Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    Excellent topic!  
    
    I've felt for a long time now that white males as a group have been
    getting the shaft.  Like you, I hope that my reply does not cause
    some well-worn ratholes--there are exceptions in every "group" 
    where people have been discriminated against.
    
    Personally, this "group" thing has always bothered me.  When did
    we stop being "people" or "Americans" and start being "black Americans"
    or "Hispanics" or "Asian women"??  Deciding that we belong in groups
    has probably caused more upheaval than anything it proposed to solve.
    
    I, too, would like to see the day when we strive for "equality"
    of people and stop being Feminists or Macho Men, or whatever.
    
    I live in Mass. and am appalled at what happens to the MAN in a
    divorce.  My husband and I both work two jobs and are looking for
    another to make ends meet--after his divorce from his first wife
    came through, the judge awarded her a large sum of money, and then
    the Mass. laws took another whopping amount of ADDITIONAL child
    support for their 3 year old daughter.  What makes it hard to 
    swallow is that SHE left HIM, and never paid a cent towards the
    house (she left just 2 weeks after they moved in).  We were 
    lucky, though--we can still manage to keep the house.  Some 
    can't do that.
    
    I have seen and heard of too many cases of judges automatically
    awarding the lion's share to the wife.  I have seen and heard
    of too many women hired into positions they are not ready for simply
    because they are women.  Please don't misunderstand--I am NOT
    advocating reversing the whole process;  I guess this trend is the
    obvious pendulum swing.  What I would love to see is a divorce 
    judge that listens to the evidence, and makes a sane and fair decision.
    I would love to see the RIGHT person hired for the job, based on
    his/her qualifications and experience.
    
    Sorry to ramble on so, but you hit on a subject I am concerned about.
    
    Jane                                     
    

This is a good topic.  There is currently a battle raging over this 
topic (called "strate, white males") in the gay notes file.  It's a 
good topic.

First of all I am a white male.  Second, I am gay.  I think that gay,
white males have an interesting perspective on this topic.  If we keep
our mouths shut, we are perceived as being "strate, white males."  If
we reveal our sexuality, suddenly, we become a "minority."  So, at any
time on any given day, I can feel like a member of a group that holds
the majority of the powerful positions in this country
(strate-appearing, white males) or I can feel like a member of an
oppressed minority (it's amazing how some people change once they find
out I'm gay). 


Do I think that life is becoming a little bit harder for white males?  
Yes.  I can see that, once in a while, they may be turned down for a 
job because a company is trying to fulfill a quota.

Do I think that white men are "getting the shaft"?  No.  I think that 
it is still so much easier for a white man to overcome the "quota war" 
than it is for a member of a minority to overcome racism.  

I'm kind of torn on the issue of affirmative action.  On one hand, I
don't like the idea of hiring a person because of his or her minority
or gender status, possibly over a white, male candidate who is
qualified.  On the other hand, I fully understand that it is no
accident that white males will have better resumes (and not
necessarily more brains or ability) than a minority candidate who,
because of racism and circumstances, did not have access to the same
schools as the white candidate.   I also realize that a company cannot 
really create an environment that values differences (which will 
become increasingly important as many businesses become 
"international" and have to deal with different cultures) if it 
doesn't make a commitment to hiring women and minorities; and what 
better way to ensure the hiring of women and minorities than to "pick 
a number to shoot for."

So, I'm torn on affirmative action.  And, I don't think that 
affirmative action is very applicable to gay people.  It is my opinion 
that the gay people are already in the companies; we just need 
education to make the environment safe enough for those employees to 
feel safe about being honest about themselves (if they choose).

I think that the issue being discussed in the gay notes file is more 
one of accuracy and respect for the feelings of white men.  For 
instance, there are a lot of statements thrown around like "...strate, 
white men oppress us..." or "...if we are going to make any progress 
against strate, white men...."  Some of the white men in the file are 
getting bent out of shape about their color and gender always being 
linked to "oppression, mysogyny, hatred, power, violence, and 
prejudice."  All the white men in the file are saying is please allow 
for the fact that not all white men are willingly "part of the 
oppressive system."  

>    Personally, this "group" thing has always bothered me.  When did
>    we stop being "people" or "Americans" and start being "black Americans"
>    or "Hispanics" or "Asian women"??  Deciding that we belong in groups
>    has probably caused more upheaval than anything it proposed to solve.

Well, for me, I think that it _isn't_ really a group thing.  For me, 
it's a _personal_ thing.  For instance, I don't think that it is a big 
deal that I belong to the group of "gay men."  After all, what's a gay 
man?  Is he effeminate?  (Some are.)  Is he rugged?  (Some are.)  Is 
he left handed?  (Some are.)  Is he an interior decorator?  (Some 
are.)  Is he a Chief Executive Officer of a corporation?  (Some are.)
Anyway, you get the point.  

I don't think that you can tell anything specific about me by looking
at the group.  However, I do think that you can learn an awful lot
about the group by looking at me.  What are my experiences?  What does 
being gay mean to me?  What has being gay in a homophobic society 
taught me?

To me, I want my homosexuality to be included in the many other traits 
that I have.  Basically, because I want to be "whole."  I want to be 
"whole" at work, and I want to be "whole" on the streets.   Basically, 
I want to take the energy that I could use to hide my sexuality and to 
use that energy being a productive worker at DEC and being a 
productive citizen of this country.  THAT is what the DEC Valuing 
Differences philosophy is all about.  It's about being able to be 
wholly yourself at work and to take the extra energy that's normally 
used to "be a generic DEC employee" and to put it into the work.

I don't want to be pressed into a mold of "generic American" or
"generic people."  Do you know why?  First of all, because I like 
being a unique individual.  I don't think we could create an image of 
a generic American that would make all of us comfortable, that would 
include all of our individual quirks.  Second, generic people and 
Americans most often default to be most like those people in power or 
like those people in the majority.  And, in this country, the generic 
American would most likely resemble a strate, white male.  I am not 
strate.  I am gay.  I don't want to be put into a box, especially one 
that doesn't fit.  I think that Asian people and women and 
handicapped people and older people and other people of difference may 
give you the same message: don't turn me into a generic version of an 
American.  Let me be my kind of American, okay?


					--CommiePinkoFagGer

    I think that, as with so many other "movements", you will see the pendulum
    swing in the direction of over-compensation for awhile and then swing
    back to the center... referring specifically to Affirmative Action.
    
    I'm a firm advocate of EEO but only lukewarm about AA.  Likewise, I'd
    like to see an Equal Rights Amendment which pertains to all humans, not
    to any specific subgroup.  For that reason, I consider myself more of a
    "humanist" or "personist", if you will, rather than a "feminist".  I'm
    both, but the humanist side takes precedence when there's a conflict. 
    In general, there is no conflict.  Fair is fair.  When you're being
    fair to a woman, you're being fair to a man.  When you're fair to a
    straight, you're fair to a gay man or lesbian.  When you're fair to a
    black, you're fair to a white.  Being "more fair" is being unfair.
    
    Marge

	My understanding of affirmative action is that it means if two
    employees are equally qualified, hire the minority/female person.
    Traditionally if they were equally qualified or even if the man was 
    less qualified, he would be hired.  Why is there this assumption that
    minority candidates aren't qualified?  Have you looked at their
    resumes and interviewed the people in question?  How many people hired 
    to their first supervisory position have supervisory experience?
       The thing that bums me out is being highly qualified and having
    someone say or assume that you got hired "because you're a woman".
    	Linda

    Quoting from "EEOC Guidelines on Affirmative Action": 
    
    "Requests for guidance have been received by the Commission from
    persons subject to Title VII concerning the relationship between
    affirmative action and so-called 'reverse discrimination.' There is no
    separate concept under Title VII of 'reverse discrimination.'
    Discrimination against all individuals because of race, color,
    religion, sex, or national origin is illegal under Title VII.
    
    "...Congress enacted title VII in order to overcome the effects of past
    and present employment practices which are part of a larger pattern of
    restriction, exclusion, discrimination, segregation and inferior
    treatment of minorities and women in many areas of life.  Congress
    sought to accomplish this objective by establishing a national policy
    against discrimination in employment and encouraging voluntary
    affirmative action to eliminate barriers to equal employment
    opportunity.  It is the Commission's interpretation that appropriate
    voluntary affirmative action, or affirmative action pursuant to an
    administrative or judicial requirement does not constitute unlawful
    discrimination in violation of the Act."

When I reread .2, I noticed that my writing made it sound like I 
automatically assume that all women and minority candidates have inferior 
qualifications to those of white men.  I _know_ this isn't always 
true.   I didn't make that clear in my writing.  Who knows who is 
going into the interview with the better resume?

As I understand it, if a company has fulfilled its quota and if 
there is a white, male candidate competing against a person whose 
difference is included in a company's affirmative action goals, then 
the choice can be made purely on qualifications since the company is 
already meeting quotas.  Just because a company supports AA does not 
mean that a choice between a white male and a person covered under AA 
guidelines will always go to the other person on the basis of minority 
status.

Also, I hear that the "next generation" of affirmative action problems
will involve attrition, keeping the women and minorities.  For
instance, at ZKO, I have heard that we have a problem keeping some
minority workers because of the climate for certain minorities in
Southern New Hampshire (and also Boston).  

If a company can keep its minority workers and maintain its quotas, 
then remaining job hunts will find people being judged purely on 
qualifications.  I don't think working towards AA goals eliminates 
judging people on their merits; with some hard work, both goals can 
be achieved at the same time.


						--Ger

    Why is it the company's problem when people leave due to any perceived
    biases of the surrounding communities?  The company has no control
    over these biases.  Should they be punished (and by default the
    job candidates who are not minorities) because the minorities are
    leaving the company for non-company related issues.
    
    I don't necessarily think so.
    
    Ed..
    

I wouldn't worry just yet about white males being the victims of reverse
discrimination.

Counting my part-time jobs during college, I've been in the work force 20
years. I've seen a lot more white men promoted into jobs they weren't ready
for than women and minorities.

Incompetence comes in all colors and both sexes.

Vicki Meagher

    RE .9
    
    Vicki
    
    Are you trying to say that we (white men) should not worry about
    all of these quotas, etc causing reverse discrimination just because
    it is not quite as bad as it got with women and minorities?
    
    I am one who is all for equal opportunity.  But I am angered when
    I hear people claiming that quotas are necessary to correct past
    evils.  All that accomplishes is causing new evils and creating
    hard feelings.
    
    Ed..
    

    Good point .10
    
    Either we are going to have a level playing field or we're not.
    Personally I abhor discrimination, past and present, no matter
    what it's called, no matter what specious justification is offered
    in its' defense.
    
    						Hank

    	Well, I can certainly sympathize with how upsetting it must
    	be to see that SOME jobs that had been traditionally following
    	100% White Male Quotas are now showing (thanks to EEO/AA) that
    	the number of white males currently employed in those areas has
    	fallen to a shocking 85-95%.
    
    	The 5-10% of the white males who formerly held jobs like
    	Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, Managers, etc. can probably
    	be found to be living under bridges as ruined men because
    	of the laws that forced them to allow a few percentiles of
    	minorities in their fields.
    
    	If it continues to be this bad, some day white men could find
    	that their original 100% White Male Quotas have been reduced
    	to a REALLY shocking figure (such as, oh God no, 80%.)
    
    	Now that would be a real tragedy.

    	As someone who only occasionaly visits the U.S. I am not sure
    exactly what the quota system means there, but it seems to me that many
    countries might benefit from laws where a substantial deviation from
    the local racial/sexual average would require strong justification.
    
    	Ignoring the cases in Africa where there is significant racial
    discrimination between two tribes of very similar race, I suspect that
    there would be a substantial pay rise for the underpaid British
    hospital nurses before that profession managed to find its
    proportionate quantity of white males.

    I have a question for which I will probably get totally beaten up.
     Who says that hiring and what have you MUST match the racial/sexual
    mix of the local or whatever community?  In every community there
    are groups of people that don't want to be in the work force.  Why
    then, should we attempt to make up for those people?
    
    THE FOLLOWING IS JUST AN EXAMPLE.  DON'T KILL ME FOR USING THIS
    EXAMPLE!!!!!
    
    For example, in some cases many women don't want to be in the work
    force.  If this is the case, why then must these women be included
    in the totals for percentage purposes?  If we have a pop of say
    100 people, broken down as 50 men and 50 women, and all 50 men are
    in the work force, but only 25 women are in the work force.  What
    many people are saying is that we should have quotas to insure that
    50% of the new hires and promotions are women.  I would like to
    ask why we need quotas?  But barring that question, the quotas should
    really be based on a pop of 75, with the male % then being 2/3 and
    the female % being 1/3.
    
    When I hear of a very qualified white male student being denied
    admission to law school because of minority/woman quotas, then I
    do get angry.  I don't care about .12's sarcastic tongue-in-cheek
    put-down on us men.  Discrimination is discrimination no matter
    who does it and no matter for what "worthy" reason.  If that means
    that I am going to hurt some feelings by my belief, then I apologize
    in advance.
    
    Ed..
    

    re: Ed
    
     What you have to understand about Ms. Suzanne Conlon is that she
    is more than happy to see men get discriminated against (as is obvious
    by her reply). Men _deserve_ to be discriminated against because
    their ANCESTORS discriminated. That discrimination is WRONG IN ANY
    FORM is totally lost on her. She would make a great stereotypical
    discriminatory male because discrimination is only bad when it
    adversely affects her or her kind. It is just dandy when applied
    to someone else. 
    
     Why should promotion, college acceptance, and job offers be offered
    to the most QUALIFIED individual, regardless of race, gender, etc?
    That would only advance us as a society farther and faster. We
    cartainly can't allow that, not while we have past wrongs to contribute
    to. No sirree! We must punish white men for the wrongs of their
    fathers. No, not for what THEY have done, but for what someone they
    had no control over has done. That sounds fair.
    
    The Doctah

    re: .12 By Suzanne Conlon
    
    I find your continued use of the phrase "white male" to be
    both sexist and racist. 
    
    I personally feel we must move beyond the labels used to identify
    separate and polarize people. I look forward to the day when what
    matters is not our sex, not our color, not our religion, not our
    sexual orientation, none of that; only the fact that we are people
    working together for the common good and decency of all.
    
    						Hank

    	RE:  .15
    
    	What you have to understand about The Doctah is that he
    	is lying to you.  His explanation of my views is a total
    	and complete falsehood.
    
    	Where have you ever seen anyone request that quotas for
    	women be 50%?  I've never seen a figure that high (except
    	from people who say they would protest it.)  Hell, *I* would
    	protest a figure that high as well.

    	I didn't personally start programs like AA, but God knows,
    	I take a lot of garbage for those programs as if I had
    	personally written up the laws and passed them myself.
    
    	Truth is, there were so many jobs that hired white males
    	exclusively that even if you presented a minority candidate
    	who walked on water to an employer, what they would "see"
    	was someone who just wasn't quite right.  Perhaps they didn't
    	even know why (or in the case of employers that *I* knew in
    	the mid-1970's, they would tell you outright "We know that
    	women are incapable of doing the same quality of job that
    	men do here.")
    
    	If the culture has a history of hiring only white men for
    	certain jobs, then OF COURSE minority candidates are going
    	to have less experience when you first start trying to hire
    	them.  Without programs like AA, there would have been no
    	incentive to allow minorities or women into the door 15 years
    	ago (and as it was, many, many, many minorities were treated
    	so badly when they WERE let in the door that they MORE than
    	paid their dues for being there and were judged FAR more
    	critically than their white male counterparts during the
    	1970's, and possibly still are being judged over-critically
    	in some places today.)
    
    	The truth is -- I'm glad that minorities were able to get a
    	foot in the door and I don't believe that our culture could
    	have managed to accomplish this without packing a bit of
    	punch behind the initial 15 years or so of this social change.
    
    	But, hey, let's wake up.  Affirmative Action is *VERY*
    	threatened currently, so it's damn sure not going to get any
    	worse than it's already been (so you can cut the scary talk
    	about quotas going up to 50%, etc.)  Obviously, it will never
    	happen (and I don't even know anyone who WANTS it to happen.)
    
    	I just hope that AA was around long enough to get enough people
    	started so that minorities will not be able to be completely
    	and totally driven out of the high-paying jobs like they had
    	been for hundreds of years prior to AA.

    	RE:  .17
    
    	Hank, if a woman [or is that a sexist word, too?] called you
    	a sexist for using the word "female," she would get slammed
    	from here to tomorrow about calling you names unfairly.
    
    	I didn't create the social conditions that forced people to
    	be aware that traits like sex and skin color could reduce
    	their chances for opportunity in our culture.
    
    	When sex and skin color don't adversely affect opportunities
    	any more, perhaps we can all live without ever thinking 
    	about any other person's sex or color, but that day has not
    	arrived yet (so there isn't a thing wrong with someone talking
    	about that fact in the meantime.)
    
    	Have a good day, Hank.

    re .18
    
     Nice tap-dance, Suzanne.

    	RE:  .20
    
    	Aw, you're just trying to butter me up so that I'll forgive
    	you for lying.
    
    	Ok, you are forgiven.  :-)
    

    careful, Suzanne...you're getting soft.
    
    grins,
    Marge

    Thanks alot Marge! And it was working too. :-)
    
    Seriously, though Suzanne, it _did_ sound like you were in favor
    of discrimination <against men>. 
    
    To quote a famous woman who's made it big (Annie Lennox)
    
       Would I lie to you? Oooooh No No No!
    
    The Doctah

    
    re: 19
    
    >I didn't create the social conditions that forced people to<
    >be aware that traits like sex and skin color could reduce  <
    >their chances for opportunity in our culture.	        <
    
    No you didn't and I never said you did. But IMHO by supporting
    AA you are endorsing social conditions that force people to
    be aware that traits like sex (male) and skin color (white)
    could reduce their chances for opportunity in our culture.
    
    Again, I support equal rights, equal opportunity, equal treatment
    for everyone. We can not change the past, we must move forward.
    In this I guess we disagree.
    
    						Hank
    

    RE: .12 (Suzanne) - I think yor motivation/attitude, etc. with regard
    to this note has been beaten to death.  I can certainly empathize
    with your strong feelings in this regard, and agree that something
    must be done to correct the situation.  But to me, the answer lies
    in changing the valuation system that favors the skills that men
    typically possess (logic, math/scientific, rapid decisionmaking,
    etc.) to include the skills that Women typically excel at
    (communications, relationship-building, nurturing, attention to
    detail).  [And the lists could go on and on.]  
        
    Traditionally, women have been reduced  to the role of support
    for their men, placing all value on the men's characteristics. 
    In the early years, the physical superiority of men (size, muscle
    structure etc.) was necessary for the dominant role of the man.
    He had to protect the family from animals and warring individuals,
    build shelters, etc.  Life today is totally different from the way
    it was 10,000 years ago, for example.  The skills needed today are
    obviously different from those needed then.  But we cannot, in a 
    very short time, reverse thousands of years of prejudice.
                                           
    It is my personal belief that "Things are changing."  The only way
    that this process can be sped up is by trying to understand the
    "other side," and then working actively toward eliminating the sides.
    A conference such as this CAN be a good start.  But only if we can
    try to eliminate the "Us vs. Them" attitudes.
                                           
    And BTW, I question the 85 - 90% figure of male (WASP?) dominance
    of the professions.  Of a listing of physicians in Nashua, NH (a
    notoriously non-minority state) that are attached to the local HMO,
    I found 30 males, 10 females, and 4 whose gender were not easily
    determinable.  And of the 44, only 21 had "Anglo-Saxon sounding
    names."                                
                                           
    Jack                                   

    	RE:  .24
    
    	Hank, there is a phrase in the AA policy which is the source
    	of much/most of the confusion/disagreement on the intent of
    	the policy.
    
    	Without digging this up verbatim, the AA policy makes mention
    	of "correcting" for past injustices, or inequalities (or some
    	such.)  Right?
    
    	It sounds to me as if that reads to you, "The policy wants to
    	punish white males because other people have been punished in
    	the past and they now want revenge."
    
    	That isn't the meaning it has to me.  The way I see it is that
    	"We cannot compete on level ground with each other until the
    	ground is made level FIRST by making the kinds of corrections
    	that will give everyone a fair footing."
    
    	The past is over and done, fine.  I agree with that.  I don't
    	want to punish ANYONE personally for what their ancestors did
    	(or even for what THEY have done in the past themselves.)  I'd
    	rather see people get opportunities for the future instead.
    
    	The thing is -- when your whole cultural conditioning says,
    	"Males are competant, but women and people of color are not,"
    	how do you correct for that kind of deep-seated attitude when
    	so many people probably don't even realize that they THINK that
    	way?
    
    	In another conference, a noter told about an interesting experiment
    	that was done some years ago (where two candidates were described
    	to a group of managers and they were asked which one they would
    	pick.)
    
    	First, they described a woman who had superior education but
    	very little experience in her field.  The other candidate was
    	a white male who had very little education, but LOTS of experience
    	in his field.  The majority of the managers said they would
    	hire the man because they felt that his experience in the field
    	was most important.
    
    	Later in the experiment, they described a woman candidate who
    	had little education, but LOTS of experience in her field. 
    	The other candidate was a white male with a superior education
    	but very little experience in the field.  The majority of the
    	managers said they would hire the man because they felt that
    	his education would give him the most growth potential in the
    	future (and that he would soon be able to get enough experience
    	to be competant in the current job requirements.)
    
    	Both times, they thought they were picking the "best candidate"
    	and had no idea in the world that there was a prejudice at work
    	(and that any way someone sliced it, the white male would always
    	"look better" to them than the minority.)
    
    	That's what prejudice is all about.  It's not always visible
    	until you look at our culture as a whole and realize that although
    	a hell of a lot of minorities and women keep graduating from
    	college every year, white males still enjoy a vastly disproportionate
	number of the best paying jobs (whether you are talking about
    	areas where people have been in the business for decades, or
    	whether you are talking about young adults just out of college.)
    
    	When you see such inequities, how can you suggest that it can
    	be fixed by just ignoring color and sex from now on?  Even programs
    	like AA were not enough to fix things.  They made a nice dent
    	in the numbers, but there is still so much inequity, it is
    	ridiculous.
    
    	If you think that we should stop programs like AA because it
    	has made white males feel like they might be discriminated against,
    	well, I would certainly hate to piss white men off since they
    	still control the country and all (:-)), but I have to wonder
    	to myself why white males feel so threatened when the numbers
    	of minorities and women moving into positions side by side with
    	them are still so damn small in so many occupations?
    
    	It leaves me wondering if some white males feel that it would
    	be better to let minorities and women go blow rather than risk
    	upsetting or inconveniencing a single member of the white male
    	establishment.  (No, that's not what I think, but I do wonder
    	about it sometimes.)
    
    	It's kind of like hearing able-bodied people bitch to high heaven
    	about being "discriminated against" by being denied access to
    	'handicapped parking spaces.'  I mean, someone could probably
    	make a serious case (in a law suit) about how handicapped
    	parking places discriminate against able-bodied people, but
    	who would want to?  I would hope no one would be so small that they
    	couldn't afford to be inconvenienced from time to time by not
    	being able to park in designated handicapped parking spaces.
    
    	That's how I feel when I see people start to bitch about programs
    	that try to provide opportunities to people who have been
    	systematically denied opportunities over hundreds of years.
    	
    	It's not the idea that white men should be punished.  It's the
    	idea that past inequities have given terrible disadvantages
    	to some minorities, to the extent that just saying "Ok, let's
    	start even as of right now" would NOT have been enough to get
    	minorities off the ground 15 years ago.  
    
    	It took women 72 years to win the right to vote in this country.
    	Without programs like AA, it would have taken more like 100
    	years to see the kind of progress in EEO that we have seen in
    	the past 15 years.
    
    	Some may think it's ok for minorities to have to wait that
    	long for justice (rather than risk inconveniencing the majority,
    	heaven forbid :-)), but some of us would rather see things happen
    	a little faster than that.
    
    	And it has nothing whatsoever to do with revenge, either.

    	RE:  .25
    
    	> But to me, the answer lies in changing the valuation system
    	> that favors the skills that men typically possess (logic,
    	> math/scientific, rapid decisionmaking, etc.) to include the
    	> skills that Women typically excel at (communications, relation-
    	> ship-building, nurturing, attention to detail)...

    	It would help ALSO if people stopped thinking of either of those sets
    	of skills as "typically" male or female.
    
    	Suzanne (whose_work_skills_are_primarily_logic,_math/scientific,_
    	    rapid_decisionmaking,_etc.)  :-)

    
    Suzanne, I will thank you to not speculate as to how things read to
    me nor how I interpret what I read. I have never mentioned the word
    "punished" nor "revenge" and I am going to request what many others
    request of you; namely, please do not put words in my mouth. I will
    be more than happy to state my views and answer any questions you
    have honestly and politely.
    
    Now, as simply as I can I will restate my views on the topic.
    
    I do not feel that discrimination is the answer to discrimination
    of the past.
    
    On this, we simply disagree.
    						Hank 

    RE: .27 - Suzanne, the _American_Heritage_Dictionary_ defines "Typical"
    (Basis of "Typically") as 
    "2. Pertaining to a representative specimen; characteristic."
    
    If you question the correctness of my response (.25), I would strongly
    recommend that you get a copy of my source - _In_a_Different_Voice_,
    by Carol Gilligan, Harvard University Press, 1982.  If you wish,
    I would be happy to let you borrow My copy, upon completion of the
    "Counseling Women" course, sometime after April 8.
        
    Although we should avoid stereotypes, we are burying our heads in
    the sand by denying that certain differences between men and women
    exist.  (For the most obvious ones, Vive la Difference!)
        
    Jack

	RE:  .28
    
    	> Suzanne, I will thank you to not speculate as to how things read to
    	> me nor how I interpret what I read. 
    
    	If this is what you want from me, why are you so consistently
    	unwilling to allow me the same courtesy (instead of repeatedly
   	rephrasing and reinterpreting MY views?)
   
   	> I do not feel that discrimination is the answer to discrimination
    	> of the past.
    
    	> On this, we simply disagree.
    
    	Please stop putting words in my mouth, Hank.  I have never stated
    	that I think "discrimination is the answer to discimination
    	of the past."
    
    	We simply disagree on what constitutes discrimination (which
    	is a whole other ball of wax.)
    
    	Rather than nitpick about one small point I made in my note,
    	I would have preferred that you attempt to address the question
    	of how minorities could have hoped to achieve "level ground" with the
    	majority in our lifetimes without any sort of assistance at
    	all.
    
    	P.S.  By the way, do you think of handicapped parking places
    	as deliberate discrimination against able-bodied people?

    Re: .29

    >I would strongly recommend that you get a copy of my source -
    >_In_a_Different_Voice_, by Carol Gilligan, Harvard University Press,
    >1982.  If you wish, I would be happy to let you borrow My copy, upon
    >completion of the "Counseling Women" course, sometime after April 8. 
    
    Since node SALEM is in New Hampshire, and node NEXUS is in Colorado,
    does that mean that you will ship the book to Suzanne's location?
    
    Just curious,
    Mike (who also works in Colorado)

	RE:  .29
    
    	> Although we should avoid stereotypes, we are burying our heads in
    	> the sand by denying that certain differences between men and women
    	> exist.  (For the most obvious ones, Vive la Difference!)
        
    	Yes, I agree.
    
    	However, you make me very uncomfortable when you suggest that
    	the very attributes that I depend on to earn my living can
    	be characterized as "masculine" (i.e., more typically male.)
    
    	It makes me especially uncomfortable to hear you say this at
    	a time when things like "logic" are (at the present time) still
    	valued quite a bit more for my job than "nurturing" would be.
    
    	It would deny my own individuality to suggest that as a woman
    	I am (or should be) nurturing at work when I am being paid the
    	'big bucks' to be logical.
    
    	See what I mean?  :-)

    RE: .31 - Mike,  Suzanne has not requested it, but I would be happy
    to pay the cost of shipping the book to her.  It would be a relatively
    small contribution to what I see as a serious problem to which I
    am personally commited.
    
    This note is getting relatively chatty, so I will try to keep personal
    questions confined to VAXmail hereafter.
    
    Jack

    re: relatively chatty
    
     I guess the key word is definitely "relatively." I am pleased that
    we have broken through the "one new note per day" quota.
    
    The Doctah

    This is your co-moderator speaking.  I would appreciate it if everyone
    could please refrain from speculating about what another noter
    believes and simply speak for themselves.  If you wish to ask questions
    of clarification, please feel free, but do it in a polite fashion that
    assumes the best.  In any event, ad hominem attacks should be avoided.
    
    This statement is not meant to apply to any specific participant
    in this topic.  I think this discussion is worthwhile, but I also
    feel it is rapidly turning into a shouting match.
    
    Thank you for your support.
    
    					Steve

    I have some serious reservations about the affirmative action programs.
     I, for one, am pleased to see the Supreme Court knocking down quota
    laws for minority subcontracting in government contracts.  I don't
    happen to believe that we should be building up one group at the
    expense of another group.  If we take two small companies, why should
    one be helped JUST BECAUSE THE OWNER HAPPENS TO BE A MINORITY, and
    not help the other JUST BECAUSE THE OWNER IS NOT A MINORITY?  This
    seems to me to be discrimination.  Am I wrong?  Let us not justify
    the discrimination by saying it is making up for 100 years of
    injustice.  That is alot of b*llsh*t.  I have not discriminated
    against others.  I should not be punished for something I did not
    do.
    
    I think the reason white males get so angry about this issue is
    not because they see the white male group losing power.  Rather
    I think it is because they see themselves note being given a fair
    shake, so that another person can be helped.  This moves from a
    group thing to a personal thing.  Anytime I am told I can't have
    something because of AA quotas, then yes I am going to be very angry
    and am going to want to strike back.  I can imagine that this was
    the way minorities felt when they were being oppressed.
    
    Instead of hurting one group at the expense of another, we should
    be looking at why the minority group isn't progressing.  One big
    reason is education.  If I am not mistaken, many more minority children
    drop out of school, for various reasons, than do white children.
     Without an education, I will be d*mned if I am going to feel
    sympathetic to the minority child when he/she cannot find a job.
     It was their decision to quit.  There are many dedicated teachers
    who would be more than willing to help students having difficulties.
     If the child decides they want to get pregnant, not do the school
    work, or whatever, it is their decision and I should not have to
    pay for that decision.
    
    Another way to help minorities without hurting other groups is through
    training programs.  Rather than tell a qualified medical student
    he is not allowed into med school because a minority is being allowed
    to meet their quota, maybe we should encourage the opening of more
    medical schools, or the opening of more positions in existing schools.
     Also, we already have in many places training programs which could
    be utilized more heavily.  Also, there are many scholarships, grants,
    and loans for people to get the required education to get ahead.
     This world is decidedly in favor of education.  To get ahead, in
    most cases college or some such is a necessity.  NOONE IS STOPPING
    THE MINORITY FROM GOING TO COLLEGE IF THEY DESIRE.
    
    So, if I am to be hurt for things I have not done, then I WILL get
    angry and I WILL do all I can to see that MY injustice is corrected.
     If that means making the Supreme Court insure we do not pendulum
    too far by striking down blatantly discriminatory contracting laws,
    and the like, then so be it.  I am not sorry in my beliefs.
    
    Ed..
    
    

    Oh yes, one other thing.  As much as some would prefer to deny it,
    there are decidely different traits between the sexes.  There has
    been scientific studies done to prove that women are especially
    good at certain things and men are especially good at other things.
     I can't honestly state what either traits are, but I know that
    they exist.
    
    So when I hear people try to espouse the lack of differences between
    the sexes, I almost laugh.  These people are denying the obvious.
     This is not to say that either sex cannot do well the things the
    other sex is good at.
    
    For example - AND ONLY FOR EXAMPLE, NOT STATING AS FACT -
    
    If one of the dominant traits for women is nurturing, there is nothing
    to say that a man cannot be just as nurturing as a woman in many
    cases.  All that has been stated is that a statistically significant
    number of women are better at nurturing than men.  This does not
    say how much better, or whether being better at this particular trait
    is necessarily critical.
    
    So let us not deny our differences, but rather revel in them and
    use them to our advantage.
    
    Ed..
    

    RE: -1 That's what keeps life interesting.
    
    Here we go again, lumping woman in with blacks, hispanics, etc,
    etc.  The truth beknownst, men and women are different.  Yes, some
    women act like men and some men act like women, but for the most
    part the majority of us are comfortable and yes jhappy that men
    and women are different.  
    
    There are other things which bother me about the men and women
    discussion.  
    1)The womans liberation movement has been a big part of why many
    woman cannot stay home and raise their kids.  (Yes, believe it or
    not many woman still do want to be housewives and resent being looked
    down upon for ONLY wanting this)  
    
    2)Since 1974, a women with basically the same background as a man
    makes $1.01 for every $1.00 the man makes.  The way the libbers
    come up with the $.60 for every $1.00 figure is by comparing unlike
    situations as if they were equal.
    
    Your turn Suzanne.:')
    
    Mike
    

    re: Suzanne ref: handicapped parking
    
    Most of my handicapped friends and associates do NOT use handicapped
    spaces because they don't want to specially treated. Older handicapped
    folks use them because it takes so long to get to their destinations
    from their cars. Most of the handicapped spaces being used at DEC
    are by those personnel with an injury or something that gives them
    temporary use of the space. In the public sector most of the spaces
    are used by totally fit people who are too lazy to walk more than
    50 feet.
    
    I could write a novel on the misuse of parking spaces from Handicapped
    to "Nurses Parking" to "Visitors Parking". I generally get most
    of the complaints.
    
    8^)
    
     Ken

   RE: .39 (Mike) 
       
    >For years it was "obvious" that men were better at math skills and
    >women were better at verbal skills.  Recent studies have shown that
    >this allegedly "obvious" difference is actually false.
     
    Mike, could you give me the source of this information?  Who conducted
    the study?  Where are the results published?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Jack

    Re: .41
    
    I don't have the exact reference in front of me, but I can tell you
    that a recent study published by researchers at the University of
    Wisconsin and and the University of California found that differences
    between boys and girls test scores in verbal and math skills has
    disappeared in recent years.  There used to be a gender difference in
    test scores, and this new finding has contradicted a long held,
    "obvious" difference between males and females. 
    
    Mike

    C'mon, now. Men and women are the same. Why do you think some people
    get confused and become homosexual? :-)
    
    The Doctah

    Re: .43

    >C'mon, now. Men and women are the same. Why do you think some people
    >get confused and become homosexual? :-)

    I don't know about everyone else, but in my case it is the manner in
    which women *physically* differ from men that I find attractive. The
    discovery that women and men do not differ in their mental capacities
    does not affect my sexuality in the least; I have never, for example,
    been sexually aroused by a math skill. 
    
    Your raised an interesting point, however; perhaps some people do cling
    desperately to a belief in arbitrary psychological gender differences
    because of insecurity about their own sexuality. 
    
    -- Mike 

    re .44
    
    True enough.
    
    Men and women generally have the same intellectual capacity. While
    it has been shown that men tend to excel more in the sciences than
    in the humanities and women the opposite, late studies indicate
    that this may be a result of social conditioning more than aptitude.
    I tend to believe this. There is one difference between men and
    women (intellectually). Women statistically tend to be more equal
    than men. In other words, the bell curve encompassing women's iq's
    tends to be much sharper than men's. This is shown by the fact that
    while there are more highly intellectual men than women (per an
    equivalent sample size), there are also more profoundly retarded
    men than women. (Men tend to deviate from the mean more than women
    do) Whether there is a biological reason for this or if it also
    a result of social conditioning I can only speculate.
    
    I also find that the physical differences that separate the sexes
    are the most sexually stimulating, however, I can relate to women
    on a purely intellectual basis (tho we may not always agree). I
    find this type of interrelation stimulating, but in a far different
    way. If a woman is physically attractive, I find it distracting
    when attempting to relate on an intellectual level. 
    
    The Doctah

    Re: .46

    My feathered friend,
    
    I'm just curious if you are distracted by female eagles.  Suppose you
    worked with one who was highly intelligent, but who also happened to be
    quite attractive--with a cute upturned beak, lovely long claws, and a
    nice set of wings.  You try to squawk at her about business, but you
    find yourself staring at her sleakly feathered body.  Could you prevent
    yourself from being distracted?  Or would you be thinking to yourself,
    "Hey baby, your nest or mine?" 
    
    Mike   :-)

	RE:  .49
    
	.12> If it continues to be this bad, some day white men could find
	.12> that their original 100% White Male Quotas have been reduced
	.12> to a REALLY shocking figure (such as, oh God no, 80%.)
    
    	.49> Policies like AA create so much race-resentment that this will
    	.49> never happen unless mandated, and if mandated the minorities will
    	.49> get the less-desirable jobs.  Same as it ever was.

    	Race-resentment towards minorities existed LONG before programs 
    	like AA were introduced (except that it was often more race-HATRED 
    	than mere race-resentment.)  The existence of such prejudice
    	was the reason programs like AA were started.  Prejudice caused
    	the need for AA.  AA did not cause prejudice (although there
    	are certainly plenty of people who are still prejudiced against
    	minorities and would love to see them put back where they were.)
    
    	The main thing that programs like AA did was to break down
    	racial and sexual barriers to certain kinds of careers in the
    	space of decades instead of centuries, which is a remarkable
    	achievement when you consider how long social changes have
    	taken in the past.
    
	.18> I didn't personally start programs like AA, but God knows,
	.18> I take a lot of garbage for those programs as if I had
	.18> personally written up the laws and passed them myself.
    
    	> Given the opportunity, you would have.  Am I right or wrong?

    	To be honest, it never would have occurred to me to want to
    	do something like that.  I thought that the social changes
    	necessary to provide REAL opportunities for women and minorities
    	would take hundreds of years (and that I'd be lucky to see even
    	the tiniest hint of change in my own lifetime.)
    
    	I was stunned to see something put into effect that would cause
    	changes in less than a decade or so.
    
    	When AA started, it had been over 100 years since the abolition
    	of slavery in the U.S., and Civil Rights causes were barely
    	off the ground.  (By the same token, it had been over 125 years
    	since the beginning of the Women's Rights Movement, and over
    	50 years since women had gotten the vote, but women were still
    	far from getting the kinds of career opportunities that are
    	available to us today.)
    
    	Without AA, women and minorities would have continued to wait
    	for centuries to see the kinds of changes that have taken place
    	in the past 15 years.  
    
    	Programs like AA didn't CAUSE the hatred and resentment of women
    	and minorities.  These programs only reduced it to the point
    	where it is less socially acceptable to express it (unless one
    	is talking about the perceived discrimination against white
    	males.)  Even then, people say it with the qualifier, "I know
    	this isn't popular to talk about."
    
    	One other thing I'd like to add is that one of the most gratifying
	experiences I've had while in debating all this is to see the
    	support of some white males for programs like AA.  I've gotten
    	some wonderful mail from some of the men in this conference
    	about how the increase in opportunities for minorities has
    	been of great benefit to our whole culture (and I want to thank
    	those men right now for their support, which is greatly appreciated.)
    
    	Thank you all very much.

	RE:  .51

    	> They took a short-cut and the tradeoff was to "swing the pen-
    	> dulum the other way", [this phrase is not mine] they should have
    	> said "let's stop the pendulum from swinging at all and place it
    	> at rest in the middle", it's inevitable that if it's still in
    	> motion it will again swing the other way.   Any engineer could
    	> tell them that.
    
    	How were they supposed to GET the pendulum to the middle when
    	the inequities involved were so unbelievably extreme?  (Remember,
    	we're talking about having a group move from being the "legal
    	property" -- as in bought and sold like an inanimate object
    	-- to having full opportunities for education/employment, etc.)
    	Over 100 years after the group stopped being "property," things
    	hadn't moved much farthur than that.
    
    	If things haven't changed for a group in over 100 years, how
    	many milleniums do you expect people to wait to start SEEING
    	some progress?  (How long would YOU have been willing to wait
    	if 100 years had already proved to be "too soon" for much to
    	change?)
   
    	> AA reduced hatred of women and minorities?  I don't see it
    	> that way at all.  AA created an environment that mimicked everything
    	> that was wrong with the (then) current one.
    
    	It's harder to hate an entire group of people when you sit side
    	by side with members of that group every day (and find out that
    	they REALLY ARE competant, caring individuals.)  If you haven't
    	experienced that, I'm sorry for you.  I've seen it happen in
    	plenty of other places in the past 15 years.
    
      	> AA may have reduced how much women and minorities hated white 
    	> males (or those in power), but the feelings now are far from mutual.
    
    	Well, if it isn't important to you that you are now hated less
    	than you were, why should you expect minorities to "buy into"
    	the idea that we should care whether you hate us more or less?
    
    	If you were in a group that had zero opportunities and had the
    	following two choices, which one would YOU pick?
    
    	    1)  You will continue to have ZERO opportunities yourself,
    		and will have a difficult time supporting your family,
    		but there is a remote chance that your descendents in
    		hundreds or thousands of years may have things better.
    
    	    2)  You will have increased opportunities, but some
    		members of the white/male establishment will claim that
    		they like you less now (although an equal number, or
    		MORE, members of that group will learn that competant
    		employees come in all colors/sexes.)  No matter what
    		either of those subgroups say, you will be able to take
    		care of your family well with this choice and your
    		children face a better future.
    
    	You place far too much importance on what you think of us (in
    	light of the fact that you don't care at all that we might now
    	think better of you because of programs like AA.)

    
    
    For you consideration:
    
    	Charles Cooper, Justice Dept.
    	"Quotas of any kind make competitors lose their individuality. They
    	become just members of groups. The notion of merit would be
    	deadened by the acceptance into the American ethos of race-based 
    	relations."
    
        The other side of the argument....
    	Justice Blackmun on the Bakke case.
    	"In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of
    	race....And in order to treat some persons equally, we must
    	treat them differently".
    
    	Sandra Day O'Connor, taking exception to the minority view
    	while writing the SC decision on the Richmond vs. Croson case..
    	"The [A.A.] version of equal protection review effectively
    	assures that race will always be relevant in American life 
    	and that the 'ultimate goal' of eliminating entirely from
    	governmental decision-making such irrelevant factors as a human
    	being's race will never be achieved."	
    
    	
    								Hank
    
    	RE: Nexus:Conlon
    	I would appreciate it if you would stop telling different noters
    	that you feel sorry for them because their views, opinions
    	or experiences differ from yours. I submit that all opinions are
    	valid and equally worthy of consideration and discussion.
    	Thank you.
    
    

    	RE:  .53
    
    	Hank, I would appreciate it if you would send your "personal
    	messages" to me through mail instead of writing them publicly
    	from now on (and I will answer through mail as well.)
    
    	Apparently, you must have sent the other noter MAIL who used the
    	phrase "I feel sorry for those who..." when he said it, because
    	I notice that you didn't single him out for criticism over it
    	publicly (even though it occurred prior to my use of it.)
    
    	If you have a personal axe to grind with me, please do it through
    	mail.
    
    	Thanks.

	RE:  .56
    
    	.52> How were they[women,minorities] supposed to GET the pendulum<
    	.52> to the middle when the inequities involved were so...extreme<
    
    	.56> This is something I've been wondering about for quite a while.
    	.56> Again, Sandra D. O'Connor offers this....
    	.56> "In the extreme case, some form of narrowly tailored racial
    	.56> preference might be necessary to break down patterns of deliberate
    	.56> exclusion"
    	
    	.56> Judge Scalia seems to agree when he states that he would uphold
    	.56> AA only where well documented instances of unlawfull discrimination
    	.56> occurs. 
    
    	.56> I consider these fair compromises...
    
    	Actually, so do I.  Of course, it would depend on their definitions
    	of "extreme case" and "patterns of deliberate exlusion."  Hopefully,
    	our definitions would have more in common than not.
    
    	It has never been my opinion that AA should be used in all
    	situations at all times (regardless of the particular circumstances
    	involved) or that quotas should become permanent even if it
    	is found that the case qualifies as "extreme" initially.

    A few questions (at this point, I can't offer any answers):
    
    1.  Has any one of you -- male or female, of whatever race, sexual
        preference, age, veterans status, handicap, or religion (does
        that cover all the actionable qualifiers?) -- ever personally
        experienced discrimination?                        ^^^^^^^^^^
    
    2.  How did you know it was discrimination (as opposed to salving
        hurt feelings over losing out on something you wanted)?
    
    3.  Would you be able to prove discrimination in a court of law?
                      
    4.  What type of proof is required to prove intent to discriminate
        and/or a pattern of discrimination?
    
    5.  Is reverse discrimination happening in significant numbers? 
        How can we tell?  Does anyone have facts?
    
    
    Karen
                                   
    
    
     

>                 -< Yes Virginia, Men and Women ARE different >-

Wow!  Camp from a strate man???   ;-)

>    Oh yes, one other thing.  As much as some would prefer to deny it,
>    there are decidely different traits between the sexes.  There has
>    been scientific studies done to prove that women are especially
>    good at certain things and men are especially good at other things.
>     I can't honestly state what either traits are, but I know that
>    they exist.
    
Yes, Ed.  I think you are right.

But I don't think that feminists like myself are arguing that.  What 
we _are_ arguing is that there is no body of evidence that links those 
differences directly to the genetics of the sexes.  Men are good at 
some things because, to a large extent, they spend their whole boyhood
being taught "how to be a boy."  Women spend their whole girlhood
being atught "how to be a girl."  Very little deviation is tolerated.
(If you don't believe me about "intolerance for deviance from sex
roles," dress up or "act" like the opposite sex in a public place and
tell me how you get treated.) 

It's like setting up rigid training camps: one on how to grow to be a 
"man" and the other on how to be a "woman."  And then we blame nature
for the "differences" in the sexes.  I don't think that we would find
that many differences between the sexes if we allowed our kids to
deviate from the strict sex roles that _we_ define and enforce. 
(Sure, we would still find some, but not as many.) 

Take it from one who is deviating from the male sex role by falling in
love with other men, people don't make it easy on me to be my natural 
self.

						--Gerry

>    C'mon, now. Men and women are the same. Why do you think some people
>    get confused and become homosexual? :-)
>    
>    The Doctah

Ha!  I ain't confused!!!  :-)

    
>    1.  Has any one of you -- male or female, of whatever race, sexual
>        preference, age, veterans status, handicap, or religion (does
>        that cover all the actionable qualifiers?) -- ever personally
>        experienced discrimination?                        ^^^^^^^^^^

No, but I have received verbal harassments.  "Faggot" shouted from a
passing car is pretty easy to discern as harassment. 

I feel that this happened due to my perceived sexual orientation. (I
prefer the term "orientation" to "preference"; my love for men is not
like chosing Coke over Pepsi.)  There have been a significant number 
of cases where people have been harassed and attacked due to the 
perception that they were gay (some were actually strate).  For more 
information on numbers, refer to the 1988 Justice Department "Hate 
Crimes" study that ranked homophobic attacks in the top 3 of all hate 
crimes committed in the United States (all this and the fact that lots 
of people are afraid to report these crimes because it might 
publicly reveal their homosexuality/bisexuality).

I've never been discriminated against besides the fact that what I
(and many strate folks) choose to do in the bedroom with a consenting
adult is outlawed in 30 some-odd states, that I am not allowed to
marry, that my lover and I are not allowed to get the same number of
work benefits as my strate, married coworkers, and that, in many 
cities and states across the country, I am not allowed to be a teacher 
(or other professions) by stated policy simply due to my sexual 
orientation.  Besides all THAT, no, I've never been discriminated 
against.

(I actually work as a software technical writer for a pretty accepting
group within DEC.  I'm happy here.  They accept me as an openly gay
man.) 
    

						--Gerry

    
>    1.  Has any one of you -- male or female, of whatever race, sexual
>        preference, age, veterans status, handicap, or religion (does
>        that cover all the actionable qualifiers?) -- ever personally
>        experienced discrimination?                        ^^^^^^^^^^


   Yes. As a college student I applied for a summer job as a security
   guard. The job involved checking employees' briefcases as they
   left the facility to make sure they weren't stealing equipment,
   etc.

   I was called for an interview with the head of security. During the
   interview he told me that the interview was taking place because
   X% of the people he interviewed had to be female, but that I was
   not going to be considered for the job. Needless to say, I was furious,
   both for the discrimination and for his wasting my time. This happened
   in 1984.

   In 1973, my family was forced to leave the apartment complex we lived
   in because we were Jewish. The manager was a born-again Christian
   who held revival meetings in the complex's recreation room and believed
   that all non-believers would burn in hell. That year, anyone who turned
   in a request to renew their lease who had a Jewish-sounding last name
   had their request "lost". This happened to dozens of people. Eventually,
   the situation was exposed (in fact, the owner of the apartment complex
   was a Jew), and the manager was fired. But it still happened and it was
   still discrimination.

   This isn't probably what you mean by discrimination, but
   of course, there was much verbal harassment because we were Jewish, also.
   This hasn't happened to me in years, however.
   And of course, there's verbal harassment (of the "Hey, Baby!" type)
   any time I've had to walk by a construction site simply because I'm female.

   So yes. I have personally experienced discrimination.

>"Faggot" shouted from a
>passing car is pretty easy to discern as harassment.

 How did they know you were a "faggot?" Is it possible you were encouraging
them?  Or were they just being jerks, looking for someone to harass? (It
happens). How is that incident different from anti-hunters driving by
me when I am preparing to go hunting and yelling "Bambi-killer!"?

 The reason I am asking you about this is because people are biologically
intolerant of difference. By that I mean that some degree of genetics was
involved (if you believe in natural selection) in getting man to where he 
is now. Groups of people who were more trusting were weeded out by other
tribes of more violent tendencies. Thus, only more suspicious, violent
tribes survived. I am convinced that this subtle force is biologically
responsible for the natural tendency to be wary of and often dislike difference.

 The reason that people are often bigoted or prejudiced stems from a biological
tendency that has not been overcome by social conditioning, in my opinion.
A person's body tenses up when someone of obvious difference is around them;
this arises because of a primal suspicion that the person of difference is
hostile towards them. Social conditioning teaches us to supress these feelings,
but they continue to exist.

 In most of the homosexuals I have known, there was alot more difference in
their behavior than simply going home to another man. Most of them had an 
air about them. It is overly simplistic to describe this air as simply being
effeminate, but in many cases it was just that. Mannerisms have been altered.
Some speak differently- often with a softer voice and lisp. Many hold their
hands differently than most heterosexual men. Most homosexuals I have known
were far more interested in fashion and hygiene than your run of the mill
hetero. Many have very closely cropped beards, and seem to prefer mauves,
pinks, and pastels to the harsher colors. Are these generalizations? Absolutely.
Are they always accurate? Certainly not. Do these differences in and of them-
selves imply less value? No. BUT- they are noticeable as different by other
men, and as such, stir a primal instinct that tells you that they are 
_different_. And in some men, that still spells fear.

 I think it is a natural reaction, but one that social conditioning will
eventually overcome. I have some very good friends and relatives that are
homosexual. I do not think less of them because they choose sexual and
emotional partners of the same sex. I recognize that they are different, and
leave it at that. I personally could not live my life that way, but it is their
choice, and as long as they are happy- who's to say they aren't living their
life correctly?

 The Doctah 

>>"Faggot" shouted from a
>>passing car is pretty easy to discern as harassment.
>
> How did they know you were a "faggot?" Is it possible you were encouraging
>them?  Or were they just being jerks, looking for someone to harass? (It
>happens). How is that incident different from anti-hunters driving by
>me when I am preparing to go hunting and yelling "Bambi-killer!"?

The times that it has happened to me, I have been outside of a 
well-known gay bar.  At all times, I had my hands in my pockets, my
mouth shut, and was minding my own business.  (Ironically, one of the
times I was harassed was in Provincetown while I was walking to my
guesthouse from the bar; and that's supposed to be a relatively safe
town for us.) 

It is not inconceivable that a strate man could be walking past a gay
bar at night and have a car load of people shout "faggot" at him.  
Just last year, Bob Gamere, the sportscaster from Channel 56 in 
Boston was stabbed outside of the Fenway area in Boston, an area that 
is known as a gay meeting place and an area where there are two gay 
bars.  I am not speculating as to whether Bob is gay, strate, or bi, 
but I do know that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.  
Stabbings and muggings sky rocketed in that area immediately after 
last June, when there were many gay, high-visibility events held in 
Boston (the AIDS walkathon, the Names Quilt, the NY/Boston Gay Men's 
Chorus concerts at the Orpheum, Gay Pride).  I don't think it was a 
coincidence.

You don't have to believe me that I wasn't "encouraging them," but try 
to walk in my shoes for a few minutes.  Any gay man who frequents 
Boston and who keeps his ears open will know that there is danger out 
there.  Most of us are street smart enough to keep to ourselves when 
we are leaving the bar.  We know what can happen if we mouth off to a 
carload of people yelling "faggot."  Unless you call "walking out of a 
gay bar" to be "encouraging them," then, no, I don't think that it is 
often in gay bashing cases that the victims encourage the attackers.  
We are the ones who have so much to lose.

How is it different from people yelling "Bambi Killers"?  Well, first
of all, I think that there are more similarities than differences.  In
both cases, people are being harassed.  However, there are some
differences.  I have never heard of a car load of drunken teenagers
getting out of the car to beat up a hunter.  I have heard of far too
many cases of drunken teenages getting out of the car to beat up and
kill a perceived gay man or lesbian (like the case in Texas, in which
the Judge let the murderer off with possible parole in 7 years because
he only killed two "queers"). 

> The reason that people are often bigoted or prejudiced stems from a biological
>tendency that has not been overcome by social conditioning, in my opinion.
>A person's body tenses up when someone of obvious difference is around them;
>this arises because of a primal suspicion that the person of difference is
>hostile towards them. Social conditioning teaches us to supress these feelings,
>but they continue to exist.

Maybe.  I think that you are oversimplifying things.  Yes, I agree
with you in that we are primates and that we still react to things
because of this (the most noticeable thing I can think of is our
lizard brain getting really territorial about things).  But I think 
that the thing that you overlook is that you can teach people to fear 
things, you can condition people so that their bodies tense up when a 
person of difference is around.  

Also, if your theory was sound, the impulse to tense up would never go
away, it could only be harnessed or controled by social conditioning. 
I can think of one case that illustrates my point.  Before I realized
that I was gay, I lived with a gay highschool friend as a roommate in
between semesters at college.  (Hey, I was a cool, strate liberal!  I
could handle it!!!)  I remember seeing him with his boyfriend, holding 
hands and cuddling, no more or less than you would see strate couples 
doing in public.  

Then, one day, we were watching a movie, and my friend was lying down 
with his head in his boyfriend's lap.  At one point, the boyfriend 
bent down and gave him a quick kiss.  Nothing dramatic, just a peck on 
the lips.

I froze!

I remember clenching the arms of my chair, being unable to concentrate 
on the movie or to look at those two, yet I couldn't move either.  I 
was mortified.  It was a violent, shocking, physical reaction, and it 
took me about 10 minutes or so to calm down and to be able to "come 
back into the room" again.

Now, I can hear you saying that this was a primal reaction against my 
friend's difference.  Well, maybe.  But I would disagree.  If it was 
so primal, why wasn't I uptight at the hand holding and cuddling?  If 
it was so primal, why did it disappear after 1 visit to a gay bar 
(when I realized I was gay)?  (And _tell_ me that I got socially 
conditioned to accept that after only one visit to a gay bar!!!)  If 
it is so primal, then where is it now?  Why is there no trace of it in 
me when I see two men kiss, heck, when I see two men make love?  I 
don't believe that a person can wipe out primal instincts, only 
harness them.

So I firmly believe that we have been taught to fear and taught to 
hate.  It is reversable with an open mind, with experience, and with 
work.


						--Ger

    I suspect that sociobiological explanations for human behavior are
    still rather controversial within the scientific community.  I am
    certainly not an expert on this issue, and I don't follow it closely;
    but, the last time I checked, Stephen Jay Gould (as an example)
    strongly opposed these sorts of theories.
    
    Idle speculation about evolutionary origins of human prejudice
    might make for interesting discussion, but is there any evidence
    to support this view?
    
    Mike

 I don't know what sort of consensus the scientific community has these days,
but I'm aware that  it changes on a regular basis. Tenets which were accepted
as truth a few short years ago have been called into question, often by
lesser known scientists. As more people research things, the various tenets
have been discarded as being substantially incorrect.

 Perhaps my thoughts on the sociobiological explanations are premature or 
simply idle speculation. Who knows for sure? 

re: Gerry

 I understand your point of view. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

 BTW- my theory does not disallow the gradual replacement of primal responses
with learned responses. In fact, it justifies them.

 The Doctah

ps- for the record, I didn't mean to imply that you were encouraging the yahoos
that yelled 'faggot' to you. They were probably just guessing.

    
    re: .65
    
    Your reaction may have been due to your subconscious mind seeing
    something your conscious mind had effectivly suppresed.
    
    john
    

>ps- for the record, I didn't mean to imply that you were encouraging the yahoos
>that yelled 'faggot' to you. They were probably just guessing.

Darn straight!  I'm so masculine that NObody can tell about ME.
(Growl...)   ;-)

					--ToughGer

    
>    	A basic human fear/hatred/dislike/etc is that of the different.

Some people manage to see the similarities as well as the differences. 
I wonder why some people only see the differences?  Why is some of 
our "vision" being blocked?  What is "natural" and what is "taught" to 
us?

							--Ger    

    re: .70
    
    �	A basic human fear/hatred/dislike/etc is that of the different.
    
    Clarification help please, Mike - by "basic", do you mean it
    in the sense of instinctual?
    
    I'm trying to recall material from Sociology courses taken
    years ago; I seem to recall groups who displayed no such fear
    (xenophobia), until encroaching "civilization" taught them they
    had reason to fear their neighbors.   Anybody still got their
    notes from Sociol. 101?
    
    Steve
    

 
    
    Isn't everyboby a minority of some kind or another?  Granted, some
    of the minorities have gotten the crappy end of the stick for a
    lot longer than others.  My last name is Wannemacher, so as you
    could probably guess my grandfather wasn't very popular in the 40's.
    He could count on at least one nasty remark a day and sometimes
    fisticuffs when people saw his name. (even though he despised what
    was going on in his homeland more than any American could) 
    
    I don't see how we can right past wrongs, all we can do is change
    our attitudes and the attitudes of our children.  And as someone
    said earlier, it is not going to happen overnight.  
    
    Mike  

    Mike, 
    
    If we were to approach discrimination as a business exercise
    in problem analysis and resolution, on thing we'd look to do
    would be to set up some hard criteria by which we could measure
    how well the solutions were working.  In that context, how would
    we measure these changing attitudes and who would do the measuring?
    
    Steve
    

    
    Channel 4 (in Boston) is running a series this week, as part of
    its 6 P.M. news, entitled: "Racism - Alive and Well".
    
    Last night I caught a portion where one eminent (well, Channel 4
    thought he was eminent enough to interview) sociologist who stated
    that people's fears of others who are not of the same race/type
    (fill in other categories) is the instinctual or "natural" reaction.
    
    It is through socialization/education that people have to learn
    to not act on these intincts - to unlearn them as it were. 
                                                               
      Alan

    I agree with -1.  People are naturally wary of people who are not
    like themselves.  I think racism is dying.  Sure you have the radicals
    who are extremists and your regular Joe will have some misconceptions
    about a race, religion, etc they know little or nothing about, but
    I think in the big picture things are getting much better.  I think
    it important to say that discrimination (that should probably be
    bigotry) is a two way street, meaning, before you go to clean someone
    elses home, make sure yours is in order.  
    
    As I have said before, it is not going to happen overnight and I don't
    know if you can make a concrete measurement of the progress.  When
    dealing with peoples ideas and feelings it cannot be put into a
    mathematical equation, there are too many variables.  As I have also 
    said before, I don't put women in this basic minority discrimination 
    argument because women and men are different and their are some things 
    (family rearing, etc) which make this a seperate issue.     
    
                                                           Mike

    I don't have any sociologists or bona fide experts to quote, but
    my personal observation and "folk" teachings disagree with the
    contention that people are "naturally" wary of people unlike
    themselves.
    
    For example:  (My intent is not to hurt any ethnic group with the
    following example.  It is drawn from family experience, and the
    ethnic descriptions are ones I grew up with in Southeastern Colorado 
    in the late '40s and early '50s.  I use them here as examples only, 
    not as any indication of my own feelings about the group in question.)
    My older brother and I grew up in a neighborhood that bordered the
    Hispanic section of town.  We played with and visited Hispanic children
    as frequently as we did Anglos.  When it was time for my brother
    to enter the public school system (first grade), he was timid and
    very shy, and welcomed the companionship of his good friend Raymond,
    who was older and bigger and knew the ropes.  Within the first week of 
    school, my brother learned some out-of-class lessons about "Mexicans," as
    the Hispanics were called by the more civilized townspeople in those
    days.  He learned that many of our peers considered them dirty and
    lazy and no-good.  And he learned that Raymond was a Mexican.  My
    brother came home from school one day, filled with the importance of
    the lessons he had learned.  "Mamma," he reported, "did you know
    Raymond is a Mexican?"
    
    I'm also reminded of a Rogers and Hammerstein song from "South
    Pacific": "You have to be taught to be afraid
               Of people who's eyes are oddly made,
               Of people who's skin is a different shade;
               You've got to be carefully taught."
    
    I personally believe that we ARE taught, from our first days, to
    be aware of the differences that set us apart rather than the
    similarities that make all of us part of the human race.  If anything
    is "natural" about all this, it is only the apparently universal need 
    to consider ourselves better than, worth more, one-up on the majority 
    of the people around us.  If there aren't any apparent differences (i.e.,
    I'm a woman; you're a man.  I'm white; you're (insert color).  I
    speak American English; you speak Russian.), then we make up
    artificial differences: I'm from Lamar High School and you're from 
    LaJunta High School.  AND NATURALLY I'M BETTER.
    
    There's a feeling of power that comes from being part of the "in"
    group that extends across human society and is evident in every
    confrontation since time began.  That's the only thing "natural"
    about discrimination and its ugly side effects.
    
    Karen 
                                                   

    
    
    A prime example of discrimination being "taught" is to watch
    a "mixed" group of children (babies) playing together.  They
    have ALOT of fun and have no concern of the differences between
    them.  It would be interesting to get this same group together
    when they get older just to see how much their views of each
    other may have changed.
    
    Dan 

My therapist told me a funny story.  He said that his daughter, Julia, 
went to a party.  (She's about 6 or 7.)  When she came home, he asked 
her how the party was.  She said that she didn't have a good time.  
When he asked her why, she replied, "There were too many boys there.  
Boys are ugly.  They don't have pretty faces like girls."  My 
therapist said, "Where the heck did she get THAT?  Babies and young
kids have the right attitude for life, take everything at face value
and "be there" in the moment.  We socialize the common sense out of
them."  He was sad that his daughter was moving out of the phase where 
she was open to all things and into a phase where peer pressure and 
rationalization take on greater importance.


							--Ger

If it is true that we are all taught to dislike people of obvious difference,
please explain the hostile attitudes of people who have never seen white
man before. There have been incidents where an uninhabited island actually
had a population. When explorers found the place- they were attacked by the
natives. The natives had never seen people from a different tribe (or race)
before, yet they harbored hostile intentions. Who taught them?

My guess is that it is a self-preservational instinct to mistrust people
of difference. You may or not agree with that. I am talking about adults
here. Anecdotal stories about children getting along just find merely
underscore what is already known about children- that they have little
fear of people and they are very trusting.

The  Doctah

>My guess is that it is a self-preservational instinct to mistrust people
>of difference. You may or not agree with that. I am talking about adults
>here. Anecdotal stories about children getting along just find merely
>underscore what is already known about children- that they have little
>fear of people and they are very trusting.

But if there is an inborn, innate fear of different people, white 
babies would not play with Black babies, right?

Could it be that the people in the tribe you described were taught to 
defend the membership of the tribe against anything that might be a 
threat?  Could it be that there was some other kind of "teaching" or 
"social conditioning" involved?  (I'm not saying that there was, but 
only that there could have been.  Your example is a good one, but it 
doesn't "prove" anything.  There are too many variables unaccounted 
for.)

My therapist told another anecdote.  (I have no idea if it is true or
not; I would guess not, though.)  He told of a person who studied for
years to be a missionary. He dreamed of going into "uncivilized" parts
of the world and teaching the poor natives about god and about
religion. 

After years of training, the day finally came when he had been
assigned to approach a group of people in the jungles of South
America.  His plane arrived, landing on the river.  He got into a 
small boat and proceded to the shore, where confused looking tribesmen 
waited.  Once the boat landed, the missionary raised his hand to wave 
hello and smiled.  A tribesman immediately ran a spear through his 
heart and killed him.

It seems that, in the tribe's culture, bearing ones teeth was
considered "rude" and raising ones hand was a sign of aggression (as
in lifting a fist).  The tribesmen perceived the threat and defended
themselves. 

My therapist told another story, this one about a tribe in Africa.  (I
can't remember the name of the tribe.)  He said that scientists were 
trying to determine if logic was a natural trait of human beings or if 
it was something that was taught.  The scientists figured that the 
tribesmen, who had never attended classes in school, would be good 
subjects for this experiment.  

The scientists attempted to ask the following questions: 

Scientist: "If I had 8 dogs, okay?"

Tribesmen: "Okay."

Scientist: "And all the dogs were white with green eyes, okay?"

Tribesmen: "Okay."

Scientist: "And if one of the dog's names was Spot, okay?"

Tribesmen: "Okay."

Scientist: "Then what color is Spot and what color are his eyes?"

Tribesmen: "How would I know?  You would have to show me Spot?

Scientist: "No, no.  You see I have 8 dogs..."


Needless to say, the result was that the tribesmen could not answer 
hypothetical questions.  Unless "Spot" were in front of them, then 
Spot didn't exist.  And, in a sense, they are right.  The only thing 
that is real is what is really happening, not the chatter that is 
going on inside of our heads or in our memories.

As another example, my therapist says that a really similar thing 
happened when he spoke with his little girl when she was about 2 or 
3:

Dennis:  "Okay, Julia, I have 8 dogs, okay."

Julia: "We do?  Where are they?"

Dennis:  "No, no, Julia.  They're just pretend dogs, okay?"

Julia: "But daddy, are we going to get a dog?  Can we get a dog?"

Dennis: "Not now honey.  But let's pretend, okay?  Let's say
         I have 8 dogs, okay?"

Julia: [crying] "But I want a dog!"

	.
	.
	.

The point that I am trying to make is that it is very hard to pick 
apart the stuff that is innate and "natural" from the stuff that is 
part of growing up in a culture that teaches certain things.  In a 
way, the stuff that is innate is probably all connected and wound up 
in the stuff that's taught, so that it is very hard to tell the 
difference.

It has gotten to the point that I don't even venture a guess as to 
what is "natural" anymore, I guess, because I believe that everything 
is natural.  If something happens in nature, it's natural.  Period.

Reminds me of a line from a song: "You can't go against nature/'Cause 
going against nature/Is part of nature, too."

"Nature" vs "Nurture"?  Who knows!


						--Ger

    re: .81
    
    "Who taught them?"
    
    Almost anyone, as Ger points out.  Before making any conclusion
    about whether this fear is instinctual, we'd need to know what
    the tribal teachings are about self and other; where did those
    teachings come from?  How did they get to the island and how long
    have they been there?  I see nothing in the island tribe incident
    that warrants a conclusion that fear of different others (humans)
    is instinctual.
    
    Indeed, the way you describe the baby anecdotes, underscores the
    argument that fear is taught, not inborn:  if the fear is 
    instinctual, it is, by definition *inborn*.  Infants display
    survival instinct - when hungry, too hot, too cold, they cry
    out; if their breathing is cut off, they struggle.  If a 
    universal fear instinct is present in infant humans, why is
    it not displayed?

    A question - what is the survival value of an *instinctual* 
    fear of other humans?  (I'd include other species/life forms
    but that's a different discussion. . .sort of.)  It seems to
    me that an instinctual fear of different humans residing in
    this tool-making, knowledge-acquiring animal is, in the long
    run (by the odds), a formula for extinction of the species.
    
    Steve

    RE: -1 All fear comes from the will to survive.  With this, the
    unknown is a potential threat to our survival.  It is seen from
    the earliest records of our existence.  This next example is a
    situation about survival not abortion, although abortion was the
    subject at hand when the film was recorded.  
    
    When an abortion is performed on a twelve week old fetus, it is
    vacuumed out of the womb.  This process has been visually recorded
    using ultrasonic photography.  Along with this visual aid, the heart
    rate of the fetus is also monitored.  When the abortionists device is 
    in search of the fetus the heart rate almost doubles.  Increased
    heart rate is also a definite sign of fear.  In seeing this evidence,
    it is quite evident that the 12 week old fetus is in fear for their
    existence.  This proves that survival is one of our first instincts.  
    
    With this in mind, I believe that one can say, without a doubt,
    that survival is at the root of fear.  If we look at a toddler of
    1 year old we can see the fear exhibited from their actions.  Take
    this person to see Santa Claus at Christmas time and they will start
    screaming and crying, all bacause this persons looks, sounds and
    smells are not familiar to them.  Take an infant even younger than
    that and give them tho a stranger and watch them lean over to get
    their parents or someone familiar.  
    
    Just a few points to think about.
    
    Mike

    re: .84
    
    � All fear comes from the will to survive.  With this, the
    � unknown is a potential threat to our survival.  It is seen from
    � the earliest records of our existence.
    
    Your first sentence is stated as a fact; do you mean it as such
    or is it a statement of what you believe is the case?  If you mean
    it as a "fact" could you state several places where I can find that
    this is conclusively proven?  It may in fact be the case; I'm
    admittedly not an expert in either psychology, so more info. is
    appreciated.
    
    I think it's in the next two sentences are where we may part paths 
    a bit, for the unknown is also a potential boon to our survival and 
    thus our history has been a matter of learning to distinguish (vs. 
    instinctively knowing) that which is good/helpful from that which
    is dangerous.  It seems that you're saying that:
    
     o	All fear comes from the will to survive (which is an instinct).
     o	The unknown is a potential threat to survival.
     
     therefore
    
     o	Fear of the unknown is instinctive.
    
    Two things: where, then, is this instinctive fear in the infant
    		that is placed in the company of an infant of a different
    		color (or even benign member of another species)?
    
    		Why shouldn't the formula read:
    
     o	All fear comes from the will to survive (which is an instinct).
     o	The unknown is a potential boon to survival.
    
    therefore
    
     o	Fear of the unknown is a learned response to the stimulus
    	of discovering that some unknowns are dangerous. . .the
    	learning of caution.
    
    
    Steve
    

    	There are only THREE instincts present in humans when they
    	are born:  
    
    	    1.  the "rooting" instinct (which is the mechanism that
    		causes an infant to turn towards the source when either
    		side of his/her face feels any sort of touch on the
    		cheek, and then to *suckle* when any sort of object can
    		be grasped by the infant's mouth)

    	    2.  the fear of falling
    
    	    3.  the fear of loud noises
    
    	The "rooting" instinct is instinctive in newborn humans because
    	without it, our species would surely have died off millions
    	of years ago.  It is the way that infants "know how" to eat
    	when they are first born.  If you pick up an infant that is
    	one second old and brush his cheek, he will turn his head and 
    	seek something to suckle with his mouth.  
    
    	As for the fear of falling...  If you place a newborn infant
    	on a very flat and hard surface (such as a table,) and you
    	let him go, what happens is that he will feel unsteady because
    	his back may be somewhat arched (which will cause his arms to
    	flail up in the air as a reflex to the 'fear of falling' instinct.)
    	From what I have heard, experts think that this fear of falling
    	instinct has its origins from when humans lived in trees (and
    	any human's "falling" meant certain death.)
    
    	As for the fear of loud noises...  If you take a newborn to
    	a garage to have a tire from your car repaired, the infant won't
    	care about any of the sounds (or smells or movements) until
    	you get to the part where they use air pressure to seal the
    	rim.  Then the infant will scream in abject terror (purely from
    	the instinct to fear sudden loud noises.)
    
    	When I took Child Psychology in college, my son was 18 months
    	old (so I had a chance to observe many/most of the things that
    	we studied about infants.)  I did a lengthy research paper about
    	human behavior that is present at birth (i.e., instinctive in
    	newborn humans.)  These three things are the ONLY instincts
    	that are recognized by the scientific community to be present
    	when humans are born.
    
    	The stuff about "fearing strangers" is LEARNED BEHAVIOR!  In
    	my paper, I went into great detail about this particular
    	phenomenon.  
    
    	When infants are first born, they have no idea who anyone is
    	(including their own parents.)  Although it is well known
    	that infants can "see" at birth, they make no sense out of
    	any visual stimuli (which is obvious by the fact that they
    	don't focus on anything.)
    
    	Shortly AFTER birth, they do discover that there are certain
    	sensations (some of which are more pleasant than others.)
    	When my son was 4 days, I could tell by the look on his face
    	when he was picked up that he had already decided that he liked
    	"being held" more than laying in a flat incubator.  When he
    	was picked up, he would get a very pleasant look on his face 
    	and would make what looked like deliberate squirming motions to
	"explore" the experience of being surrounded by warm, moving
    	arms.
    
    	When someone would speak to him, he would react (in a way that
    	showed he could hear a new set of noises that were not present
    	before,) but again, it was in the sense of "exploring."  
    
    	If you looked at him, at 4 days old, you might catch his eyes
    	in a glance, but it was obvious that he made no sense out of
    	the experience (since his eyes would not focus on anything.)
    
    	At a couple weeks old or so, I noticed that my son was starting
    	to try to focus on my face (and that he would look to the left
    	and to the right of my face, as if he was in the process of
    	realizing that my face was a separate entity than anything else
    	he could see.)  At that point, he would study my face for long
    	periods of time when I spoke to him, but he still didn't seem
    	to put it together that I was also the one who held him, fed
    	him, etc.
    
    	I remember very CLEARLY the day that he DID put it together
    	that I was his "food" (via breast-feeding) and most of his
    	comfort.  He had already been smiling at me for a period of
    	days, when he did something unusual at nursing time.  After
    	taking a few gulps of milk, he suddenly pulled away from the
    	breast and looked up into my face and smiled (as if to say,
    	"I *KNEW* you would be there!")  At his age, he could only
    	breastfeed by putting his full face toward the breast, so
    	he HAD to pull away and turn his head to see me.  After he
    	"discovered" that I was his milk, he became REALLY attached
    	to looking at me (and memorizing every inch of my face.)
    	It was at that point that his whole life started focusing on
    	me (and it was because he had LEARNED that I was an important
    	part of his daily life and routines.)
    
    	As for the part about "fearing strangers"...  That is a "learned
    	behavior" that comes from the learned fear that a parent might
    	not be there.  (For example, when a young baby has his own
    	room, he learns that he has to cry to bring the parent forward
    	to feed him or change his pants.  If he doesn't cry, the parent
    	might not come for a long time, thinking that the infant is
    	asleep.  So, the presence of a "strange" adult face is the
    	reminder that the IMPORTANT adult might be missing or might
    	go away, which means that the baby would have to cry to get
    	that important adult back.  Thus, the baby "resists" the face
    	of the strange adult until the baby learns that the strange
    	adult can either meet his needs, or that the important adult
    	does not go away in the presence of this new adult.)
    
    	In the case of my son, we were almost never, ever apart during
    	his first year (because we lived in a studio apartment, and
    	then did a lot of traveling together, which meant we stayed
    	in the same hotel rooms.)  At the usual age where babies fear
    	strangers (7 - 9 months old,) my son LOVED strangers because
    	he had had no experience of having to cry to bring me forward
    	(so, to him, ALL adults were potential care-givers, and NO
    	adult could cause his important adult to go away at any time.)

    	My son adored strangers (and would go willingly into their arms
    	for a period of time) until the month I started college (he
    	was 12 months old at that time.)  Once he learned that the
    	sight of the babysitter meant that his important adult would
    	leave for several hours, THEN he started crying when a new
    	adult would reach for him (because he had learned that the
    	presence of SOME new adults did mean that the important adult
    	might go away for awhile.)  It was a pure learning experience.
    
    	If anyone needs references for this stuff, I'd be happy to get
    	some from my old Child Psychology books.

re: if it were an instinct, then babies would have it

Not necessarily. While reproduction is undoubtedly instinctual, babies do not
have such instincts. I agree with what Suzanne said, insofar as it pertains
to babies and small children. I disagree with the assertion that fear of
people of difference is a learned behavior. 

If such an experiment were possible- how about raising a child from birth
and always having mother around so that the child never developed a fear
of strangers due to the connection with mother leaving. When the child becomes
an adult, introduce it to it's first black person. See what it's natural 
reaction is. My bet is that it would be nervous and perhaps fearful.

Perhaps not. I may or may not be correct. There is some dissention in the
scientific community regarding this. The sad fact is that even in the absence
of such dissension, I could still be right. Every now and then, the scientific
community reverses its position on a very important tenet.

 The Doctah

    	As one who defends equality for all, and decries inequality,
    I perceive the current trend as on eto foster inequality, by offering
    prefferential treatment to some at the expense of others.
    
    	Most offensive to me, is the hatred spewed forth by the more
    radical feminists - hatred which the media publicizes freely.
    I resent being the target of hatred simply because of my gender,
    and would like to see how the media would handle some men speaking
    in similar tones against women - the outcry would be insane.
    
    	Women who strive to be treated as equals, to eliminate the barriers
    set up by chauvinistic, ignorant people deserve the support of every
    man and woman, but the radicals with their hatred deserve to be
    ignored, for their ignorance and emotional instability.
    
    	There should be no guilt imposed upon a person simply because
    he or she was born in the group applicable.
    
    	Guy B.
    

    
    Weren't you aware that evil, wicked men such as ourselves have 
    conspired since the dawn of time to victimize wymmin?
    
    We men are lucky that the State doesn't (yet) withhold money from
    us as reparations..