am imune to discrimination. You think that I don't 
    understand the prejudice that takes place in the job market, in the
    'social club' atmosphere. 
    WELL LET ME CLEAR THAT UP.
    
    2 years ago, I tried out for the local baseball team. I made the cut
    and made the team. I went to practices, my batting average was as good
    as anyone elses on the team, and I made as many plays as anyone else. 
    When it came time for our first game, I got word that I could NOT
    play in the league but the league director who saw my name on the
    roster..Cathy. He called me up to tell me that this was a MENS league
    and that I should go and play softball with the rest of the women. I
    told him that maybe HE should go an play softball with the women. He
    wanted me to write him a long letter telling him WHY I wanted to play.
    I went to his office and told him face to face that I wanted to play
    cause I LIKE BASEBALL...he wasn't happy, but I think he saw that I was
    determined. I got to play, and had no problems with discrimination 
    during the games. 
    SOoooooooooo  my point here is, I didn't go off and start a Womens only
    baseball league. I wouldn't have fought the issue at all if i hadn't
    FIRST made the team. I DO know what it's like to be disciminated
    against (I never got to play little league baseball). 
    
    I DO understand. I CAN relate. And no, I've never been beaten up
    because I didn't fit into the majority (whatever majority it was at the
    time), so I guess you've got me there.
    
    But lets NOT compound it by reverse discrimination. As .29 said, lets
    fix the ROOT of the problem. Lets fix the education system so that a
    candidate for a job acan be selected on his skill level and not on his
    color, sex etc. I DO NOT want to get a job because I am a woman. It
    would not make me very proud to know that I was number 47 out of 50
    candidates, but I still got the job. I do NOT want to be patronized. I
    WILL make my own way. 
    
    Fix the problem, don't compound it with more discimination.
    
                                           
    

    What amazes me so much in this discussion is the yelling about
    discrimination. Both the "Gay Games" and the "Miss Black America
    contest" (or likewise events) have always appeared to me to be events
    in the realms of "minority group promotion". That is, to create
    something that is possible for a wide range of people to enjoy viewing,
    while at the same time gently reminding the audience that there are
    people who are gay, black, whatever. But this latter in a different
    context than just hit the streets and have another rally. Banners get
    boring eventually and this is a much friendlier method.
    
    Ad

    
    in retrospect:
    
    What I am trying *SO HARD* to say is that I think that PEOPLE should
    be able to participate based on their ABILITIES. Shouldn't I feel
    discriminated against because UGLY women aren't able to participate in
    the Miss ANYBODY America pageant? Should I feel discriminated against
    because I couldn't make the cut for the Olympic team? Should I go out
    and start up a Miss Ugly America Contest? Or how bout a Geek Olympics?
    ok...I s'pose I could do that!
    
    Lets HELP to tear down the walls and allow people to achieve success
    with their OWN sweat and without prejudice. 
    
    WHAT is the purpose of a Gay Olympics? ANd when do you start the
    Black Gay Olympics, or the Black Womens Gay Olympics...or the
    Gay GEEK White UGLY Old Women with blue hair Olympics.....
    if you break the group down far enough, even *I* could win something!

    .33
    
    good points. I can agree, as long as EVERYONE has the right to a
    "some status only" event. If someone WANTS to have a Whites Only
    Olympics, then by your point, they should be able to. Minorities
    should not have MORE rights that a majority...but again, keep in 
    mind that the world is NOT just Straight Whites and then everyone
    else. If *YOU* want a Gay Onlympics, then *I* want a Straight Olympics.
    Its as much my right as it is yours.  In fact, lets make it a Straight
    WHITE Olympics.
    But, of these two events, which one do you think would draw fire as a
    homophobic, prejudice, disciminatory, racist, biggoted,
    event and be picketed
    by every special status group that did not fit into that mold? 
    
    Fair is only fair if it is fair to everyone. 
    

    oooppps my last...I MEANT to say     ref .32...
    
    :-)

>    Should I go out and start up a Miss Ugly America Contest?
    
    Careful, people have become *very* rich pursuing ideas like that :-}
    
    If you look at it from the "promotional" viewpoint the point becomes
    moot who's going to win the contest. Gay Games show gays to the public
    at large, putting up a good sports contest. Now if you only look at the
    contest itself as yet-another-sports-contest I can understand why you
    would want anyone be able to participate, but I think the main overall
    purpose of the games is to show the man-in-the-street that gays are not
    only "those-people-who-prefer-same-sex-partners". This is one image
    that can be misunderstood, can be even frightening to people. The value
    of a "Gay Games" can be to allow those people to be confronted with
    abstract "gays" from a "safe place" where they don't have to think
    about what it means to be gay and in the process hopefully reach the
    conclusion that "gays are just as normal as you and me". So people may
    ease up about the issue and be less inclined to discriminate in the
    future.
    
    These events actually help in tearing down those walls - and that's
    needed because we're still a long way from judging people on their
    individual capabilities. Not in events like this but in the society as
    a whole, should we look to fix the problems.
    
    Ad

>    If someone WANTS to have a Whites Only Olympics, then by your point,
>    they should be able to.
    
    Actually by my point they don't need it because the whole world already
    knows that whites are just as normal people as you and me, and can do
    sports and all that stuff (ho hum why are so many very good athletes
    black? :-}). BTW I should go for the "White straight left-wing Dutch
    bleeding-heart-liberals Olympics" but never mind. I don't mind watching
    a Gay Games though except for the fact I'm not too much into sports.
    
    What's the "added message" if you have a "Straight Whites Olympics"?
    That it's normal and accepted to be Straight and White or that it's
    your written right to have them and you therefore will have them? Since
    everybody knows the first, it's easy to assume the second, and that's
    not complimentary in my view.
    
    Ad

>    about what it means to be gay and in the process hopefully reach the
>    conclusion that "gays are just as normal as you and me". So people may
>    ease up about the issue and be less inclined to discriminate in the
    
    Well... I can't see what's so different about being gay that means they
    need their own Olympics... I can understand a disabled Olympics because
    for most sports it would be totally impractical for able-bodied and
    disabled people to compete on equal terms...
    
    but being gay is not a disability so why treat it as one??
    
    are you saying that gays competing in the normal Olympics can't win.?
    
    Its not the same as the Miss Black America argument because in that
    contest the winner is subjective... in an Olympics its first past the
    post... 
    
    
    
    Xtine

    re the last bunch...
    
    some good points to ponder. 
    thanks...
    :-)

>    Well... I can't see what's so different about being gay that means they
>    need their own Olympics...
    
    This is a crucial point. They are not different in that sense that
    they'd need their own Olympics. They are also not different in the
    sense that they don't eat babies, or are green and have three eyes. In
    fact in the sports category they aren't any different at all, which you
    can easily see when you watch Gay Games, what better proof can you get?
    But it *is* a fact that in a lot of ways gays meet discrimination in
    normal life where they also are not different from any other - and
    often that is the consequence of misunderstanding and fears. What Gay
    Games can do is take away a little of those two by showing a prime
    example of something gays are not different in. And encourage thinking
    about all the other things people may think gays are different in, but
    are they really?
    
    Ad

    re -1
    
    woulnd't it be better if these folks participated in the regular old
    Olympics and the public KNEW that the person who just won the gold 
    medal in blah was gay? I think that that would bring about greater
    acceptance then a seperate games. I'm sure that there are MANY Olympic
    athletes who are gay. But maybe the GOOD part of it is, in the
    Olympics, as in many other life events, it doesn't matter who you have
    sex with, so it isn't important whether you're gay or straight or
    as-yet-undecided...:-)
    
    
    

>    woulnd't it be better if these folks participated in the regular old
>    Olympics and the public KNEW that the person who just won the gold 
>    medal in blah was gay?
    
    Of course, that does have a positive influence just as well - as any
    "visible" individual can have by coming out. I've learned a lot through
    people who I knew (and know) as friends or collegues who came out at
    some point (or never were in any closet in the first place). 
    
    But, I also don't see much reason to oppose these kind of events. And
    don't forget, they're also a form of socialising. I see no problem in
    that either.
    
    Ad

    .42
    
    I was thinking of the case where two women scored WAY LOW on the
    physical qualifications to be firefighters. They did well on everything
    else, though I still think that they didn't grade higher than 60th or
    so. They claimed that the physical tests were such that was
    discriminatory towards women. They did not finish with high enough
    scores to be considered. I didn't hear about a percentile or 
    anything like that. But then again, it was long ago, and I'm old and
    losing my mind!
    If there WERE such a quota system set up, then I can understand their
    fighting if the jobs were NOT given to women. I would question the
    logic though that says the even if the particular women applicants
    COULD NOT carry a body out of a burning building, they have to get
    the job anyways because there is a quota to fill. PLaying with numbers
    and quotas is great if there isn't a life on the line. 
    

    .43
    
    some good points, but I don't agree that in the last 15 years women
    have not had the same opportunity for education as men have had. 
    They are perhaps not getting the same jobs, or not getting paid as much
    when they DO get the same job, but the education opportunities are
    there, at least from what I've seen. 
    Because of this, there should be no quota set aside for women in the
    job market. There SHOULD be stiff penalties for someone not getting a
    job if they were the best candidate and overlooked because of sex. 
    No, I don't know how to enforce it. Maybe AA is the only way, as much
    as I HATE the concept and think that it makes for a second rate work
    force.  
    

    .46...boy you got me...
    
    I don't understand the logic...does that mean that women don't have to
    carry out the heavey victims? And the reason for whites having to have
    a better test score than a non-white?? 
    Ok, call me naiive or whatever you like....are any non-whites out there
    angry or insulted by this? As a WOMAN, I am insulted by anything that
    gives me an advantage based on my 'expected' lack of same skill level,
    same physical ability, same intelligence level. 
    If the JOB requires X , then only folks with X should be considered
    regardless of everything that we've beaten to death in the last 45 
    replies!
    
    Good info Mike, where did you get it? 
    

re .46

>  	For firefighters, women and men have different physical
>    tests to pass, the males' test calls for more weight and for
>    it to be carried further.

This I can believe and it sounds sensible - like the police having different
height requirements... as has been said women can be allocated the less physical
jobs... 

>	For firefighters, whites and non-whites have different
>    cognitive requirements, the whites' test calls for a higher
>    score.

you are joking??  this is blatant discrimination! and don't the non-whites find
it totally insulting??




Xtine

      I am not excited about positive discrimination and all its
      complications. I see that a number of noters with female sounding names
      who share this belief. The best must win and the system must not only be
      fair, it must be seen to be fair.
      I have a few questions aimed at this group. I would be interested to see
      their reply(ies).
      Imagine that you are the executive personel officer in a large company.
      The actual interviewing has been done by a panel and the final decision
      rests with you. The successful candidate will be trained for 1� years at
      the companies cost of 500k$. The headhunter charges are 75k$ (long
      complicatd selection process) and the successful candidate will be paid
      in the region of 150k$/yr. Even while training. (A generous company
      indeed) the requirements are stiff the people are hard to find etc etc.
      The headhunter has been paid his 75k$ and the training starts tomorrow.
      One candidate must go forward. All inferior candidates have been weeded
      out leaving 2. 
      The job being filled just for examples sake, is for an airplane driver.
      Case 1.
      Two candidates, perfect in all aspects (decided by the interview panel).
      A and B are female. The only difference that you are able to discover is
      that B is 3 months pregnant. Q.. who gets the job. Again using the fair
      is fair principle. simple. Or is it..
      Case 2.
      Again no discrimination. Positive or negative.
      Two candidates both female, both married. A is 35 and has a family of 2
      children. B is 25 no children (married 3 months ago). Q.. who gets the
      job. Also a simple choice. 
      Case 3.
      Both 25 yrs old, both devout catholics, Both 3 months married. While
      looking for a difference the only one that you can find is that A is
      female and B is not. Who gets the job.
      What will you tell the unsuccesful candidate to help them to win next
      time.
      Rgds,

Tough questions...


Case 1.
      Two candidates, perfect in all aspects (decided by the interview panel).
      A and B are female. The only difference that you are able to discover is
      that B is 3 months pregnant. Q.. who gets the job. Again using the fair
      is fair principle. simple. Or is it..


Well... much as you shouldn't discriminate against women because they 
"might" get pregnant I think its highly unlikely you would put so much training
into someone who will only be with you for 3 months before an extended break
and who may/may not return.  A wins.  B told to re-apply when/if returning.


Case 2.
      Again no discrimination. Positive or negative.
      Two candidates both female, both married. A is 35 and has a family of 2
      children. B is 25 no children (married 3 months ago). Q.. who gets the
      job. Also a simple choice. 


No difference... maybe A has more experience? maybe A's training is more
recent and relevant?... decision based on personality and who would fit in best
with existing team.



Case 3.
      Both 25 yrs old, both devout catholics, Both 3 months married. While
      looking for a difference the only one that you can find is that A is
      female and B is not. Who gets the job.

Well... assuming absolutely everything equal (not realistic) then based on
personality of who would fit in with exisiting team best.



Apart from Case 1 I can see no reason why there should be any discrimination.
When it comes down to it it'll be a personality "click" that wins the job.


Just my 10p's worth



Xtine

re>Note 1106.49               A question of compromising?                  49 of 50
from >ARRODS::CARTER "Treat me like I'm a bad girl..."     21 lines 20-NOV-1990 03:51
      
>>>       For firefighters, whites and non-whites have different
>>>    cognitive requirements, the whites' test calls for a higher
>>>    score.
>>
>>you are joking??  this is blatant discrimination! and don't the non-whites find
>>it totally insulting??
>>
>>
      totally insulted..????
      Not in the tiniest way Xtine.. the IQ type test is the most notorious
      misconception builder that exists. An IQ test designed for and marked by
      a minority(majority) group(classes) will have them coming out top every
      time. An extreme case.. the IQ test designed for Swedish people would
      mark the average American in need of instutionalisation. The same rule
      goes for classes(groups) to a lesser degree.

Xtine,
      This is just a game not the real world, the assumptions that I am making
      could easily be from the real world though.
      The candidate are at other sides of the country and you as the executive
      cannot meet them in order to make the personality decision (time). You
      have only the written report which your (different) interviewers (they
      left for 6 weeks holiday) have sent to you. The report by some fluke are
      identical (standard reporting). You must make the decision which you
      believe will be the best financial one for the company. You are welcome
      to try again on the other two cases. All I am asking is for what you
      might consider to be the most sound financial decision for the company.
      If you wish (pleeese) to play further then decide in case 2 and 3 for
      me.
      Thanks
      just another fun parameter. Case 3 are twins, with twin like upbringing.
      They can only be accessed by telegram.. A safe decision must be reached
      today. Both have given you this deadline (they have other offers). Your
      management have also given you this deadline to find someone so your job
      is also on the line.

    
    an interesting game indeed...
    
    not to bypass it, at dinner last night, I posed this questions to my
    kids (girl aged 10, boy aged 11). 
    
    If you were a boss at a big company and you had one job that you needed
    to fill and you had one black applicant and one white applicant, who
    would you hire. 
    no more hints.
    
    My daughter's answer was, "the black man, because the white guy
    wouldn't deserve it cause the blacks have been treated so badly" (then
    she went on to describe a scene from a movie about Martin Luther King
    Jr.!)
    
    My son's answer was, "I'd break a computer and see who could fix it the
    fastest, and the winner would get the job".
    
    Then I asked my daughter what if *I* went for a job and the other
    applicant was a black man, and I did NOT get the job because whites
    have treated blacks so poorly, would THAT be fair since *I* have never
    'mistreated' anyone?
    Hummmmmmmm...
    
    It IS interesting how kids view the world without prejudice or anything
    but kindness and compassion (for the most part).
    
    Sorry..back to the games:-)
    

    Interesting note. I have met allot of contractors lately, in the last 
    year or so. There was one gentleman who had told me that he had been a
    Dec employee for some 10-15 years. His reason for leaving, leaving
    before the buy-out was some rather reverse discrimanation practices
    that this company has practiced. He, like so many others either, have
    walked into the doors of our competitors, or work like this man for us
    here and there for he is measured on actual preformance. He is a
    programer and writes many lines of good computer code. Funny that what
    we as a society have set out to correct, sometimes over correct.

Re >CSC32::PITT
>      
>    It IS interesting how kids view the world without prejudice or anything
>    but kindness and compassion (for the most part).
>
      that children are "without prejudice or anything but kindness and
      compassion (for the most part)." is your opinion and has little to do
      with facts. No child is without prejudgment albeit less than adults. And
      "kindness" in children topic for another discussion.
      
      Your way of phrasing the question to your daughter...

>      Then I asked my daughter what if *I* went for a job and the other
>      applicant was a black man, and I did NOT get the job because whites have
>      treated blacks so poorly, would THAT be fair since *I* have never
>      'mistreated' anyone? Hummmmmmmm...
      
      Has moved it from an abstract black/white situation to my mother is
      being threatened. Try the question in another way. "If mummy applied for
      a job and that person (unknown) got it". Tell me if you 10 year old says
      'thats right mummy they were probably far better than you and far more
      qualified. Questions like this are part of the not so subtle programming
      of children.      

OK, I'll try again (though moving the goalposts is cheating ;-))

Case 2.

I presumably am not so detached as to not know the current makeup of the 
department or group.  So if we are short of experience/maturity I'd go for the
older, if not then the younger.


Case 3.

Same again on lack or not of men/women.


So I would discriminate on age/sex dependant on need.  But in eiother case I 
would not have chosen an otherwise "lesser" candidate.





Xtine

    .56
    
    when I rephrased my question to my daughter, my point was that *I*
    should not pay for the 'sins of my fathers'. I honestly believe that. 
    Since she felt in the the first scenerio that the black person should
    get the job because "the white person doesn't desrerve it because of
    the way the black person was mistreated", that THAT was discriminating
    against SOMEONE. Because blacks have been, sometimes still are, treated
    badly, it is NOT EVERYONE elses fault. A person should be judged on
    an individual basis. Just as not ALL blacks (gays, women etc,) have 
    been disciriminated against, not all whites (fill in whatever else)
    have been doing the discriminatING.
    
    I wanted her to think about the fact that you CANNOT assume to treat a
    WHITE person one way and a BLACK person another way, just because of 
    sins/suffering of others. (She didn't answer by the way, she wasn't
    mis led by the 'mommy' thing, and I didn't intend her to be).
    

>
>OK, I'll try again (though moving the goalposts is cheating ;-))
>
      My plan was to move the posts together. Promise not to touch them again.
>
>Case 3.
>
>Same again on lack or not of men/women.
>
>
      Have I understood you correctly? If the department was a men only then
      you would give the job to the man?
      
>So I would discriminate on age/sex dependant on need.  But in eiother case I 
>would not have chosen an otherwise "lesser" candidate.
>
>
      Even, if not especially in this game I will allow you to believe that you
      have chosen the best person for the job.
      Thanks,
      Rgds,
      

      .58
      No we should not pay for the sins of our fathers.. or should we. Try
      this on on your daughter.
      If A's father stole B's fathers horse. Then both fathers died. Should B
      accept that the horse no longs belongs to him. I would like to know what
      an 'innocent would say to this.
      Rgds,

    Just a quick point on positive discrimination.
    
    If companies are required to employ from a minority group which
    is disadvantaged educationally the short term result may be workers
    who are not very productive.  The business community suddenly finds
    itself with a vested interest in improving educational facilities
    for disadvantaged areas, since it may be in their long term benefit.
    
    Legislation on positive discrimination creates two responses from
    business:
    
    (a) A lot of bellyaching and lobbying to remove the legislation.
    
    (b) Inasmuch as the legislation is recognised as being a long term
        requirement, a strong lobby (and source of funds) for improved
        educational facilities.
    
    

    
    MY response (though I'm sure my daughters would be much more logical)
    is: 
    
    I want to know WHO is responsible for the sins of fathers. It wasn't
    MY father. It might not have been YOUR father. Who's father was it?
    
    Rat hole follows: :-) (but you did ask.!)
    What about the blacks in Africa who SOLD their brothers into slavery in
    the first place. Are they responsible for the sins of their fathers?
    What about the thousands who died in the civil war to FREE slaves? If
    THEY were our fathers, then do we still 'owe'? How long do we OWE? 
    Should my son still OWE? And his son? And when my daughter goes for a
    job, should she gladly step aside if their is a black applicant that
    she is competing with because she OWES her? Society is US. Do we
    Collectively OWE? When is the debt paid? Is there also a debt owed to
    women for not allowing them to vote for so long? Who will pay that? 
    And of course there are the indians and the children on Japanese
    Americans, and the children of Hiroshima and Jews we didn't save
    during WWII and the list goes on and on and on of people who have been
    wronged during the last 200 years (we'll skip the debt owed the
    Christians by the Romans:-)).... 
    ok so what the HELL am I trying to say? 
    LETS JUST GET ON WITH IT, OK????? Lets work towards educating CHILDREN
    that everyone is a person. Nothing else will work. As someone else
    said, the current methods (forced bussing is a great example) only
    builds a bigger wall. AA only creates hatred....face it....if YOU were
    the most qualified candidate for a job that your really wanted/needed,
    but you didn't get the job because of some AA quota that you did not
    fill, wouldn't it make you hate? Woulnd't it make you feel resentment?
    Not alot differant than not getting the same job because of your color
    or sex. 
    
    By the way, the horse should be returned as it was an obvious
    possession that was stolen. Are you saying that *I* stole something
    from a minority? What is it that *I* stole? Their right to an
    education? Their job if I was more qualified? What was it? Should I
    OWE because there are a bunch of 'fat cats' in the country while others
    are starving. If I am starving too, does it hurt any less because I am
    NOT a minority? 
    
    Sins of the father. How to you fell about it? How long should we OWE?
    And what is the debt that you would have us pay? 
    
    End rat hole. 
    thanks for asking!! I will let you know Jenny's answer....:-)
    
    
    This is kinda fun you guys......I hope that you're not taking any of
    this personally. 

    hey you know....this has LITTLE to do with the basenoters question.
    
    Sorry about that....
    I'll take my rat hole some place else!
    
    (But my original thoughts on your question still stand. Do what's right
    for YOU. If you want to do it, then do it. If not, then stand up for
    your reasons and your friends will respect you for it...or they should
    at least..!! good luck!)
    
    cathy

    
    
    to spare the basenoter any mroe of this rat hole, I won't take the
    bait, Gene!!!!! (though I am enjoying this discussion and would
    gladly continue it offline if you wish)...
    
    but oh,....ok...ONE THING..
    
    >because I AM A WHITE MALE I'd walk down the street and get a job
    anywhere because I have no racial barriers ....
    
    are you kidding? If you don't fit into any minority status then you
    have the niggest racial barrier of all, or haven't you heard that
    the most discriminated group in the country is now the straight white
    males? I would tend to agree if what Mike Z stated in true (the
    brothers who got the job because they said they were 1/16th (???)
    African American). 
    
    Come on...be serious....you can honestly say that you would smile and
    walk on if the potential employer said to you "sorry, I'd love to hire
    you since you are the most qualified candidate, but we have to hire
    a woman because of quotas...."
    wouldn't piss you off just a leeetle bit??????
    
    Then you ARE a better man than I am.....:-)
    
    ;-)
    

    Gee, Cathy, I miss you in the CANADA notesfile...you were fun
    there, too.  :-)
    
    I would imagine some people also feel bad if they got the job
    because they were minorities.  I love my job and I'm glad I got 
    it, but they had two reqs and someone had written "hire minority or
    female" on one and "hire minority only" on the other req.  The
    recruiter really messed up by showing me those copies during my plant
    trip.  A week after I got hired, a female Oriental got hired into my
    group.  
    
    Cathy makes a valid point about providing a better education for all
    students so that they can compete on an equal basis.  My high school
    requires an entrance exam for admission.  Since it was also a public
    school, it was subject to the racial quota system that hit the rest
    of Boston in the Seventies.  They dropped the bottom 20% of the
    students who passed the test and admitted minority students who didn't
    make the cut.  Granted, the validictorian of that class ended up 
    being a Asian woman and the number 2 person was an African-American,
    but alot of qualified students were turned away.  The school is tough
    and loses a large percentage of each class so alot of the
    under-qualified students flunked out anyways.  If the education system
    in Boston and everywhere else was better, the turnout rate could be 
    better.  Admitting under-qualified students just hurts the students
    more because they can't keep up.
    
    B.

    I think the KKK boggieman is really blown out of preportion here. It
    sounds like that if your not for AA then your the KKK. Remember that
    there is a KKK member on every street corner with a tommy gun and a
    linching rope to hang out the hated many! COME ON GUYS! Get real!!
    How about anyone who flys the Dixi flag? WOW! They must be members
    too!! RIGHT! Gee, I fly old Glory from my house all the time, what
    do you call me then?

    
    There are a few issues that caught my eye in here.
    
    These are all my own opinion, our community varies as much as any
    other.
    
    So gays have equal opportunities in sports?  That's news to me. I guess
    they have equal opportunities if they stay in the closet. Has anyone
    heard about a gay football player, or a gay basketball player?  I've
    only heard about Bob Paris, considered to have one of the best bodies
    in bodybuilding, who hasn't won many/any contests and lost a great deal
    of contracts after he came out.  And of course, Martina, who was called
    a discredit to the sport for encouraging young girls to be gay. 
    Obviously, the accuser, the 19xx Olympic winner in tennis, I think,
    thought that Martina being out was luring little girls into the locker
    rooms together.  I know very few lesbians, to be honest, that find
    straight women attractive, we don't really recruit.
    
    
    So, we have equal oportunities in jobs?  Well, I know two people at my
    site who were transitioned or laid off under mysterious circumstances.
    Even in this state, with the equal rights bill.  It is a wonderful
    thing, but difficult to enforce.
    
    
    So, equal people can score equally on tests?  News again.  Tests are
    slanted.  Consider the SAT's have just come out with a new version,
    which is explicitly supposed to address that issue.  Consider that
    women entering MIT generally have lower test scores then the men, but
    leave with higher GPA's.  Consider the entrance test for apprentices to
    the  electronics  union in Boston, which involves some simple math and
    a timed series of moving pegs from one board to another.  That
    obviously slants towards people who have used their hands more
    throughout their lives, which in society today, is men.  I failed that
    test, or didn't pass it high enough.  That was in my senior year in EE
    at MIT, I think I had the aptitude to be an electrician's apprentice.
    
    
    And, in response to the base note, not all gay people view themselves
    as the same, except sleeping with x instead of y. Being gay for me and
    many others is a lifestyle.  And not necessarily by choice.   I didn't
    start out wanting to "do gay things, go gay places".  But that's
    becoming more and more important to me. Why would I want to  take my
    spouse to a straight bar, so we could get stared at or possibly beat
    up? Maybe somebody will try to throw her out of the bathroom one more
    time, because she's very butch and they've never seen/noticed a butch
    dyke before.  I know many very accepting, wonderful straight people who
    we are both very comfortable around.  But a crowd of strangers?  No
    thanks.
    
    The Pride March in Boston and being in Provincetown were two of my
    favorite things this summer.  Finally, no staring, no threat.
            
    You (whoever) may not think it's so different, but my lack of equal
    rights is rubbed in my face most every day.  How about when you receive
    your benefits bulletin?  Not only do we not have benefits for our
    spouses, but the issue is not even publicly addressed.  It's very hard
    to get joint credit cards, etc.  If I were to get an awesome job in
    another country, I couldn't bring her.  Seeing as I'm married, that
    means no jobs except in the US.
    
    The reason I'm ranting on about this is that seperate space is a very
    nice thing for me.  Not all the time, but sometimes it is so nice to be
    somewhere where you're not subject to threat, funny looks, etc.
    
    I also like gay Olympics because it shows you wonderful things gays can
    do, and gives you pride in yourself and your community.  Because so
    many gays who are doing special things have to stay in the closet,
    watching sports is often like watching others do something, it's not
    something "we" do.  Same as some Americans gets all tied up in knots when
    the US wins at the Olympics, because that's us (Americans)...   
    
    If the basenoter doesn not have these same feelings, I don't see why he
    or she should become involved with the Gay Games.  There are plenty of
    places to donate those skills, both within and without the gay
    community.  And there are plenty of gay hackers who could write code
    who would probably be very happy to do it.
    
    Rachael
    
    
     
    
    
    
                                                  

    
    thanks for your input Racheal. 
    
    If more gays in sports went public, then I'm sure that, like anything 
    else, people would see that's it's been there all along. No big deal.
    
    But if what you're saying is that you don't WANT to be equal, that
    you'd rather be with folks you can relate to or who make you feel
    uncomfortable, or who can understand what it's like to be YOU, then
    I believe you should have every right to do that. 
    
    But everyone should have that same opportunity.  Example: I ONLY want
    to go to a bar with people that I can relate to, people I feel
    comfortable with, people who don't embarrass me or make me feel
    differant...I want to go to a bar where there are only XXXXX kind of
    people. So that means that this is an XXXX bar, and all you YYYYYs 
    are not welcome.  
    
    This means to me that we will ALWAYS be seperate and differant and that
    there will NEVER come a time when I am comfortable with *you* and you
    are comfortable with *me*.  If that's the best we can do, then so be
    it as long as we respect each others rights to that. 
    
    I really did enjoy your note. Thanks.
    
    

      .73
      This is not an accusation Cathy. This is a request for further
      information and a clarification on your note.
>    
>    But everyone should have that same opportunity.  Example: I ONLY want
>    to go to a bar with people that I can relate to, people I feel
>    comfortable with, people who don't embarrass me or make me feel
>    differant...I want to go to a bar where there are only XXXXX kind of
>    people. So that means that this is an XXXX bar, and all you YYYYYs 
>    are not welcome.  
>
      Does this mean to say Cathy that you will lead the movement which will
      put up the notice on the door which says "NO YYYYYs ALLOWED". This is
      the easiest way to keep the YYYYYs out.
      And if a YYYYY accidentally wanders into your bar then in the heat of
      your discomfort, what are you going to do. Are you going to give up your
      favourite bar.
      If we are talking about jobs on the other hand. (jobs are far harder to
      come by than bars). What will you do when a YYYYY is hired to work near
      to you. Above parallel or below? And should you be in the hiring
      seat, what will you do when a YYYYY suitably qualified asks for a
      job. You are the only one that feels uncomfortable with YYYYYs, the rest
      of the group are neutral.
      And there again if a YYYYY who considers themselves covert should wander
      into a XXXXX bar. If the YYYYY is trying to return to the XXXXX camp
      because they were not comfortable in the YYYYY camp. What will the
      XXXXxs going to to defend their bar.      
>
>    This means to me that we will ALWAYS be seperate and differant and that
>    there will NEVER come a time when I am comfortable with *you* and you
>    are comfortable with *me*.  If that's the best we can do, then so be
>    it as long as we respect each others rights to that. 
>
      Do you really mean this Cathy? because In the same way that we can watch
      the crumble communism, this dream of seperate development is dying in
      another part of the world.
      What I would like to hear is to what extent can you tolerate people
      being different and also be equal. Are there problems with people who
      dress differently as well.
      Rgds,

      I think also that the original question has been answered. The noter can
      decide to help a friend. That is the question. There are some far more
      interesting questions raised. The topic is a general one of
      discrimination and some misconceptions.
      .64
>    What about the thousands who died in the civil war to FREE slaves?
      Very few people died to free slaves. The white (and black) people who
      died in that war died to keep the U in the S of A.
      What most people fail to realise is that slavery does not work. Consider
      the following. To produce a kitchen slave.. 9+ years, to produce a field
      slave..14+ years. Life expectancty was 31 years. Not a very good return.
      But they were stolen from Africa.. Yes but as soon as the system got
      going the price reflected the production time.
      There were poor whites arriving all the time who were willing to fight
      to free the slaves. They needed the jobs.
      And of course we had the visits to the slave quarters at night. This not
      only annoyed the lady of the house it produced problems which the master
      had to live with. Does he send the product to the fields to be beaten
      and mistreated. does he leave him around the house to remind him of his
      fun. Then on the other side we have the broken field slaves.. do we
      give them jobs in the house. And what about the ladies of the house if
      they were not so broken after all.
      The problem which has not changed to this day, How do you make someone
      who has nothing to lose work. If you wait (or pay the equivalent) 14 to
      20 years for a big strong slave. He then runs away, refuses to work or
      perhaps attacks you. Whatever you do it is your money being destroyed on
      the end of that whip.
      Slavery is not commercially viable over the long term.

.64

      Looks like we are no the same side after all  8-).. Good. 
>    
>    By the way, the horse should be returned as it was an obvious
>    possession that was stolen.
      lets deal with the black indigenous minority.-- First of all the person
      was stoled, then the labour was used, then premature death due to
      overwork. lets add that up.
      1 childhood..   $1,000,000   best time of your life they say.
      1 working life  20 years at $50,000 per year. (use current day salary)
      1 premature death. $100,000

      This makes per slave abducted .. $2,100,000 payable by the
      person/persons who benefitted most from the abduction etc etc. Then of
      course we could add a little interest payment, then also a little for
      pain and discomfort suffered. How much would you sue someone for if she
      whipped the flesh off your back?
            
>                           are you saying that *I* stole something
>    from a minority?
      We were not talking about *you* Cathy we were talking about groups. If
      the case must be personal to be understood. Please check out the road
      that you drove on the plane that you flew in the school building that
      your children visit. *You* Cathy cannot afford any of these objects from
      your income (Unless you are holding out on us). *You* benefit from the
      society in its current state and the effort that went into building it.
      If the inequality still exists then the decision must be taken to
      perpetuate or eliminate. (the inequality)

>                           What is it that *I* stole?
      The democratic decision (rule of the minority by majority) has been
      taken in the society that you live, that the inequality should be
      eliminated. It is imposible to determine how much each person gained
      from the crime. The state gained in taxes so the state is liable and
      easily identifiable. For the individuals a random and completely unfair
      process called equal oportunity laws will randomly penalise occasional
      whites to the advantage of occasional blacks.
                            SUGGEST A BETTER WAY.
      Without these laws/ rules the black would never leave the field
      regardless of their ability. (see note from PITT about wishing to be with
      the XXXXXs and excluding the YYYYYs)
      
>                                                      Their right to an
>    education? Their job if I was more qualified? What was it? Should I
>    OWE because there are a bunch of 'fat cats' in the country while others
>    are starving.
      The fat cats are paying too cathy, check the tax bill of any rich or
      highly paid person.
>
>                If I am starving too, does it hurt any less because I am
>    NOT a minority?
      hate to talk politics but I believe that starvation is no longer a
      minority passtime.  8-)
>    
>    Sins of the father. How to you fell about it? How long should we OWE?
>    And what is the debt that you would have us pay? 
>
      I believe that *YOU* you should owe until any American can live in any
      street that he can afford. Get any job for which he is qualified.
      etc.etc. The debt will be paid when the difference between the haves and
      the have nots is small enough that the haves can walk the streets at
      night.  "Even jog in central park".
      Until then there will have to be external (to the survival of the
      fittest) laws to prevent strong groups getting stronger and weak groups
      getting weaker. Whether the difference between the haves and the have
      nots is colour, creed or birth. 
>    End rat hole.
      Not a rathole I believe that talking about it help people to see the
      starting point of others.
>    thanks for asking!! I will let you know Jenny's answer....:-)
>    
>    
>    This is kinda fun you guys......I hope that you're not taking any of
>    this personally.
      Havent enjoyed a discussion like this since the one on working mothers..
      o  0
        |
     \----/
      Rgds,

	I got mail from the base noter to which I wrote the following
    reply.  It goes into some points in my first note.  By the way, I
    appreciate the supportive responses I got.  That was the first time
    I've written something explicit in an open forum.
    
XXXX, 
    
      	When I went home Cyndy also pointed out to me that there are pro ball
players who are out.  I still think there are a lot more in than out, and
that it's not really safe to be out.  I just worded my note too strongly,
I think I'll put in a qualifier.    

	I don't want my sexuality to be the first thing, like a gay athelete
or a gay engineer.  And I'm not a seperatist.  I really like meeting new
people, all sorts of people.  Some of my favorite people here at work are
really nice but not very issue-educated and tend to say bigotted things even
to me.  I just give them friendly sh*t about it when they do.  
	
	The problem I find is that, with heterosexuality assumed, especially
for me because straight people hardly ever guess that I'm not, I often have
to clarify my sexual preference just to stay in a conversation.  I know,
some people don't ever discuss anything from home when at work, but some
do and I'm one of them.  I'm very open and like to discuss what "we" did
for Thanksgiving, etc.  

	Being gay is so unusual to most people that if I bring up anything
about it, like "he's a she" (my spouse), it seems like I'm making a big
statement when I'm really not.  I think some people think, "well, I don't
want to know who you sleep with, it's not really any of my business, I
don't know why these gay people are always bringing up sex".  But every
time I see a traditional wedding ring I am being told who that person is
having sex with, every time a friend brings up his or her girl or boyfriend,
I am being told who they are having sex with.  It's just not so obvious 
when it's part of the dominant culture.  

	I was in a meeting the other day with 12 people, all of whom were
wearing wedding rings.   (By the way, I know lots of gay couples who wear
wedding rings, but they rarely look like the ones straight couples wear.)
All I could think was "my God, these people are parading their sexuality
in a business meeting!!"


	Anyways, I'm babbling.  Monday morning stuff, I guess.  Thanks for
your mail.  I don't blame you for being anonymous.  I am scared to write
under my name, but I do it so that some day we will be a normal thing, and
the issues concerning seperate space will be obsolete.

Rachael
    

This reply is from the anonymous author of the base note.
    
    ******************************************************************
    
Irrespective of the tangents in this string I have in fact gathered some
very helpful information.  The "bottom line" is that of 1106.72 in that

	(1) "If the basenoter does not have these same feelings, I don't
	    see why he or she should become involved with the Gay Games."

	(2) "There are plenty of places to donate those skills..."

	(3) "..there are plenty of gay hackers who could write code
	    and would be very happy to do it."

In consideration of the fact that there is a feeling of "compromising"
that which *I* believe in, and, the above....

I have made arrangements to have the uVAXII (which was to be donated to
the gay games) to be donated to a local high school and will leave the
support of said games to what surely will be a multitude of others who
are more than willing to support them with a clear conscious.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.